|
To inform, inspire and advocate |
Issue 22 - April
2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Download our print-friendly COPY of the print edition here (PDF 141KB) NEW DIALOGUE-ONLINE CONTENTS LIST FOCUS ON: Valuing the Sector
· Valuing the Sector: How does New Zealand measure up? · So, what do we NgO?-Marion Blake, Platform ·
Counting
for More-A summary of the second VAVA · "Because we love it!"-David Shannon, Strategic Pay Limited · COmVOiceS - promoting the value of the sector-Anna Kominik, COmVOiceS · Working for Effective Employment Relations-Conor Twyford, Resource Officer, Workplace Wellbeing Project Sector issues · Playcentre families invited to share their stories-Marion Pilkington, President, NZ Playcentre Federation · NZ calls for a Bill of Rights for children of prisoners-Verna McFelin, Chief Executive, Pillars Federation Focus · Nothing succeeds like succession-Fran Hoover, President, NZ Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations · Where next for the community sector in the Digital Strategy?-Tina Reid, Executive Director, NZ Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations You may reproduce items, provided you acknowledge the source and, where identified, you also acknowledge the writer. We welcome contributions -the next edition of New Dialogue will be published in June 2008. |
Sector strength comes from a collaborative voice.
NZFVWO is an active network of social service organisations. We offer a unique opportunity to be involved in strengthening community and voluntary services and increasing the influence and power of the sector. In addition
to leading and managing sector-focused projects, NZFVWO publishes New
Dialogue and Law Scene. Law Scene is published ten times a year. Subscribe here A record of the Federation's activity, including listings of events and resources relevant to the community and voluntary sector, is regularly updated and maintained at www.nzfvwo.org.nz
CONTACT US
Phone: 04 385 0981 Executive Director: ed@nzfvwo.org.nz Membership: marketing@nzfvwo.org.nz Communications: comms@nzfvwo.org.nz |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Focus on: Valuing the Sector
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Our focus in this issue of New Dialogue is Valuing the Sector, with a range of articles on this highly important topic. A year ago we published an article from Garth Nowland-Foreman, chair of the Committee for the Study of the New Zealand Non-profit sector, outlining details of the study, which is a collaborative research project between non-profit sector representatives and government. The study aims to form a definitive view on the size, scope and history of the non-profit sector in New Zealand, and then to compare this internationally as part of the Johns Hopkins University International Comparative Study of the Non-profit Sector. In February 2008, the Study Committee met to review the initial draft of the New Zealand National Report, which will summarise the results of the research and compare it with over 30 other countries. Role of the satellite account A key component of the study is the work of Statistics New Zealand, which six months ago published the Non-profit Institutions Satellite Account: 2004, providing comprehensive information about the economic contribution of non-profit institutions in this country. This economic information, together with the qualitative information collected from the New Zealand study of the non-profit sector, will be provided to the Johns Hopkins project. This account is the first time that New Zealand has had an official measure of the economic contribution that non-profit institutions make - from how many exist, to their income and expenditure and how many people they employ. The data for this first report is sourced from 2004, the most recent year for which comprehensive information is available. The satellite account is also the first time that New Zealand has measured the dollar value of the unpaid labour given by volunteers to non-profit institutions. When valued at a market wage, voluntary labour boosts non-profit institutions' economic contribution to $6.95 billion, or 4.9% of NZ's gross domestic product (GDP). The report reveals that there were 97,000 non-profit institutions operating in New Zealand in 2005, Statistics New Zealand says. The largest number were in culture, sport and recreation (45 percent), followed by social services (12 percent) and religion (10 percent). Ninety percent of non-profit institutions did not employ paid staff, with volunteers outnumbering paid employees by approximately four to one. Non-profit institutions employed 105,340 paid employees, and enlisted the help of over 436,500 volunteers. The greatest number of paid employees were involved in social services (30 percent), followed by education (19 percent) and culture, sport and recreation (16 percent). Health services employed the greatest number of paid staff per non-profit institution. First report due soon The first Study of the New Zealand Non-profit Sector National Report, combining the qualitative and economic information collected, will be published late July 2008. Detailed history and policy papers will be published on the internet later this year. For more information on the John Hopkins study, including research already published from the project, go to www.ocvs.govt.nz/work-programme/non-profit-study.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the opening of Parliament in February, the Prime Minister announced a hugely significant funding package for community organisations that provide essential services for vulnerable families, children and young people. The package is the next step in the Government's Pathways to Partnerships programme between the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Justice and the community sector. Over the next four years $446 million will be invested in existing contracts-this is a 95% increase from the current level of funding and is fantastic news for organisations struggling to provide strong and effective services to children and families in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a massive endorsement of existing organisations and the community sector in New Zealand. The funding boost will begin with an extra $37.5 million in 2008/09, building to an annual increase of $192 million in 2011/12 and onwards. Naturally, we are all individually asking "what does it mean for us?" Over the last month the expectations and questions have ratcheted up considerably-with a more complex level of questions such as: · How will 'full funding' and 'essential' be defined? · What costs and prices will be used when services have long suffered under-funding for issues, such as wages? · What impacts will this have on grants from other sources? · What about timing in relation to multi-year contracts? · What about integrated contracts with multiple departments? · Is additional funding available to other (less essential) services? · What about new or additional services? Changes of this magnitude will take a huge effort to roll out across the thousands of individual contracts with different providers-and there are several important messages at the core of the Ministry of Social Development's communications: · It will roll out over a four year period - not all at once. · Additional funding will only be available for existing contracts (not new ones). · The aim is to move to fully fund essential services - and this will take some defining. The starting point is services that government would need to provide if they were not being done by a NGO. · It includes annual adjustments and volume increases in response to increased demand. · Full funding is for the contracted service - not the agency itself. · Funding Advisors are the main point of contact to work with contracted providers to determine how it impacts - so contact them to discuss your issues. The Ministry's website has a lot of information, they will communicate by letter and newsletter to all providers, and are planning local information and discussion sessions-so work out your questions and look for opportunities to ask them. While recognising that this is the immediate and practical issue for us all, NZFVWO is concerned about the possibility of increasing competitive behaviours between agencies as we all scramble to get our individual questions answered. We consider it urgent that at the same time we consider questions and challenges this poses for us collectively as a sector. We all need to work with the Ministry of Social Development to take time and reflect, to consider how this opportunity can translate into the best possible outcomes for children and families in New Zealand. We need to find ways to collectively ask some questions such as: · How do we keep the welfare of children and families as our focus? · How can we ensure we use this additional funding to improve outcomes for them? · Are we working across and within communities to refine and improve what we do? This will take time. All good things do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-Marion Blake, Platform |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Non Government Organisations in New Zealand deliver a wide range of mental health/addiction support services that account for one third of the national mental health expenditure. The sector is made up of around 360 diverse organisations operating with different structures, purpose and accountabilities. As a result, it is difficult to access comprehensive information about many aspects of the NGO mental health/addiction sector activity and to assess the overall contribution the sector makes to mental heath and addiction services. NgOIT surveys (pronounced "know it"), undertaken by Platform Inc., aim to bridge the knowledge gap by identifying the essential data that will enable such assessments. Landscape Survey The 2005 Landscape Survey of the sector sought to collect current and accurate information about the NGO mental health and addiction sector. This information will be used to inform the future development of mental health information collection and reporting. The survey consisted of three sections designed to identify: the diversity of organisations that provide mental health and or addiction services; the use of Information Technology (IT) and Information Systems by those organisations and their current IT capability; and what outcome measurements are currently being used by the sector. Of particular note was the finding that NGOs often deliver mental health and addiction services alongside and within other services, e.g. disability support or aged care. This is the unique feature of the NGO sector that differentiates their activity from the DHB provider. The survey also found that there was very little sector activity in the area of outcomes, which indicated the need for major input in order to achieve a nationally consistent NGO culture of outcome-based thinking. A three year minimum work plan aimed at delivering methods for reporting NGO outcomes was recommended. The survey also highlighted the risk that delays in implementing an electronic system will mean NGOs continuing to purchase IT solutions that may not be compatible with future requirements. It was recommended that the NgOIT project be continued and developed as an information portal for all stakeholders. Workforce Survey The most recent NgOIT survey, the 2007 Workforce Survey, creates a workforce snapshot of the industry. According to the report, the 1833 individual respondents are employed within 212 organisations, reflecting the diversity of the NGO sector and its wide range of activities. Women are the predominant workforce and the average age of the workforce is 44.6 years, not far from the national average of 42.2. The support workforce was by far the largest work group that responded to the survey - this is the critical group that usually has the most contact with people using the services. Around five percent of this group identify themselves as Peer Support Workers. The highest number of respondents had been in their job for less than a year, while 27% had remained in the workforce for five years or more. The number of respondents who identified as Maori (19%) compared well with the numbers of Maori in New Zealand's population (13%) and were well represented in all categories - support work, management and clinical. The survey asked respondents who were registered as Health Professionals (390) to identify their registration board. The largest group were Nurses (171), followed by Counsellors (74) and Social Workers (52). The report suggests that there is more work to do in understanding the roles and ongoing needs of the clinical workforce employed within NGOs. It was surprising to find that 77% of the respondents had undergraduate certificates or diplomas, postgraduate qualifications or degrees. This education level will need to be considered in terms of the training and development requirements that will sustain the NGO workforce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-A summary of the second VAVA (Value Added by Voluntary Agencies) Project report. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The VAVA Project was initiated by NZFVWO to provide economically valid measures of the work of voluntary organisations, specifically in terms of inputs, outputs and outcomes. The first VAVA report, Counting for Something, involved participation by ten national voluntary agencies. It demonstrated that: · only a small part of our sector is visible in financial and economic measures; · the magnitude of voluntary contributions is huge; · there is a great diversity and range of voluntary organisations and activities; · voluntary agencies add significant value to every dollar they receive. The second VAVA report, Counting for More, goes a step further by focusing on a pilot study of outputs and outcomes, and presents a framework for measuring outcomes in our sector. Based on intensive work with two participants, Literacy Aotearoa and the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society, Counting for More shows clearly that the return on investment in social services does count for more! Inputs, outputs and outcomes Every voluntary agency uses the combined inputs of time, money and goods to produce outputs/ services. Outputs add value to the inputs, and the outcomes (the ultimate goal) from the use of those outputs add more value still. The value of inputs in the voluntary sector is magnified by the fact that every dollar spent attracts further voluntary inputs that can be applied to provide additional benefits in the form of more services for clients. For every dollar provided to a voluntary agency, between $3 and $5 worth of services was being delivered in the community, largely because of the contributions made by volunteers. Those inputs counted for something! However, an increasingly used measure of an organisation's success is the extent to which it directly or indirectly affects its identified outcomes - the real changes it makes in the community as a result of the services it delivers. The next step The hard question is, how do we demonstrate the links between outputs and outcomes, and does the value added keep growing? Both the case study organisations - Literacy Aotearoa and Plunket - had processes in place for collecting data on outputs. By participating in the study those processes were extended and more robust and descriptive levels of information were collected, supported by the use of input and output templates and workshops with PricewaterhouseCoopers. The achievement of outcomes is a dynamic process, subject to many assumptions and variable factors. Selected outcome(s) ideally can be attributed largely to an organisation's outputs and directly reflect the nature of the services they provide. Measuring outcomes In Plunket's case, measures used for outcomes included the rates of unintentional injury for children under 15, and reduced family violence. For Literacy Aotearoa, the key outcomes were income, education and employability, self-confidence, improved home life and health. In the case of Plunket a relationship was drawn, for instance, between its Car Seat Rental Scheme service and the reduction of harm to children in car accidents. The length of time estimated for outcomes to be obtained was 15 years for Plunket - equating to the life of a child to adulthood - and 30 years for Literacy Aotearoa - representing the productive life of an adult. Whether from savings in public costs, or economic gains due to employment and income, the return on investment identified by this study was conservatively estimated at between $14.30 and $39 for every dollar invested, over time periods of 15-30 years. The net economic benefit of the selected activities was estimated at more than $750 million, from an investment of direct government funding of less than $50 million. VAVA's significance This report highlights the economic return that funders and investors in voluntary agencies can expect to receive, and it demonstrates the significant cost saving these agencies are making across the fields of health, social wellness, justice and education. Importantly, Counting for More demonstrates the degree to which outcomes for people who use the services provided by voluntary welfare organisations have been significantly understated, and continue to be so. The development of tools to facilitate the collecting of meaningful, useful and relevant information for use by organisations in our sector has always been an important facet of the VAVA Project. Counting for More has again affirmed that applying the VAVA templates and framework to document and track inputs, outputs and outcomes provides new insights, confidence and understanding to inform an organisation's strategic goals and directions, and can be a basis for performance management, for building business cases and for sharing good practice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
-David Shannon, Strategic Pay Limited |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The First Conference of the Not-for-Profit Sector in Napier from 13-14 March was a tremendous opportunity to share experiences and views. The wide range of presentations and workshops guaranteed something for everyone, but of course the most valuable aspect was the networking. In his opening presentation, Shaun Robinson, CEO of Presbyterian Support East Coast, explained precisely why we persist in working in this sector. Despite the many challenges, or perhaps because of them, we work "because we love it!" The theme of love of the work surfaced in other presentations and provided good grounding for my own few words on the Love Factor and why people are willing to work for less in these organisations. In terms of pay, the Love Factor is that difference between what people accept for their work in this sector and what they could receive in the broader employment market. The Love Factor is no more than a piece of vital information that assists Boards and Executives to effectively manage pay in a challenging environment. It does not represent a viewpoint or philosophy of pay. We heard one participant's view that reporting on the Love Factor portrayed the gap as 'right' - suggesting that these employees should be paid less for their work. Nothing could be further from the truth, and dismissing the survey findings was truly shooting the messenger. If it is wrong to report the facts because we don't like them, then sportswriters should never report an All Black loss! Of course, this is absurd. There is real danger in ignoring reality. As we all know, knowledge is power, and that is what the Not for Profit Survey on Remuneration offers - knowledge: knowledge of exactly where in the market you as an organisation pay; knowledge of what broader markets pay - the public sector, the health sector, all organisations and so on; and the knowledge of what these jobs are really worth to other employers. As we all know, there is no single 'right' level of remuneration for any job. It depends on many factors - not the least of which are the values the jobholder puts on the work performed and the employing organisation. What to accept as pay can be a very personal decision, and love of the work may play a big part, but there are broad limits within which most people will make that decision. It is crucial to understand those limits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COmVOiceS - promoting the value of the sector -Anna Kominik, COmVOiceS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Concerns centred on the government funding agency's allocation policy and its support of such projects as a hip-hop tour. In the resulting furore, a number of Tangata Whenua, community and voluntary sector organisations, including the New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations, were concerned the sector as a whole was suffering collateral damage. There was a sense that no-one in authority was speaking out to defend the sector organisations who were trying to provide innovative and valuable community-based services. The result was COmVOiceS, a collaborative project of 19 non-profit organisations, which provides a channel for the many different 'voices' from the community to speak collectively on the importance of the sector and its value to all New Zealanders. Forces for change Tangata Whenua, community and voluntary sector organisations have long been a force for progressive social change in New Zealand. Independent, value-based organisations have historically carried out key roles in New Zealand society - campaigning for change, defending the rights of vulnerable people, identifying gaps in public sector provision of services, and working to develop solutions to those gaps. The Non-profit Institutions Satellite Account released late last year showed non-profit institutions and their volunteers contribute a massive $6.95 billion to the New Zealand economy, 4.9% of New Zealand's gross domestic product (GDP) at a market rate. This is largely considered a conservative figure of what the approximately 97,000 non-profit institutions in New Zealand are doing, but it is an indication of the scale and scope of the Sector. However, it is often difficult to raise awareness about the important work being done by these same organisations, when they are struggling to find the time and resources to do their core work. The reality is that for most organisations, communicating with policy makers and the media often comes low on the list of priorities. COmVOiceS was set up as a mechanism to address this in a practical and effective way. Communicating as a sector The COmVOiceS coalition developed from a pilot communications project, started in 2005, with the aim of ensuring that the sector grows a powerful voice in the public arena, with media, and among government. At the beginning, there was a lot of discussion about the themes that members wanted to be promoted throughout the work of COmVOiceS. The member organisations quickly became aware that their differences - the issues they felt were unique to their own organisation and situations - were underpinned by some common themes, specifically: funding and sustainability; the value, scale and scope of the sector; and the independence of the sector. The purpose of COmVOiceS is not to speak on behalf of individual members of the sector; instead its aims are to: 1. Promote discussion and awareness of agreed sector messages (beyond individual agency goals). 2. Provide leadership and coordination on issues about the sector. 3. Profile the sector through building a sense of identity within the sector and in the wider community and with government. 4. Demonstrate the values of the sector. It does this through a communications-based workplan, which includes proactive and reactive media work, developing and running media workshops, running Parliamentary Breakfasts, and collectively approaching decision makers to discuss key themes that are common to the sector The individual organisations involved in COmVOiceS continue to communicate views and issues specific to them, but they are communicated under the banner of one of the three key messages that the group has identified as common to them all. Each activity involves a number of COmVOiceS members, working together for the same aim, and it is important to remember that COmVOiceS is not an entity; it is a tool that is used to benefit the whole sector. Successes Communicating the key messages has been rewarding. There are a range of activities that have become an integral part of the collaboration, including proactive and reactive media, engagement with central government politicians, and regional media workshops. The successes have included an increased profile for the sector, greater collaboration on a day-to-day level between member organisations, and government changes in the taxation laws to encourage more philanthropic giving to our sector. Our key messages have been invaluable in all this work. They are readily available to all our member groups and can be relied on to clearly voice our ethos and core values, giving us greater strength in voicing our concerns to the public, the media and Government. Over the first two years effective practices and understandings have been developed among the member organisations. This has resulted in opportunities for collaboration and leveraging between organisations that fall far beyond the COmVOiceS workplan. COmVOiceS members meet regularly, issue media releases - either proactively or in response to topical sector-related news - and organise events throughout the year such as our successful Parliamentary Breakfasts. We are currently calling for new memberships; for more information contact Tina Reid, Executive Director, NZ Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations at ed@nzfvwo.org.nz For more information about COmVOiceS go to www.nzfvwo.org.nz/comvoices
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Working for Effective Employment Relations -Conor Twyford, Resource Officer, Workplace Wellbeing Project |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We have many positive employment practices in our sector of which we can be rightfully proud - family-friendly workplaces, flexible working hours and meaningful work, just to name a few. But there are other aspects that we would all like to see improve. Inadequate levels of remuneration and lack of job security, for instance, mean that we continue to lose skilled and experienced staff to other sectors. While they may bring a range of other skills and experience, board members often come to their governance roles with limited experience in employing staff. Workplace Wellbeing is a collaborative, sector-driven project which seeks to promote and support more effective employment practices and relationships in our sector. In the process, we aim to raise the visibility of sector employment and salary funding issues among the widest possible range of audiences. The project partners - NZFVWO, NZ Council of Social Services, and Social Services Waikato - first came together in 2005, and in 2007 the Service and Food Workers' Union Nga Ringa Tota joined us a formal partner. Late last year, we received funding from the Department of Labour to consolidate and expand the project. As a result we have been able to offer a new series of workshops on employment relations to community organisations around New Zealand. Developed specifically for board members, trustees and managers, these workshops focus on some of the specific challenges facing employers in our sector. Topics covered include the Employment Relations Act, governance and management issues in employment situations, managing workplace conflict and performance issues, and what is involved in going to mediation. Department of Labour mediators co-facilitate the workshops along with one or more of our project team. Six months on, the project is really humming. As well as running the workshops, we will be producing a series of easily accessible employment resources for community organisations. A range of other strategic work is also under way, including looking at ways in which we can strengthen the use of sector-specific remuneration surveys to highlight pay issues, promoting the uptake of pay and employment equity evaluation processes in our sector, and the organisation of a guest speaker visit from UNISON Scotland, a union which has developed organising strength in the Scottish community and voluntary sector. For more information about the Workplace Wellbeing Project or the workshops contact ere.project@gmail.com, jane@ssw.org.nz or marketing@nzfvwo.org.nz Forthcoming workshop dates -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sector issues
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Playcentre families invited to share their stories -Marion Pilkington, President, NZ Playcentre Federation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One of New Zealand's leading education organisations is celebrating its 60th birthday in 2008 and invites past members to help celebrate! The New Zealand Playcentre Federation celebrates its Diamond Jubilee at their Annual Conference in May, and would like to collect stories about the effects Playcentre has had on the lives of its past members. Time gifted to their children is one of the most precious things a parent can give. While the time parents put into play centres is hugely beneficial for their child, we know it gives long lasting benefits to the parents as well. "We want to include the stories of ordinary, and extraordinary, Playcentre members in our celebration of 60 years of this unique New Zealand institution." The Federation hopes these stories will honour the contribution of past members at the 60th birthday celebration at the Playcentre Convention in Auckland in May, and also inspire current families as the Federation moves into the next 60 years. They may also be included in a book on Playcentre's first 60 years. All past and present members of a Playcentre are invited to think about what effect their Playcentre participation had on their life, and where it has taken them. This might include a second chance education, a new career direction, or a closer knowledge that paid dividends as their children grew to adulthood. Written contributions (of between 100-1000 words) can be sent to the Federation Secretary: c/o Jenny Jackson, Private Bag 543, Ngaruawahia 3742, phone 07 825 4557, fax 07 825 4517, or email secretary@playcentre.org.nz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ calls for a Bill of Rights for children of prisoners -Verna McFelin, Chief Executive, Pillars |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Zealand has joined lobbying by other countries to introduce a Bill of Rights for the children of incarcerated prisoners. PILLARS, a community-based organisation which supports the children of prisoners, says a separate Bill of Rights is needed for prisoners' children. The needs of prisoners' children are quite different and we must be aware that their rights could be in conflict with what some authorities, and groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust, believe is appropriate. Having a parent in prison can bring a massive life change to these children - they are often isolated and we need to make sure they have been involved in any decisions made about them and to be well cared for while their parent is incarcerated. There is currently no requirement that institutions dealing with offenders inquire about the children's existence or concern themselves with the children's care. Prisoners' children have a daunting range of needs, and these are rarely addressed when their parent is imprisoned. They need contact with the parents, to have that relationship recognised and valued, rather than carrying the stigmas of their parent's actions. On behalf of these children, PILLARS is lobbying the New Zealand Government to introduce a separate Bill of Rights for children of inmates. By acknowledging that these children exist and have different needs, we can make a change that could prevent the cycle of crime - prisoners' children are seven times more likely to offend than other children without intervention. US initiative The San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership (SFCPIP) is also lobbying for a separate Bill of Rights that entitles these children to not be judged, blamed or labelled and to have a lifelong relationship with their parent. Since SFCPIP published its proposed Bill of Rights in 2003 it has been widely distributed and used in venues around USA to educate the public, provoke discussion and train service providers. The overarching aim of SFCPIP is to ensure that every decision about criminal justice policy and practice takes into account the needs and hopes of children. Visit www.sfcpip.org to learn more PILLARS has started to lobby the Government on this issue and is believed to be the only New Zealand group working on this initiative. For more information contact Rosemary Jackson, phone 03 358 9344 or 021 160 2066. These are the eight clauses of the San Francisco Bill of Rights. 1. I have the right to be safe and informed at the time of my parent's arrest. 2. I have the right to be heard when decisions are made about me. 3. I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent. 4. I have the right to be well cared for in my parent's absence. 5. I have the right to speak with, see and touch my parent. 6. I have the right to support as I face my parent's incarceration. 7. I have the right not to be judged, blamed or labelled because my parent is incarcerated. 8. I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Federation focus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nothing succeeds like succession -Fran Hoover, President, NZFVWO |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Banks do it. The All Blacks do it. Carter Holt Harvey almost certainly does it. Let's do it, let's plan for succession. Not the catchiest lyrics in the world I admit, but the sentiment is valid. Say 'succession planning' and most people think about grooming someone to step up when their boss resigns. The reality is that only organisations of a certain size have the staff pool to make grooming potential successors remotely plausible. Most NGOs just aren't that big. Most of the Federation's members aren't that big. The Federation itself certainly isn't that big. How do you pick a potential new Communications Manager from the pool of, say, one staff member-the current Communications Manager? Anyway, grooming a successor is no guarantee of success. People move on, jobs are refocused, the world changes. Succession planning is really about thinking today how, and how well, your organisation will function when a key person leaves-and then doing something about it. It could be the CEO, or perhaps the Fundraiser, who is equally vital to the organisation's continued good health. In the real world of lean-staffed NGOs, crucial knowledge and relationships can slip out the door with the departing employee, and the worst thing is that, even with the best handover process, you can feel the impact of that loss for many months. So what can we do to help ensure our organisations have the ability to carry on with barely a wobble if someone crucial leaves? Three simple things - and it's all basic good management: 1. Share leadership and knowledge around the organisation as much as possible. If several people are working on a project, that's several people who know what's going on. 2. Get the crucial procedures, systems, timings, relationships and contracts out of the person's head and written down where other people can access them. Then make it part of their job description to keep those documents up to date through a review at least every six months. Test it all with a 'dummy run' when they take a fortnight's annual leave. Try to find some vital piece of information about the requirements of a particular contract. See if you can find out who to phone regarding an out-of-the-blue opportunity, and so on. 3. Actively review everything about the job description and role annually-as a final process from their performance review perhaps? Review both their personal competencies and the job competencies, review the internal and external context and implications for their role, consider changes needed to their core focus areas, check the key performance indicators, and undertake a salary benchmarking. It's good to know what you'd have to pay to recruit someone new in that position. Do those three things, and you've got the makings of a succession plan. No grooming required, and hopefully no singing required either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the Executive Director's desk. Where next for the community sector in the Digital Strategy? -Tina Reid, Executive Director, NZFVWO ed@nzfvwo.org.nz |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Connection, confidence and content were the three buzz words of the Digital Strategy - adopted in 2006 and now under review. I found they provided me with an attractive and succinct framework for considering issues about information technology and the community and voluntary sector. The other practical outcome of the strategy for our sector was the Community Partnership Fund - which has now had two rounds, and over 100 projects have received grants of $17.4 million for a huge range of projects. The fund is now expended, and no further process is in place as the Digital Strategy is up for review. We are expecting a document for consultation soon. From our survey of New Dialogue readers two years ago we know that the strategy was considered important by the majority of community organisations, and that many could identify possible projects for the Partnership Fund. The fund has been a great boon for many projects, and a number of initiatives such as the e-rider schemes, the research clearing house and our own communication project will have very wide impacts and create some exciting projects and development for those who are involved. But the fund also had major constraints-it was only available for seed funding; it required all proposals to identify and commit to partnerships and to find at least half the costs of the project. The process was complicated, and advisory assistance was minimal. From a survey of Community sector use of information and communications technology (ICT)* two years ago it was identified that the greatest obstacles to ICT use were: · Lack of staff to manage ICT (50%) · Affordability (47%) · Uncertainty about usefulness of ICT (35%) · Lack of understanding (20%) I would hazard a guess that these are not much different now - and it would be interesting to update this research. So where to next? We are interested in actively exploring this over the next few months, and are involved in several discussions about creating a stronger community led forum to share visions, ideas and plans with the different players. I have several starting points for these discussions: · ICT is a tool, not an outcome, and fits well with other capacity building processes, rather than being considered in isolation · It is a very commercial field, with many multinational companies and dealers involved - where do free and open software options get a look in? · The range of tools keeps increasing, apparently never endingly - how can community organisations keep up? · Does this mean that the gap between the proficient and the naïve users just keeps on getting wider? I'm not sure that we are closing the digital divide. There are very real advantages for community organisations to play an active role and even take the lead on IT capacity building. We can't wait around for the perfect strategy to come along. Instead, based on practical experience we need to run our own initiatives as well as having input to policy, including the refreshed digital strategy. The questions I have raised are too important to leave to chance.
* Ted Zorn, University of Waikato |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Classified |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Love Factor - you better value it carefully! The Love Factor is the difference between the pay that employees in the not for profit sector are willing to accept and what they could anticipate receiving in the broader employment market. They accept this gap because of the greater 'personal' rewards they gain from working in this sector. Or, as is said so often, "because they love their work!" |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
