News Archives - Page 15 of 32 - Community Council For Australia

Worse than failure

Charities need to invest in monitoring, evaluating, and identifying failure. Anything less would make charities not much better than a government in denial that anything is wrong. And in many ways, that is so much worse than failure writes CCA CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News.

Worse than failure, Pro Bono News, 3 June 2021

What went wrong is in many ways a simple question. It is also an opportunity.

The ongoing failures of COVID-19 quarantine and the vaccination roll out in Australia have seen numerous government ministers, including our prime minister, seeking to deflect and avoid responsibility for any mistakes. It now appears the accepted political wisdom is that a government or a minister admitting they got some things wrong is not permissible. I guess there is polling to support this approach – but it doesn’t really make much sense to me.

In many cases the same government ministers that deny there are failures or accept any responsibility for failures are very keen to claim responsibility for every positive achievement Australia has demonstrated in dealing with the pandemic. How many times have we all been subjected to news bulletins with pictures of our leaders dressed in white lab coats holding up vials of vaccine as an eager media pack celebrated? And when pallets of vaccines finally started to arrive at airports, the media covered their unloading and transport across the tarmac as though we were watching a moon landing. We celebrated that we were first in the queue for vaccines and that Australia was a real COVID-19 winner having avoided mass infections and deaths – not that this was a race.

Of course, Australia is a relatively isolated island and we have had good state and territory governments that generally put health interests above economic interests. Still, we all did well in containing the virus, at least until the inconsistent vaccine purchasing and roll out was compounded by leaking quarantine hotels.

Without good access to the details of government decision-making processes, the negotiations with vaccine developing companies, the tendering and selection of providers for all the aspects of a vaccine roll out and provision of quarantine services, it is difficult to make any informed comment about what went wrong. Perhaps an over-reliance on private contractors might have contributed to some of the problems, but this is largely speculation.

We can safely say accessing the vaccines we needed when we needed them is a fail, having good IT backed contact tracing systems is a fail, having contracted the right people to ensure those most at risk were vaccinated in a timely manner is a fail, developing an appropriate quarantine capacity is a fail, consistent public messaging is a fail, and investing in better systems and processes when failures emerged is a fail.

When we reflect on what all these government failures mean for the charities sector, the question of how charities deal with responsibilities, targets and performance measures emerges as a fundamental issue.

Most of the staff I have worked with or employed are strongly motivated by a desire to deliver better outcomes for the people they serve. They actively monitor their own performance through their contact with the people they serve. There are many areas of charitable work where the biggest challenge is not getting people to accept responsibility when things do not work out, but pointing out the limitations of their role and especially their capacity to change people’s lives and circumstances.

When people I was working with to change their lives ended up back in the same situation or even worse than when I began my work with them, I felt it personally. As a teacher in prison, a probation officer for young offenders, a manager for people with mental health and drug and alcohol problems, I failed too often. It usually took a wiser and more experienced colleague to offer the insight I lacked; it was not really my fault; I should not blame myself. I learned to use these failures as an opportunity to actively reflect on my practice and how I could have or should have handled things differently. Often this process of failure and reflection informed a deeper understanding of how many different and overlapping systems can conspire to deny opportunity to people in need. In my own experience and the experience of many leaders I know and respect, it is our failures that provided us with the most important lessons in success.

At a broader organisational level, we all know success has many parents, but failure can be an orphan. And herein lies the challenge. Most leaders do not mind who claims credit for success – the more the better because sharing success is good. But failure is something more important.

Failures within government and bigger organisations are often critical indicators of what needs to change. It is the non-compliance reports in the monitoring of quality standards that are most essential in driving performance improvements.

One of the more common sayings in sport is that you are either winning or learning. In leadership courses around the world, the capacity to learn from failure (rather than just repeat it) is often emphasised as a necessary skill.

Charities are usually open to embracing staff failure at a personal practice level and learning from it, but they do not always monitor and reflect on their organisational performance in the same way. The major barrier to this process of active improvement is that some charities are not able to allocate the resources needed to monitor outcomes and impact. It is difficult for an organisation to reflect on its achievements and failures if there is not good information about the degree to which the organisation is achieving its purpose.

Our federal government has spent the last month telling us the roll out of vaccinations is not a race. In one way, they were right. You cannot have a race if there is no defined finish line, no targets, no monitoring of performance.

Now the government who tells us it is “comfortable with where we’re at” is desperately scrambling to try and figure out how many aged care workers have been vaccinated. They do not know. There is inadequate monitoring and reporting. We can only assume that the systems they have set up with the private contractors do not offer incentives for accurate data to be provided.

The government has provided a beacon of failure we can all learn from. Charities need to find a way to invest in actively monitoring, evaluating, and identifying failure. Anything less would make charities not much better than a government in denial that anything is wrong. And in many ways, that is so much worse than failure.

Read on Pro Bono News: worse-than-failure

Worse than failure Read More »

Media Release: Get rid of time-wasting ineffectual bureaucracy!

News

Media Release: Get rid of time-wasting ineffectual bureaucracy!

New independent research has highlighted how State and Territory governments across Australia are making it very difficult for charities to run fundraising events or put a ‘donate here’ button on their website. Over 600 charities and not-for-profits participated in the Piazza research study. Key findings include:

1. The majority of charities use online fundraising. Online fundraising requires consideration of seven different state and territory registration systems and compliance regimes even if they are only a local charity.

2. 57% to 88% of charities and NFPs report that the fundraising registration process is either very complex with a lot of excessive information required, or ‘somewhat complex’.

3. 53% of Australian charities and NFPs consider the impact of current fundraising rules and registration processes as ‘significant’ and 22% consider them so significant they have become a barrier to fundraising.

4. Substantial proportions of Australian charities and NFPs experience the speed of the fundraising registration process as slow (14% in the ACT to 50% in QLD).

5. The average wasted financial cost for each charity to register / comply is in excess of $10,000.

6. 39% of Australia’s charities and NFPs are not aware of the need to comply with different state and territory licenses and regulations when raising funds online.

Fundraising barriers state and territory comparison:

NT and ACT best – QLD worst

State/ Territory	Overall ranking best to worse	Speed lower best	Complexity lower best	Cost lower best
Northern Territory¹	1	0	0	0
ACT	2	14	59	23
TAS	3	23	57	23
SA	4	22	66	22
NSW	5	28	81	29
WA	6	36	84	39
VIC	7	43	85	37
QLD	8	50	88	40

The NT has no special regulations but relies on the Australian Consumer Law prohibiting misleading and deceptive conduct.

David Crosbie, CEO of the Community Council for Australia said: ‘Based on this research, the Queensland government should immediately dismantle its charity fundraising bureaucracy. It is the worst in the country. The Queensland fundraising registration process is costing Australian charities the most time, administration, and money, even for charities that do not operate in Queensland. Victoria and WA are not far behind. If VIC and WA were to disband their charity registration process, it would save thousands of charities a lot of time, administration and money without increasing the risk to donors. The ACT, SA and Tasmania may be trying to make things a little easier, but they still have a long way to go in reducing complexity, time and costs for charities.

The NT has shown the way by encouraging charities to fundraise while relying on the application of existing consumer law (ACL) and the ongoing oversight of the national charities regulator (ACNC). Apparently, the sky is still up there in the NT and it would not fall in on the other jurisdictions if they did the same.

Full report: Charities Crisis Cabinet Fundraising Survey, Report by Piazza Research, May 2021

Media Release: Get rid of time-wasting ineffectual bureaucracy! Read More »

For those that do hold a hose

News

For those that do hold a hose

New research shows that volunteering has been smashed by COVID-19. It will not come back on its own. Praise for the vital contribution volunteers make is not enough – it’s time governments, philanthropists, community, charities and NFPs prioritised and invested in volunteering, writes CCA CEO David Crosbie.

For those that do hold a hose, Pro Bono News, 20 May 2021

It is National Volunteer Week and it has been uplifting to see the extensive public acknowledgement of the role volunteers play in our communities.

Through the catastrophic bushfires and the ongoing pandemic, the preparedness of thousands of volunteers to put themselves in harm’s way for the benefit of all of us has never been more important.

There is something rather remarkable about the level of volunteering in Australia. In many ways, we are world leaders. Our rates of volunteering are well above most comparable countries. While it is hard to get good comparable data in this area, the available research indicates Australians volunteer at a much higher rate than the OECD average and well above the average of G7 nations.

The latest ACNC data suggests 3.6 million Australians volunteered with a charity in 2019. Around 50 per cent of all charities are run entirely by volunteers and many others rely extensively on volunteer time and commitment to operate. Of course, these are pre COVID-19 statistics.

New research conducted by Prof Nicholas Biddle and Prof Matthew Gray of the Australian National University Centre for Social Research and Methods to be released today presents some concerning findings:

The proportion of adult Australians doing voluntary work has fallen very substantially since COVID-19. In April 2021, 24.2 per cent of Australians had done voluntary work in the previous 12 months, down from 36 per cent in late 2019.
Although many of the lockdown and social distancing restrictions had eased across Australia by April 2021, many of those who had previously volunteered but had stopped doing so had not returned to volunteering.
There are an estimated 2.3 million less Australians volunteering in April 2021 than there were in late 2019. The data suggests that unpaid work has been impacted even harder by the COVID-19 recession than paid work, at least in terms of relative decline (that is, unpaid work declined at a higher rate than paid work).
The total number of hours of volunteering is estimated to have fallen by around 293 million hours over a 12-month period since COVID. This implies that the loss in economic output due to the pandemic would be 16.1 per cent higher if volunteering was included, compared to paid work only.
There were declines in volunteering for both males and females, with slightly larger declines for females. All age groups experienced a decline in volunteering. The age group that had the largest fall in volunteering is 45 to 54 years.
There was a smaller decline in the probability of volunteering for people living in non-capital cities.

This ANU research clearly reveals that volunteering has been smashed by COVID-19. The Australian tradition of high levels of volunteering is now at significant risk. With only 24.2 per cent of Australians having volunteered in the last 12 months, Australia would be well below the previous OECD and the G7 averages.

Unfortunately, the loss of volunteers seems to attract limited attention. It seems many people think volunteers will just keep turning up no matter what, because that is the spirit that has informed so many volunteers over many decades. The real story is much more complex.

We know many volunteers have been turned away during the pandemic. The potential for contracting or spreading COVID-19 presents a whole new set of obstacles to volunteering like: what happens if a volunteer contracts COVID-19; is there an insurance policy for volunteers exposed to high risk COVID-19 situations; how do we manage a volunteer having to quarantine for 14 days because they were in a hot spot; who compensates volunteers for their lost paid work salaries in a COVID-19 situation; do we have enough PPE to provide all at risk volunteers with protective clothing? There are solutions to all these issues, but they require investment.

It is not just COVID-19 or even bushfires that present barriers to volunteering in Australia. Almost every aspect of volunteer registration, training certification and listing of volunteer acquired skills is buried in fragmented systems across Australia.

We know tens of thousands of potential volunteers were turned away during the bushfires in 2019 and 2020, not because there was no work for them to do, but because there was no infrastructure to support them. Again, volunteering does not just happen, it requires investment.

Over the past week many organisations and individuals have been effusive in their praise for the vital contribution volunteers make to our communities. Politicians have joined the chorus, and yet the level of resourcing to support volunteers, particularly at a national level, is pathetically inadequate – no national volunteer registration process, no national volunteer insurance process, no national accreditations process, no national online directory of volunteers or volunteering opportunities. The last national volunteering strategy was a decade ago in 2011. Some good work is being done by some groups in some jurisdictions, but generally navigating volunteering systems in Australia is very hit and miss.

Volunteers are not putting on aprons, high visibility vests, work gloves or hard hats just for the photo opportunities. Volunteers are not seeking personal gain, and their value extends well beyond individual economic unit contributions to the broader Australian economy. Volunteers are not just giving time, knowledge, experience and effort, they are building something that sustains us all, they are building our communities.

Now more than ever as we seek to build back better incorporating sustainable ways to live with COVID-19, we need to get volunteers back into our charities and our community organisations. It would not take that much to ensure the massive Australian volunteer workforce was given a bit of assistance to come back into our organisations, to return to their crucial roles supporting our communities.

Governments, policy makers, philanthropists, charities and not-for-profit groups all need to prioritise volunteering. The data is very clearly indicating that blindly hoping for things to return to pre-COVID-19 levels is not working.

It is good that we take the time to offer our gratitude, to acknowledge the importance of volunteering. It would be even better if more of us became part of the movement calling for volunteers to get better treatment, to make it easier and more fulfilling for volunteers to contribute their invaluable time and energy supporting us all.

Read on Pro Bono News: for-those-that-do-hold-a-hose

For those that do hold a hose Read More »

What’s the price of community resilience?

News

What's the price of community resilience?

Pre-Budget announcements speak to a new and emerging priority for governments: the need to build community resilience. Charities need to engage with this agenda and highlight the value of their work and how it contributes writes CCA CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News:

What’s the price of community resilience? Pro Bono News, 6 May 2021

It’s less than a week to go until the government releases its most important set of policy statements and priority commitments for the next 12 months, the federal budget.

The pre-budget speculation and carefully messaged leaks continue, but as always it is the politics of the budget that frames much of what the government will say and do.

This will almost certainly be the last budget before the next federal election. For this reason alone, the government is unlikely to undertake major reform, cut programs or reduce services. At this stage of the political cycle the goal is to avoid creating losers while offering a broad range of deserving people and businesses something positive, a concession, an incentive, a rebate.

What I find most interesting in federal budgets is the ever-changing shifts over time in the way new spending is announced, the way new priorities are presented as informing a certain perspective on what is a desirable future for Australia.

Within that context, it seems to me that a new set of priorities is emerging for governments beyond the usual jobs and economic growth mantra; the capacity of communities to deal with natural disasters and pandemics. Given the projected impact of climate change across Australia, this issue of community resilience is likely to be especially important for charities over the coming years. Governments are going to be allocating more and more to addressing this area.

The government has already announced (or part re-announced) a substantial commitment to support community resilience:

“The Morrison government will use next week’s budget to establish a national recovery and resilience agency and create a new climate service to help manage the risk of natural disasters. The government will allocate $600m to the agency to fund resilience projects such as bushfire and cyclone-proofing houses, building levees for flood control, and improving the resilience of telecommunications and essential supplies.”

I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue of community resilience with Major General Andrew Hocking from the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, including asking him about how their agency might be supporting greater community resilience.

I suggested that the research about resilience and recovery from natural disasters is pretty clear. One of the critical aspects of both coping and rebuilding during difficult times is the degree to which people feel they have value, that they belong, that they are connected.

We also know that it is not always the more readily identifiable groups that foster this sense of community. In one community what is catalytic to community support can be a sporting club, performing arts group, pre-school parents, church congregation, Landcare group, knitting circle, walking group, the local market store holders, a Lions Club, or just the regulars at any particular community activity. The beauty of community building is in the diversity. The challenge is that most people outside of the community do not experience it, cannot know what matters or how it works to link individuals, families and communities together.

Major General Hocking not only agreed, but suggested that as an agency they were now looking at the whole issue of community resilience, not just in terms of physical infrastructure – roads, bridges, water supplies, petrol and power can all be mapped and accounted for – but also social infrastructure. Their observation is that social infrastructure is a critical component of resilience. They were already looking at pilot studies to identify, support and map the organisations and activities that enhance social resilience within a number of communities.

This makes sense to all of us who have worked with communities, but this understanding is not always front and centre in a crisis. We tend to focus on physical infrastructure and economic activity, both of which are clearly fundamental to recovery from a crisis. But it is social infrastructure that not only rebuilds communities, it rebuilds individual, family and community capacity to attend to all the other challenges.

When Save the Children set up special childcare centres in four bushfire affected areas early this year, all with access to specialist child trauma support if needed, they enabled parents and carers to do what they needed to do, knowing their children were being properly cared for and looked after. They also inadvertently provided another important benefit – the chance for parents to interact with other parents in similar situations dropping off and picking up their children. Some parents were able to receive help filling in forms or share information about where to get support or even offer to visit and check on people in need. Every parent knows how important this would be – but what price do we put on this support? Where does childcare sit in the priorities of recovery agencies and governments?

In terms of individual mental health, the research is irrefutable (as if it needed confirming); discussing problems with people in similar circumstances reduces stress. A problem shared is a problem that becomes more manageable.

Charities are fundamentally about bringing people together to support each other, play together, work together, be together, belong, be valued. Important as these things are in our day-to-day life, in any crisis they become critical.

In most of our lifetimes, we have never seen the challenges we have experienced in 2020. At the same time, never have so many charities stepped forward, often well beyond their usual activities.

Some might seek to count the collective cost of such activities, to put a dollar price on the economic benefits, but it would at best be a particularly challenging and imprecise exercise. The bottom line is that the work of many charities, big and small, has been invaluable to communities in crisis.

The government has already revealed that the need to build resilient communities is being factored into next week’s federal budget. While their pre-budget announcement this week described resilience in terms of physical infrastructure, that tells only a small part of the community resilience story.

Charities are not always active in promoting the value of their work and their broader impact. There is a tendency to talk in terms of programs and services, descriptors of activities.

Highlighting how the work of charities contributes to building and sustaining individuals, families, communities, and our environment has never been more important.

Climate change will impact many communities across Australia, ensuring community resilience becomes a key area of government focus and increasing federal budget expenditure well into the future.

Already, this future is now.

Read on Pro Bono News: whats-the-price-of-community-resilience

What’s the price of community resilience? Read More »

Is that just the way it is?

News

Is that just the way it is?

The successful prosecution of a police officer in the George Floyd murder trial shows how radical change can occur in the fight against ingrained discrimination. Our own reckoning in Australia is yet to come, writes CCA CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News, 21 April 2021.

Is that just the way it is? Pro Bono News, 21 April 2021

Under the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation on the grounds of race, religion or national origin was banned at all places of public accommodation, including courthouses, parks, restaurants, theatres, sports arenas and hotels. Bruce Hornsby – the piano playing singer-songwriter addressed the limitations of this law and our ongoing acceptance of the unacceptable in his song The Way It Is.

Standing in line, marking time
Waiting for the welfare dime
‘Cause they can’t buy a job
The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor old ladies’ eyes
Just for fun he says, “get a job”
That’s just the way it is
Some things will never change
That’s just the way it is
Ah, but don’t you believe them….
Well, they passed a law in ’64
To give those who ain’t got a little more
But it only goes so far
Because the law don’t change another’s mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the colour bar, no, no

There are many times in my life when I have been told “that’s just the way it is”. It can be good advice. I have sometimes found myself offering the same words to family and friends, and those I have worked with. The implications embedded in this theme are clear; time to accept it, work around it, take a different direction, it is what it is, don’t waste your time and energy, it’s not going to change.

And yet change does happen, even to ingrained discrimination, although usually not to the timetable we might desire.

The three virtues at the heart of Christian theology are faith, hope and charity. The capacity to hope for a better world, to believe a better world is possible, and to work towards that change has resonance within a number of theologies. Faith, hope and charity are not just virtues, they are the drivers of change, an antidote to “that’s just the way it is”.

When I talk to charities, I am constantly reminded that at the heart of so much of our work is believing things can be better, for individuals, families, communities, countries, for our world. Without that sense of belief and hope, where would charities be?

In the US this week we have seen change despite the long practiced “that’s just the way it is” paradigm that Minneapolis police cannot be successfully prosecuted for criminal policing behaviour. A rogue police officer has been held to account by his peers, his department, and his community. In so many of the discussions about the shocking murder of George Floyd, the framing of the discourse has been around the way policing is done to a community rather than with a community. This stand and deliver approach always rings alarm bells for those of us familiar with policing and criminal justice systems.

Our own reckoning in Australia is yet to come.

Since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody report was released thirty years ago incarceration rates of Indigenous people have increased from 14 per cent to 30 per cent of the Australian prison population.

We know we would reduce Indigenous deaths in custody if a lot less Indigenous people were in prison. This is not hard to achieve. Diversion programs for people with mental health or drug dependence have been part of our justice system for many years and are expanding, yet there is little serious investment in reducing the number of Indigenous people jailed – often for minor non-violent crimes.

The Maranguka Project in Bourke has achieved 20 per cent less domestic violence incidents recorded by police, a 30 per cent increase in Year 12 student retention, 40 per cent fewer charges across the top 5 juvenile offence categories, and $3 million saved across the 3-year project (2015–2017).

Maranguka is not just about the Bourke community, including several charities, working together to achieve the shared goal of reducing incarceration rates, it is about using information to empower Indigenous communities to drive the change they want to see.

The people of Bourke practiced hope for a better way.

We know that Indigenous empowerment, diversion programs, post prison release support, adequate legal representation, supported education, employment and recreation programs, and circle sentencing where Indigenous people have direct input in hearing charges and determining sentences (successful in Canada) are all important and effective programs that can change what we have not changed in more than 30 years.

CCA supports the Uluru Statement from Heart because we want to address Indigenous disadvantage (we need to address the rampant inequality experienced by Indigenous people), but also because we believe Australia can only really grow as a nation if we are prepared to embrace our past and the teachings of a culture that has existed in our country for over 40,000 years.

Thousands of Indigenous people practiced hope in developing the Uluru Statement from Heart.

We know what we need to do, we could do it if we wanted to, why are we not doing it?

Perhaps too many of us are following what our government chose to do in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart – not listen.

“There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.” – Arundhati Roy

Why do we keep expecting a marginalised 3 per cent of the population to drive change for the other 97 per cent?

Is that really just the way it is?

Read on Pro Bono News: is-that-just-the-way-it-is

Is that just the way it is? Read More »

Charities, power and politics

News

Charities, power and politics

If we are to build the kind of Australia we want to live in, it is now, during the lead up to the next election that charities need to be actively advocating for themselves, their causes and their communities, writes CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News.

Charities, power and politics, Pro Bono News, 8 April 2021

“The vote is a power, a weapon of offense and defense, a prayer.” – Carrie Catt, 19th century suffragette leader.

It is highly likely that the coming federal budget will be the last Morrison budget before an election. At this stage most experts predict the election will be held within the next six months and the result will probably come down to a handful of seats. While the politics of the day and the latest polling may appear positive or negative for one side of politics or the other, it can take a lot more than a few headlines to push people into changing their voting behaviour.

We know for certain we are going to have a new Liberal/National party government or a new ALP government in power within the next 12 months. What will this mean for charities?

While charities are not party-political players, the outcome of a federal election can determine the sustainability of many charities and the work they do.

CCA has spent many years advocating for policies that will strengthen the charities sector now and into the future. There was a time, not all that long ago, when governments and oppositions made no mention of charities in pre-election policy statements.

It is important to acknowledge that in Australia now both sides of politics would claim to be supportive of charities and to have developed policies that will directly benefit the sector.

The commitment made by the current government to offer a more accessible form of JobKeeper to charities across Australia was undoubtedly one of the most important government initiatives for many charities over the past 18 months. The support for philanthropy to be able to give more during the pandemic was also important. The increase in support for other countries in our region has rightly been welcomed by many. The willingness of so many government departments to roll over funds and adapt contracts and reporting requirements was critical for the survival of many charities. Additional support for frontline services enabled many people to be fed and housed, despite all the challenges Australia was facing. In many ways, the government listened to charities and responded positively, especially at the beginning of the pandemic.

The negative with the current government has been more about the lack of investment in the potential of the charities sector to improve both productivity and well-being. The listening that was happening 12 months ago has faded as the government pursues a limited agenda. In critical areas like the NDIS, social housing, unemployment benefits, refugees, aged care, etc. the government seems to be running an agenda that is separate to what communities want or need. At a sector-wide level, changes in government regulations and policy seem to happen very slowly if they happen at all.

While the current government seems to have limited appetite for much needed charity reforms, last week the ALP National Conference endorsed a 10-point plan to strengthen charities. The importance of having this plan incorporated into the ALP National Platform cannot be overstated. It is the blueprint for an incoming ALP federal government, a priority setting document that indicates what an ALP government would invest their time and resources in.

Each of the 10 measures in the ALP plan are deserving of more discussion. They are framed by the language of partnership for a better Australia and represent a strong set of policy priorities that CCA supports. They include establishing a forum within government to advance charity reform, revisiting the 2010 Productivity Commission Report recommendations for the sector most of which have not been implemented, fixing fundraising regulations, longer-term planning and more sustainable contracting of services, addressing the digital divide for charities, increased support for volunteers and a commitment to support public advocacy by charities for their issues.

The current government has yet to develop a clear forward agenda for the charities sector. CCA and the charities sector now have an opportunity to seek matching commitments from the government prior to the next election.

The regulatory, taxation and funding environment in which charities have to function is critical in enabling charities to best serve their communities. There are many areas where change is long overdue and more support is needed, but within the current political context there are few avenues to gain that support.

Elections represent a critical opportunity for advocacy by charities for their causes and their communities. They are also an opportunity to make the work of charities less difficult and the future a little more secure.

Seizing the opportunities inherent in the next federal election will require more collaboration and collective pressure on all political candidates.

The most important asset the charities sector has is its reach into almost every home and every community across Australia. Not only do 1.3 million people work in charities, a further 4 million volunteer for a charity or a not for profit. Independent of all the people working or volunteering for charities, there are millions more who directly benefit from the contribution charities make to their lives and their communities.

If we are to build the kind of Australia we want to live in, it is now, during the lead up to the next election as political parties lock in their forward priorities that charities need to be actively advocating for themselves, their causes and their communities.

The art of politics is to get elected.

If political parties choose not to prioritise the issues that matter to charities, we should vote against them, and given our size and our reach across Australia, the capacity of charities and their supporters to influence the outcome of elections is formidable.

Charities not only have a voice, they also carry many votes. It is now time to ensure all politicians know that we will be using our voices and our votes to ensure the next government of Australia works with the charities sector to build flourishing communities.

Read on Pro Bono News: probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2021/04/charities-power-and-politics/

Charities, power and politics Read More »

Holding governments to account

News

Holding governments to account

Holding government to account means calling out dysfunctional bureaucratic practices. We can make a difference if we work together. Right now the Charities Crisis Cabinet needs your input to push fundraising reform writes CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News, 25 March 2021.

Holding governments to account, Pro Bono News, 25 March 2021

There are a whole range of strategies governments employ to avoid taking action while retaining the support of concerned citizens. I doubt there is a single charity in Australia that has not had to deal with some of these avoidance strategies.

It can be as simple as just not doing anything but continuing to make the right noises – we support your goal and are not opposed to what you are suggesting. A little like our prime minister talking about quotas for women in the Liberal Party, not doing anything at all, but sounding supportive.

Governments may appear more proactive by positioning their inaction as a period of consideration – we are having a really good look at this issue and considering the way forward.

One level above this response is the official inquiry or review – we consider this so serious that we are putting in place a review process to make recommendations about the way forward.

Once the review is completed and the recommendations have been effectively ignored, sometimes for a year or two, the next level of avoidance begins – we have endorsed the recommendations of the review in principle and are now working within government to see how they might be implemented.

Perhaps another year or so on, the government might engage in another round of “consultations” to identify “revenue neutral” options, ways of moving forward without the government having to find new funding.

The list of avoidance strategies could go on for a few hundred words and even then, there are more and more avoidance strategies being deployed by governments every day.

One of the final strategies is to allocate some government funding to addressing an issue and then claim because the government has allocated some funding, the problem has been addressed – the current government has spent more on aged care, disability, mental health, women’s refuges etc. than any previous government, even though the previous government was eight years ago and much of the increased expenditure is based on larger populations and increased costs rather than new or improved programs and services. The allocation of some government funding does not mean concerns about that issue are resolved and it can now be ticked off. Often such expenditure can be both inadequate and poorly targeted.

Faced with this avoidance approach from so many areas of government, it is up to charities to not only call this behaviour out, but also to drive the change they want to see. Charities need to be at the forefront of holding governments to account if we are to improve government and strengthen the communities we serve. Charities also need to develop their own strategies to counter government avoidance.

In the case of fundraising regulation, the Charities Crisis Cabinet (CCC), the #FixFundraising coalition (including CCA) and others have decided to create their own accountability measures around fundraising reform. This new approach has come about largely because charities have been the subject of all the usual government avoidance strategies, and nothing much has changed in over a decade of campaigning.

While governments pay lip service to charities on issues like cutting red tape, reducing unnecessary duplication and compliance activity, harmonising legislation and encouraging more charitable fundraising, in reality the trend is towards more, not less, compliance requirements for charities. In fact, it seems governments have one approach to cutting red tape for business and a parallel approach to try and increase red tape for charities.

Charities that put a “donate here” button on their website are still having to navigate and complete the separate registration and reporting requirements imposed by the states and territories. This is despite a Senate Inquiry into Fundraising Regulations and a Bushfire Royal Commission recommendation to have one set of fundraising requirements that applies nationally.

Holding government to account means calling out these dysfunctional bureaucratic practices.

Fundraising reform was one of the first issues that was raised with the CCC as Australian charities responded to COVID-19 and bushfire recovery. Charities told us Australia’s out of date and not fit for purpose system of fundraising regulation stymied and hindered them when they needed to be nimble, and when they most needed support.

Both the Australian treasurer and the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements engaged with this issue and have sought to advance the harmonisation of fundraising regulation to establish a single national regulatory scheme. So far, states and territories have made little meaningful progress.

We want to be able to highlight which state and territory governments are making progress in reducing red tape and which are not. We can only really do this by telling your stories about what it takes to register your fundraising activity and meet ongoing reporting requirements. Governments can claim whatever, but the real test is how their regulations are or are not impacting on charities. We need you to take this survey: Help Reform Australia’s Outdated System of Fundraising Regulation.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this survey is that we will be widely promoting our findings in the media and repeating the survey in six months with further extensive media to show just how much progress every state and territory government is making in reducing red tape for charities. The survey will provide a national scoreboard of states and territories that support charities and those that do not.

Fundraising reform is not the only agenda that needs more government accountability, there are so many, but it is a good example of how we can make a difference if we are prepared to work together as a charity sector.

Governments will only be accountable if charities choose to document and share the impact of government policies. We need to reward good behaviour and seek to change behaviour that is harmful for charities and the communities we serve.

Accepting government avoidance strategies is not an option if we want good government and stronger charities supporting flourishing communities.

NB. Please take the fundraising regulations survey and encourage other charities to participate.

Holding governments to account Read More »

Australian Fundraising Principles (Proposed)

News

March 24, 2021

Australian Fundraising Principles (Proposed)

Context

The following principles proposed by the Charities Crisis Cabinet are designed to provide a nationally harmonised standard for fundraising in place of the current confusing, expensive and ineffective state-based system.

Underpinned by the Australian Consumer Law, Privacy Act, Telecommunications Industry Standard, local council regulations and the ACNC, but with states retaining their oversight and enforcement powers, these principles would lead to stronger fundraising and better regulation. These principles are designed to complement existing self-regulatory fundraising codes, and do not require any additional compliance to meet them.

Principles

As a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), we pledge to take all reasonable steps to ensure our fundraising is lawful, truthful and transparent. To do this, we will adhere to the following principles of ethical fundraising practice.

We will not mislead or deceive or use false or inaccurate information when fundraising.
We will not place undue or unreasonable pressure on a person when fundraising, or act unconscionably in any way to obtain a donation.
When fundraising, we will take all reasonable measures to never exploit the trust, lack of knowledge, lack of capacity, apparent need for care and support, or vulnerable circumstances of any donor.
We will ensure that our fundraisers are always clearly, and individually, identifiable by the public.
We will take responsibility for the standards, practices and conduct of all our fundraising activities, regardless of who conducts them (us, or a contractor or agent on our behalf), or how they are delivered.
We will conduct all reasonable due diligence when engaging contractors or agents to assist, support or deliver fundraising activities on our behalf.
When we incur costs for our fundraising, such as using paid fundraisers or other contractors or agents, we will explain this as clearly and simply as possible to the public, before they choose to donate.
We will be open and honest in our annual reporting about our fundraising strategy, results and costs, and why they are appropriate for our cause at this time.
To justify the trust shown by donors in the efficient and effective use of the resources given to our organisation, when fundraising (and in our reporting) we will clearly explain the purpose to which funds raised will be, or have been, applied.
We will ensure that fundraisers employed, or directly engaged by us, only work within the designated hours of operation as permitted by relevant national, state/territory or local laws, or by a properly constituted self- regulatory body if no such laws exist.
We will only contact the public to seek support where we have the proper and lawful authority to do so, where this is required.
We will ensure personal information we collect, use and manage is done so in accordance with the Australian Privacy Principles.
We will take all reasonable measures to protect the health and well-being of fundraisers employed or directly engaged by us, and members of the public, during our fundraising activities.
We will operate a complaints process that allows for the proper investigation and redress of fundraising complaints by the public, and encourage anyone with any concerns about fundraising activity conducted in our name to contact us.

Australian Fundraising Principles (Proposed) Read More »

Media Release – Giving back to communities in need rather than the ATO

News

CCA Media Release - Giving back to communities in need rather than the ATO

CCA Chair Rev Tim Costello has today joined with others in asking companies to seriously consider giving back to their communities rather than giving money back to the Australian Taxation Office.

“We know that some companies have received significant government assistance through JobKeeper and then found that not all that assistance was needed. Giving the money back to the Australian Taxation Office – as Toyota Australia have done – is to be commended, but there are other options, ways to give the money more directly to causes or people in need and to directly support rebuilding communities that may be doing it tough.”

Rev Costello has endorsed the suggestion that companies considering returning funds to the government should seriously consider boosting or to establishing workplace giving programs, company foundations and community support programs.

An article published today in Probono Australia News by CCA CEO David Crosbie argues that companies setting up their own giving programs is a more effective and efficient use of funds then returning it to the government.

“Giving money back to government entails a transfer process; government receiving and accounting for the money, allocating it internally through budgeting systems, developing priorities for its expenditure, processes around making the money available (often through onerous tendering requirements), overseeing appropriate expenditure and accounting for the money. While these transfer costs can vary significantly, in some cases more than 30% of the money will be lost in government management and oversight of the funds.”

CCA has consistently argued that an advantage of workplace giving programs and company supported charitable foundations is that they promote giving, not just as a one-off exercise, but as part of the expected normal behaviour within the company. A further benefit is how employees feel about working for a company that gives to charitable purposes within their communities. Employee loyalty and morale are both boosted by companies that take an active role in giving back to communities.

Mr Crosbie also suggested, “there are now a number of companies that are in a position to give back to the communities that support them, not by giving back to the ATO, but by giving to charities that serve their communities.

If we are not going to promote giving when the work of charities in rebuilding post the pandemic is so critical, when the income of so many charities has been depleted, when volunteering has been hit so hard, when will we promote giving?”

File:

Media – better ways to give back.pdf

Media Release – Giving back to communities in need rather than the ATO Read More »

Giving back by giving to

News

Giving back by giving to

Governments, companies, and industry bodies all have an exceptional opportunity to encourage giving and an investment of what was taxpayer dollars directly back into our communities to support recovery and strengthen communities, writes CCA CEO, David Crosbie.

Giving back by giving to, Pro Bono News, 28 January 2021

Prime Minister Scott Morrison was quick to commend Toyota Australia for returning $18 million of JobKeeper payments back to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). In a radio interview with 2GB, he pointed out that while people appreciated a government offering to provide support at a time of need, there was also a general recognition that such assistance should not be taken advantage of.

We now know that in working out JobKeeper eligibility some companies had forecast anticipated losses of income above the 30 per cent threshold for payment of JobKeeper subsidies, and then found that their company had actually generated more income and profits than previously. These companies are now being asked to consider their position and to think about the possibility of returning JobKeeper subsidies to the government.

There are three other options I believe these companies should consider before they commit to returning JobKeeper payments to the ATO; one of the best would be to invest the funds in establishing or boosting their existing workplace giving program.

Workplace giving programs operate across Australia in many workplaces. Most are employee directed meaning that it is the employees themselves that direct where their donations go. There are significant tax benefits to individuals contributing directly through an approved workplace giving program – the money is regularly deducted from their pre-tax salary. Small amounts given regularly by many employees can add up to major amounts of philanthropic funding over time, enabling workplace giving donations to have a real impact within communities.

A number of companies have taken their employee directed workplace giving programs one step further by providing various kinds of matching contributions from the company itself. Companies may choose to match employee contributions dollar for dollar or in some other ratio, thereby increasing the potential to drive positive change in the communities they choose to support.

Imagine if instead of returning $10 million of JobKeeper subsidies to the ATO, a company chose to establish a company workplace giving program and used the $10 million as the initial investment into the workplace giving program? This kind of donation would not only improve the standing of the company and its employees, but also provide tremendous benefits to the communities that receive a donation.

Workplace Giving Australia offers a free guide to workplaces seeking to establish a workplace giving program. It is not that difficult to get started and begin making a difference within your company and within the communities you engage with. How much better would boosting a workplace giving program be compared to giving the money back to the ATO?

Another option is to establish a company foundation with a strong charitable purpose. Philanthropy Australia has an excellent guide to setting up the appropriate structure for giving as a company through a company ancillary fund. This fund can invest and create returns to be given to charities over time. $10 million invested in a company public ancillary fund would allow a significant investment in ethical or social impact investments, and result in $500,000 being distributed to charities every year.

Some companies may choose to give their JobKeeper payments directly to a charity they want to support.

All of these options represent a more efficient use of money. Giving money back to government entails a transfer process; government receiving and accounting for the money, allocating it internally through budgeting systems, developing priorities for its expenditure, processes around making the money available (often through onerous tendering requirements), overseeing appropriate expenditure and accounting for the money. While all these transfer costs can vary significantly, in some cases more than 30 per cent of the money will be lost in government management and oversight of the funds.

Another advantage of workplace giving programs and the establishment of a company supported public ancillary fund is that they promote giving, not just as a one-off exercise, but as part of the expected normal behaviour within the company.

A further benefit is how employees feel about working for a company that gives to charitable purposes within their communities. Employee loyalty and morale are both boosted by companies that take an active role in giving back to communities.

COVID-19 has highlighted our interconnectedness, as Tim Costello has pointed out, the “we” rather than the “me”. This is just as true for companies in Australia as every other group. There are now a number of companies that are in a position to give back to the communities that support them, not by giving back to the ATO, but by giving to charities that serve their communities.

Charities across Australia stand ready and willing to work with companies and governments to assist in contributing to stronger and more resilient communities across Australia. For those companies that have experienced a government windfall as a consequence of their income being higher than anticipated during the pandemic, we await the call.

Read on Pro Bono News: giving-back-by-giving-to

Giving back by giving to Read More »