The dominance of the NAS

[Canopus]

Do you think that the NAS has an unhealthy dominance of the ASD support scene? Would things be better if there were, say, 5 or 6 medium sized ASD support organisations instead of the NAS?

[Tally]

Where I live there is no support agencies for people with ASD. I would like some support and I don't really mind who provides it, anyone who wants to would be fine.

[justine1]

How does the saying go "better the devil you know" how will five separate agencies work effectively? It would be nice to have more support and more choice of who we can turn to for that support but generally speaking most people get the info from online so I personally think the choice is already there.

 

Most of these agencies work with very little money and I dont see that the government or even private companies will fund more networks,networks who may still provide the same support and advice already being provided by NAS.

[cmuir]

Hi

 

I can see why you've raised the subject. I must say there's a few issues that NAS have 'promoted' which I'm unhappy about – Gary Mackinnon was one of the main issues I was unhappy about. I felt it was important to raise awareness, but objected to NAS membership funds being used to back someone that engaged in a criminal activity (inadvertently or otherwise) which has a very negative affect on public perception. Just my personal view. All in all though, I think one large organisation is better than several smaller ones as NAS has I feel presence and has branches throughout the UK – there's 'safety' in numbers I guess.

 

Caroline.

[darky]

I get where you are coming from. I just don't know how to explain why I agree with you. The larger charities do well out of the funding, and they do offer a lot of blanket advice, but when they get so big, they tend to focus on big issues like that Gary Mackinnon. (not everyone agrees with that) Imagine the funding that single case alone has cost over time. Some would say the money could be better distributed to help more individual people with smaller, but equally important issues like statementing or exclusion or even diagnosis. Don't get me wrong, the NAS are great at what they do, but the funding they must get would be pretty obscene. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need big charities like this, and instead, the funding could go back to schools, staff and training

[Sally44]

For any organisation to have a chance of persuading government to do anything, they have to have the numbers and size to show they are representative of a large number of people. So the smaller the organisation the less you are listened to.

 

Most organisations representing a particular group tend to have 'one' main lobbist.

 

But when an organisation gets so big they can lose the 'individual' picture and can never keep everyone happy. I think those that are unhappy with what their 'representative' organisation is doing should just write to them to say so.

 

Having said that, our local Autism group joined the NAS. And now I no longer feel it is relevent to my family situation because it does not deal with 'local issues' that are important to the local members. We are now supposed to support the NAS with their criteria. Some of which is not relevent to me. But then that would be selfish if I wanted a local or national group to only focus on what my needs were at that particular time.

 

 

[Canopus]

We are now supposed to support the NAS with their criteria. Some of which is not relevent to me. But then that would be selfish if I wanted a local or national group to only focus on what my needs were at that particular time.

 

I dispute that. If a local group absorbed into a national group no longer provides as good a local service to its members, but instead sees them as a resource to support the interests of the national group which are of much less interest to its members, then I would consider it as a bad thing.

 

I dont see that the government or even private companies will fund more networks,networks who may still provide the same support and advice already being provided by NAS.

 

Something I find cause for concern about the NAS is that they are registered as a charity but they receive quite a lot of money from the government. Officially a charity is supposed to rely upon voluntary donations and not get a penny from the government. Last year there was anger at the way the NSPCC was so heavily financed by the government that the term fake charity was coined. The NSPCC was criticised for doing work on behalf of the government rather than the people it is supposed to stand up for.

[Tally]

Something I find cause for concern about the NAS is that they are registered as a charity but they receive quite a lot of money from the government. Officially a charity is supposed to rely upon voluntary donations and not get a penny from the government. Last year there was anger at the way the NSPCC was so heavily financed by the government that the term fake charity was coined. The NSPCC was criticised for doing work on behalf of the government rather than the people it is supposed to stand up for.

 

My mum works for a registered charity which also receives donations from the UK government, the Isle of Man and also the EU. They do not even work in the EU. I don't think you can be right about the definition of a charity there.

 

I don't know who described the NSPCC as a fake charity or criticised the type of work they do, but one person's opinion does not necessarily make it the truth.

[smiley1590]

i think NAS should personally from first hand experience of being a client user should downsize and they struggle to make ends meet nationally let alone locally they trying to stretch themselves too far in some respects and forget about the whole reason behind the service support they sometimes put the NAS professionals before clients and paperwork boggs things down even more just frustrating ang annoying to say the least! they forget appointment dates double book with support workers and even support workers forget what client they with at what time they rely alot on clients shouldn't it be other way round needs alot of improvements

 

my area suppose to be the best NAS service i think otherwise they've let me down and messed me around loads i'm only sticking in because i been dropped in past like this trying to hold on but does make your professional trust and belief in a system made for people like myself they give themselves a bad name my support workers always taking time off sick that makes me anxious messes my routine and again my head how is that fair or right?! and my support worker tells me off for cancelling if got work or mentally drained or got work or not MH up to it!

 

 

the thing is they don't listen like any service to the client's voice i just feel me files names and don't even feel helped at times feel lost confused and in minefield feeling i never be discovered enough to be properly supported by services and systems feel so betrayed! what's point in moaning goes straight over their head feel like they don't care as they can go back to their 'non -autistic' lives!!!

 

XKLX

[baddad]

Politics and charities have always been intrinisically linked; on the one hand you have an organisation (charity) lobbying for the rights of whatever group and on the other the people who have the power to create policies to help that organisation achieve changes that will benefit the group they represent. The larger a charity becomes the more it has to 'play the game', but by the same token the more influence it has as a representative force.

I have often found myself annoyed by the actions of the NAS (over G. McK for example, or for the passive stance they take over some of the more aggressive 'treatment' programmes), but having said that they do seem - for the most part - to represent the 'majority' (in terms of interested parties - not the general population) view. As an unbiased charity it would also be difficult for them to justify a stance on any issue that was contrary to the 'majority' view or that challenged the views of those medical professionals regarded as experts in the field... Basically, if Borat (Baron-Cohen) or Tony Attwood says something then that 'wisdom' is gonna be what informs the NAS view. That's where the danger lies, IMO, because it means a very small number of people actually have control over how autism is officially viewed, and the NAS becomes a voice for their views rather than the voice of the autistic community those experts are assumed to represent. And any professional disagreeing with the views of those experts is unlikely to thrive in their chosen career or to rise to a position where they could have much influence...

I have, TBH, grown increasingly concerned over the past decade or so about how much expert opinion has changed and the ways that autism is increasingly represented. Not all of that representation has been 'bad' - at least some of the rainman myths have been challenged - but I do feel that the 'high functioning' umbrella is far too wide these days and that it often hides the reality of those more profoundly affected. I also have major concerns about the representation of 'victimhood' and the concentration on diagnostic (medical model) 'differences' rather than universal similarities, which seem at odds with the ways that just about every other disabled minority are now represented. It took years for disabled people to effect that shift in thinking - to escape the old models of 'tragic', 'heroic', 'pitiful' etc - but for whatever reason autism seems to have missed the boat(?) Perhaps it's because in autism parents/carers often play a more significant role in adulthood, and what we're actually seeing is what parents/carers think about autism rather than what autistic people think?

Anyhoo - the problem, IMO, is not the NAS as such, and I suspect that they manage the political trade off as well as anyone. More worrying, IMO, are the businesses that operate under 'charity' status to pedal their own agendas - some of which, frankly, scare the living cr*p out of me!

Coming back to the original question - if the NAS didn't have the political profile it has, which other groups (opinions) would be most likely to find general approval and become dominant? I suspect it would not be the voices of the autistic community at all, but the voices of the kind of charity groups that (IMO) pose the biggest threat to wider acceptance and tolerance

 

L&P

 

BD

[pyfan]

My husband ran in the Great South Run and raised nearly £400 for the NAS, paid in very promptly. They never acknowledged this or thanked him for his efforts and when our membership renewal came up I told them I did not feel like renewing for that reason. They then gave us a year's free membership which I felt bad about as I did not intend to take money away from them, but my husband wished he had run in aid of our local AS group which has given us direct and relevant help (and is now having problems with funding). I do read the NAS emails and newsletters but they have not helped me directly, somehow I feel they are too big. The local group are familiar with the doctors, schools, county council procedures etc that I actually use.

[NobbyNobbs]

we have a very good ASD charity that is used by the NHS/SS to provide support workers as well as being independent. it covers 2 counties. admittedly the two are often lumped together, but they're HUGE counties and they seem to be very efficient. i called the NAS for advice about DLA and had to wait 2 weeks for a phone call which lasted 20 minutes. the advice given was useful, but there wasn't much time. i paid for membership to the NAS, the money was taken from my account and that was the last i heard. i dont recieve emails, mailings etc so haven't bothered to renew it (not that i know when to since they don't give me any information...)

[Kathryn]

Officially a charity is supposed to rely upon voluntary donations and not get a penny from the government.

 

Where do you get this from? I work for a charity which gets quite a lot of money from the government - if they didn't they would not be able to pay my salary.

 

I have mixed feelings about the NAS. I turned to them as I suspect so many people do - when my daughter was diagnosed with AS - and I found their information pages a lifeline. I also found the Education advocacy service a tremendous help when I was negotiating the SEN system, so I will always be grateful to them. I think they are a valuable resource for anyone who is new to ASD. Their info pages are well written and their search facility for local organisations is excellent.

 

I'm still a member, and also a member of my local branch which recently joined the NAS. I'm not sure why I've kept up my membership really - it certainly doesn't benefit me personally. I find the magazine has less and less to interest me nowadays. rouble is, I think the NAS has to cater for too wide a range of needs and interests to be really effective. and they are relatively toothless as far as putting pressure on the government is concerned. Some time ago they conducted a huge campaign called "Make School Make Sense" - I'm not sure it was worth it - a lot of sound and fury at the time but what changed exactly? Children with ASD are still getting a pretty rough deal in school as far as I can see.

 

K x

 

 

 

 

[pearl]

Like K, I've found the info pages of the NAS very useful over the years. I wouldn't want a world without them, but I can't say I've had any real personal help from them.

 

I thought this might change when a local NAS group started in my area. I emailed them to ask how they were hoping to help adults on the spectrum & offered them help. They said it was high on their agenda & they would be in touch. 18 months on, I'm still waiting. I see their meetings advertised, it's all concentrated on children. It's like they can't see any further than that.

[Sally44]

I have had help from their education helpline and their parent to parent line. And have used their website for information many times. All very useful and supportive at the time.

Now, like alot of parents a few years further on, I probably know as much as the educational advisors - infact I did have to give info to the last one from the NAS - I think she was new!!

But having said that I feel i've definately got more out of them, than I've given.

 

I'd forgotton about the Make School Make Sense campaign. I remember at the time trying to find out what 'exactly' its aims were, and couldn't find anything.

[Tally]

The NAS Surrey Branch run coffee mornings. They sometimes invite people to speak about education issues and other things of interest to parents of ASD children. They also have an emailing list with some ASD adult members, but they are really over the top and quite scary. If your attitude is anything other than, "I'm disabled; other people have to do everything I say," they delete your posts. I hope they never start any kind of support group for adults in my area. If they did, I certainly would not like to be a member!

[baddad]

The NAS Surrey Branch run coffee mornings. They sometimes invite people to speak about education issues and other things of interest to parents of ASD children. They also have an emailing list with some ASD adult members, but they are really over the top and quite scary. If your attitude is anything other than, "I'm disabled; other people have to do everything I say," they delete your posts. I hope they never start any kind of support group for adults in my area. If they did, I certainly would not like to be a member!

 

I guess that would vary from group to group, and the people heading up those groups(?).

I've got to say, that sort of thing can happen with other local support groups too...

I for years took issue with the 'local' non NAS support group in my area, because it effectively grew out of a trust group run by and for parents of autistic children who were concerned about the care opportunities that would be available to their kids on reaching adulthood. With the best will in the world that group agenda underpinned everything else they did, yet if you spoke to the NAS about local support they always referred back to the 'trust' - the implication being it wasn't worthwhile to have two similar services running 'in competition'.

The situation has improved somewhat now, because the LA started attaching some conditions to the funding support they offered, but it was (is) noticeable that when the funding comes under threat it is always the wider community support that is threatened with closure. In the past few years the funding tab has been picked up by lottery grants etc and the ongoing wider community service always under threat, and I'm not sure at all whether that's a good thing, because it means the conditions the LA were attaching to their funding are no longer an issue on the trust's agenda, iyswim. It's also without a doubt a service that is heavily influenced by the opinions of the people representing it (they are, after all, the people many parents of newly diagnosed kids are referred to first) and while they claim to be impartial I do detect that they are a bit selective in what aspects of autism they choose to be impartial about. It's also somewhat personality led - the lobbyists working hardest to secure new funding for them feeling a personal attachment to the people they're seeking the funding for...

Not knocking the individuals concerned personally, of course, or the trust generally; but I do think there are inherent problems with this kind of set up.

 

I have no idea what the solution is, but I think there are flaws with both 'models', i.e. a national group trying to be all things to all people or a local group that may well have it's own agenda or perspectives(?) I think probably at a 'National' level a 'National' group is probably the most beneficial, but I also think they should be more active within (and keeping an eye on, perhaps) what goes on at local levels.

 

 

L&P

 

BD

[ScienceGeek]

The NAS where I live have been great, we have a coffee group, cinema group, several local pub groups and a discussion group all once a month in the bristol/bath area. I have an NAS support worker that comes 3hrs a week. They have been a lifeline especially the social groups, gaining social opportunities that I wouldn't have otherwise. That said I do have my disagreements with them nationally (latest being the Gary Mckinnon case that I don't think they should have been involved in )

[Canopus]

I have no idea what the solution is, but I think there are flaws with both 'models', i.e. a national group trying to be all things to all people or a local group that may well have it's own agenda or perspectives(?) I think probably at a 'National' level a 'National' group is probably the most beneficial, but I also think they should be more active within (and keeping an eye on, perhaps) what goes on at local levels.

 

I think you are missing the point here. It isn't a national vs local argument. It's the NAS vs several national groups, each having their own strengths. For example, one could focus primarily on children; another on adults; another on lobbying the government; another on providing self help and support to individuals; another on advising schools and colleges; and so on.

[Tally]

I think you are missing the point here. It isn't a national vs local argument. It's the NAS vs several national groups, each having their own strengths. For example, one could focus primarily on children; another on adults; another on lobbying the government; another on providing self help and support to individuals; another on advising schools and colleges; and so on.

Breaking things down by region makes more sense than this idea. One person may need to approach several different organisations in order to get the different types of support they were looking for, and there would be friction and a fear of stepping on someone else's toes. Do you know of any examples where this kind of system works?

[baddad]

I think you are missing the point here. It isn't a national vs local argument. It's the NAS vs several national groups, each having their own strengths. For example, one could focus primarily on children; another on adults; another on lobbying the government; another on providing self help and support to individuals; another on advising schools and colleges; and so on.

 

Not missing the point as such - just responding to the general shift of the thread where what seemd most important to most people was local support...

The problem with several national groups is that it lacks cohesion, and I don't see any reason why one national group should be any less effective at addressing all of those areas (through different 'departments') than lots of different groups that would all be fighting over finite resources. In fact, the problem could get much worse, because areas of 'need' to which the public were less sympathetic (i.e. individual support for adults on housing etc) would lose out to ones which aroused more sympathy (like children). Of course, that happens anyway, but at least the NAS are accountable across the board. In the other scenario, the most succesful lobbyists would be legitimised in taking the lion's share by saying 'well it's nothing to do with us' and 'well we're only responding to public demand'...

Believe me, i'm not arguing in favour of the NAS (as i said, I don't really have any solutions), but i think the advantages do outweigh the disadvantages. I think the best way of changing things is to work from the inside, for smaller groups to lobby the NAS who can then lobby for them, but the catch-22 with that, as i've highlighted above (or was it elsewhere on the forum?), is that in many ways autistic people are often more disabled in terms of either speaking for themselves or finding unbiased advocates to put their case for them. Sadly, current thinking, IMO, suggests that more and more autistic people will find themselves stymied by the prevailing opinions of what their carer's think they need than what they actually need, or what more 'militant' groups tell them they need.

 

L&P

 

BD

[ScienceGeek]

Personally I think that having so many smaller groups would be a bad thing. I mean I have trouble keeping up with 2 support organisations and social services as well as various parts of the NHS that handle my care. At least where ASD concerns I can turn to 1 place and not have to try to communicate with multiple places which would just cause a lot of confusion for me

[Canopus]

The problem with several national groups is that it lacks cohesion, and I don't see any reason why one national group should be any less effective at addressing all of those areas (through different 'departments') than lots of different groups that would all be fighting over finite resources. In fact, the problem could get much worse, because areas of 'need' to which the public were less sympathetic (i.e. individual support for adults on housing etc) would lose out to ones which aroused more sympathy (like children). Of course, that happens anyway, but at least the NAS are accountable across the board. In the other scenario, the most succesful lobbyists would be legitimised in taking the lion's share by saying 'well it's nothing to do with us' and 'well we're only responding to public demand'...

 

Something you have to take into account are conflicts of interest within the ASD community when it comes to what they want their service providers to provide. Examples include:

 

1. Lobbying the government vs providing self help and support for individuals.

 

2. Better support and services for SEN in mainstream schools vs home education with minimum involvement from the local authority.

 

3. Services for AS and HFA vs services for traditional or Kanner autism.

 

4. Access to the National Curriculum and GCSEs vs teaching useful life skills and studying subjects that are of interest or may be useful in the future that are not necessarily part of the National Curriculum.

 

[baddad]

Something you have to take into account are conflicts of interest within the ASD community when it comes to what they want their service providers to provide. Examples include:

 

1. Lobbying the government vs providing self help and support for individuals.

 

2. Better support and services for SEN in mainstream schools vs home education with minimum involvement from the local authority.

 

3. Services for AS and HFA vs services for traditional or Kanner autism.

 

4. Access to the National Curriculum and GCSEs vs teaching useful life skills and studying subjects that are of interest or may be useful in the future that are not necessarily part of the National Curriculum.

 

Honestly, Canopus, I do take that into account. I've highlighted myself how I think the 'dominant' opinions the NAS respond too are often those of parent's and carer's rather than the autistic community itself...

Having said that, I still think - for all the reasons I've highlighted - that a National society being lobbied by users effectively and lobbying on their behalf effectively offers a more coherent and powerful 'force' for change.

 

I think also that smaller groups working to their own agendas are potential breeding grounds for manipulation, as the heads of those groups coerce more impressionable members - on the priciples of solidarity (As Bush, St John and Creon said; 'Those who are not with us are against us') - into embracing ideologies 'for the common good' that actually have more to do with the individual good - ie the good of group leaders. I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but certainly this has been problematic in disability groups or civil rights groups in the past. I think (though it was a long time ago, so forgive me if I'm wrong) that this was one of the problems cited when funding was cut for the Manchester Coalition - a service that had provided some excellent resources etc for it's patrons over the years(?).

Believe me, i'm not suggesting in any way that the autistic community are 'sheep' who can be easily led - but the reality is that levels of functioning/understanding do vary enormously, and in any such dynamic the potential for exploitation is vastly expanded.

 

The answer for those smaller groups is to fight (lobby) from the inside and to influence the parents/carers/professionals who do seem to inform much of the NAS's agenda in that way; to 'play the game' themselves a little. If you look at other groups (like for instance Racial Equality, Sexual Equality, Animal Welfare etc) it's not the militants or radicals who affect change in the short term, but in the long their objectives can 'filter through'.

 

On the four points you raise I think opinion will vary enormously, and i think for many you have to remove the either/or of 'vs' and insert 'in combination with'.

My own opinions, for interest, are:

 

1: I don't believe that community support (or any sort of aid) should be directly funded from charity coffers. i think the more that happens the less social responsibility there is for us to take care of society's most needy. In the real world, I think charities have to spend money on direct support, but i think that should be directed through education and lobbying rather than offering individual awards, handouts and 'daily living' support. It's the old 'give a man a fish' principle...

 

2: Personally, I would never embrace a segregationist (and potentially disabling) policy of 'home education with mininum interference' but i would certainly not want to see 'square pegs pushed into round holes' for the sake of ideologically sound but flawed in practice inclusion policies. The complexities of this issue are huge, but effectively it's a three way argument about autonomy, cultural exemption and difference-blind liberalism, and that is complicated in disability generally (but autism specifically) by the fact that compromised understanding may mean many individuals are actually unequal to the task of 'seeing' the benefits or pitfalls of each option for themselves.

 

3: I think services need to be directed where they are most needed. At the moment I am concerned that shifts in what autism means have led to the further disenfranchisement of those more profoundly affected. I suspect huge numbers in the AS community would disagree with me on that. This is defintely an area that needs the 'vs' removed and something more holistic inserted!

 

4: Again, not an easy one, and it encompasses aspects of all of the above. Certainly I'm in favour of selective amendments to an individual's curriculum, especially regarding self help, but not at the expense of core skills that actually contribute to abilities in self management. I think the best situation is to 'adapt' the curriculum as far as possible to meet the individual needs - i.e. foreign language study should include international sign, Maths & English taught through 'maths and English friendly' domestic/social skills, domestic rather than industrial science etc etc.

 

Blimey - bit heavy for eleven o'clock in the morning! I'm off to do something stoopid for an hour and give my brain a chance to catch my bum up!

 

L&P

 

BD

[Tally]

Something you have to take into account are conflicts of interest within the ASD community when it comes to what they want their service providers to provide. Examples include:

 

1. Lobbying the government vs providing self help and support for individuals.

 

2. Better support and services for SEN in mainstream schools vs home education with minimum involvement from the local authority.

 

3. Services for AS and HFA vs services for traditional or Kanner autism.

 

4. Access to the National Curriculum and GCSEs vs teaching useful life skills and studying subjects that are of interest or may be useful in the future that are not necessarily part of the National Curriculum.

A smaller charity is likely to have even less finds to put into different projects. A large charity like the NAS is more likely to be able to do all these things than a small one.

[Canopus]

1: I don't believe that community support (or any sort of aid) should be directly funded from charity coffers. i think the more that happens the less social responsibility there is for us to take care of society's most needy. In the real world, I think charities have to spend money on direct support, but i think that should be directed through education and lobbying rather than offering individual awards, handouts and 'daily living' support. It's the old 'give a man a fish' principle...

 

There is the old saying that charity sees the need but not the cause. However, will government lobbying always be successful? Many organisations have been lobbying successive governments for decades (proportional representation in elections being a classic example) without an ounce of success. Governments generally don't act unless they see an advantage for themselves into taking action. This is why self help and direct action organisations (for various issues) continue to thrive worldwide.

 

2: Personally, I would never embrace a segregationist (and potentially disabling) policy of 'home education with mininum interference' but i would certainly not want to see 'square pegs pushed into round holes' for the sake of ideologically sound but flawed in practice inclusion policies. The complexities of this issue are huge, but effectively it's a three way argument about autonomy, cultural exemption and difference-blind liberalism, and that is complicated in disability generally (but autism specifically) by the fact that compromised understanding may mean many individuals are actually unequal to the task of 'seeing' the benefits or pitfalls of each option for themselves.

 

I used two extremities to illustrate a possible conflict of interest when in practice there are many shades of grey in between. I will make the point that the NAS is currently very much in favour of inclusion and improving support and services for SEN in mainstream schools. They tolerate home education but they see it more of a last resort rather than something that should be made more popular and widespread. The result of this is that some parents who choose to home educate find that the NAS has little to offer them. They usually end up deriving more support from the 'non ASD specific' home education community.

 

3: I think services need to be directed where they are most needed. At the moment I am concerned that shifts in what autism means have led to the further disenfranchisement of those more profoundly affected. I suspect huge numbers in the AS community would disagree with me on that. This is defintely an area that needs the 'vs' removed and something more holistic inserted!

 

Again, I used two extremities when in reality there are as many boxes as there are individuals with ASDs. Developments in the knowledge of ASDs over the past 20 or so years have redefined the scope and definition of ASD. The next part is how well have ASD support organisations responded to the developments? There have been concerns by both parents and adults with ASDs that the NAS provides much better support and services to people with LFA than people with HFA who have higher than average subject knowledge or academic ability.

 

4: Again, not an easy one, and it encompasses aspects of all of the above. Certainly I'm in favour of selective amendments to an individual's curriculum, especially regarding self help, but not at the expense of core skills that actually contribute to abilities in self management. I think the best situation is to 'adapt' the curriculum as far as possible to meet the individual needs - i.e. foreign language study should include international sign, Maths & English taught through 'maths and English friendly' domestic/social skills, domestic rather than industrial science etc etc.

 

It isn't actually possible to adapt the state school curriculum to meet the individual needs of students as they have to follow what the government and exam boards dictate. This is not really an ASD issue but a general education issue but it explains why there is considerable support for ASD specific schools that have the autonomy to tailor a curriculum to meet the needs and desires of students rather than providing a curriculum similar to that of the National Curriculum. A hypothetical example could be for a student who is ready for A Level maths at the age of 13, wants to take an English language GCSE as they have serious difficulty with Shakespeare and poetry, does not wish to take more than 4 GCSEs, has an interest in video production with the intentions of a career in this subject, and requires the teaching of certain life skills that are unavailable in mainstream schools.

 

 

 

[Mumble]

I don't think a big organisation is a problem. In fact, I see more problems with smaller local setups (though these also have their place alongside bigger ones). For instance, where I live, the local NAS group is only child focused as are the ones in all neighbouring boroughs. There are non that focus on adults or even mention adults until I get some way away from where I live. However, with the big, all-encompassing NAS, I can 'tap-in' to adult services and find out what is happening and where that I might not be able to access if limited to a local group.

 

Bigger charities have more power and whilst this could be construed in some incidences (i.e. who they are accountable to, who they represent) a problematic, on the whole it seems to be a positive and draws in much needed funds such as Government funding for research. It also brings together big groups (say n terms of research), something that would be impossible at a local level. It gives a platform for people to join together and to speak as one.

 

[Canopus]

My mum works for a registered charity which also receives donations from the UK government, the Isle of Man and also the EU. They do not even work in the EU. I don't think you can be right about the definition of a charity there.

 

I don't know who described the NSPCC as a fake charity or criticised the type of work they do, but one person's opinion does not necessarily make it the truth.

 

Where do you get this from? I work for a charity which gets quite a lot of money from the government - if they didn't they would not be able to pay my salary

 

I recommend you do a Google search about government funded charities. There's quite a lot out there and some of it makes alarming reading.

 

Bigger charities have more power and whilst this could be construed in some incidences (i.e. who they are accountable to, who they represent) a problematic

 

This raises the question of why a government should give money to a charity rather than spending it on providing services and support for the people the charity represents.

[Mumble]

This raises the question of why a government should give money to a charity rather than spending it on providing services and support for the people the charity represents.

Because the charity is surely better placed to direct the funds appropriately? The Governemnt will not know what services are required; this comes from (funded) research conducted by charities.

 

[Canopus]

Because the charity is surely better placed to direct the funds appropriately? The Governemnt will not know what services are required; this comes from (funded) research conducted by charities.

 

Governments are lobbied all the time by many people and organisations. They do know what the lobbying people want.

 

If your claim that the government does not know what services are required is as strong as you believe it to be, then it means that hospitals, schools, and the armed forces should all become charities.

[Tally]

Canopus, first you said:

Officially a charity is supposed to rely upon voluntary donations and not get a penny from the government.

And now you are telling me to google the government funded charities which you just said officially aren't supposed to exist

 

Governments may pay charities to provide services in order to fulfil their obligations to provide services, and because the charities happen to be good service providers. The NAS, for example, run some schools, and it is the government who pays the children's fees. The government has an obligation to pay for a child's education. Why does it matter who they are paying to provide this education?

[Tally]

If your claim that the government does not know what services are required is as strong as you believe it to be, then it means that hospitals, schools, and the armed forces should all become charities.

Most schools already are registered charities. Hospitals often ask for donations for equipment. There are several charities who work with the armed forces.

[Mumble]

Governments are lobbied all the time by many people and organisations. They do know what the lobbying people want.

But they do not know what the non-lobbying or less powerful want. This is where charities come in; they give a voice to those who, for whatever reason, do not have the same strength of voice themselves.

 

If your claim that the government does not know what services are required is as strong as you believe it to be, then it means that hospitals, schools, and the armed forces should all become charities.

To take the hospital example, Governments give money to hospitals, hospitals provide a plethora of services and it is the Chief Executives and others who decide where the funding goes and how it is split between the services offered. It is why we end up with the situation where some health authorities pay for a treatment that others do not. The NAS for instance does something similar. It takes the Government funding and decides how to share this out between the different services. In the same way that the Government wouldn't be aware of all the different treatments and therapies offered by hospitals, they wouldn't be aware of all the services and provisions run by or overseen by the NAS.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

just popping in to ask - how do i find out what my local NAS does... and if i have one? i mean support groups etc?

also for those who already attend them, what is the make-up in terms of male-female?

[Mumble]

just popping in to ask - how do i find out what my local NAS does... and if i have one? i mean support groups etc?

also for those who already attend them, what is the make-up in terms of male-female?

 

South East Regional Team

 

Autism Services Directory - South East - and click on your region and the type of services you want within the South East.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

thanks!

[Canopus]

Most schools already are registered charities.

 

Which ones exactly?

 

Hospitals often ask for donations for equipment.

 

But they are still public sector institutions.

 

There are several charities who work with the armed forces.

 

But they are not the armed forces.

[Canopus]

To take the hospital example, Governments give money to hospitals, hospitals provide a plethora of services and it is the Chief Executives and others who decide where the funding goes and how it is split between the services offered. It is why we end up with the situation where some health authorities pay for a treatment that others do not. The NAS for instance does something similar. It takes the Government funding and decides how to share this out between the different services. In the same way that the Government wouldn't be aware of all the different treatments and therapies offered by hospitals, they wouldn't be aware of all the services and provisions run by or overseen by the NAS.

 

In that case, explain:

 

1. Why are NHS hospitals not charities?

 

2. Why is the NAS not a public sector institution?

[Tally]

All of the schools I attended were registered charities. I remember finding it amusing, but apparently it is normal for a school to be a registered charity. There has been an issue recently about whether independent school should qualify as registered charities, but I don't remember what the conclusion of that was in the end.

[Canopus]

All of the schools I attended were registered charities. I remember finding it amusing, but apparently it is normal for a school to be a registered charity. There has been an issue recently about whether independent school should qualify as registered charities, but I don't remember what the conclusion of that was in the end.

 

Were they religious schools or foundation schools? These are often registered as charities. Bog standard state schools owned by the local authority (and that's most secular schools) are not registered as charities.