The dominance of the NAS

[baddad]

I'm a bit confused by the turn this topic has taken, 'cos i thought it was sort of to gauge how people felt about the NAS as opposed to lots of smaller charities? The general consensus seems to be that one big charity is flawed but probably less flawed/better than lots of littlun's(?)

Asking people to define wheres and whyfors of what a charity 'is' or who's entititled to charity status/who isn't seems wayyyy off topic?

Most schools/hospitals etc use donations to swell coffers because government funding doesn't run to everything. Whether that additional funding comes from selling raffle tickets at the school fete or through a charitable 'trust' set up by (maybe) the PTA or school governers whatever seems irrelevant to me - it's all 'charity' and it's been going on for years. I can remember wayyyy back when I was playing truant from my secondary school and they were collecting money for a swimming pool. No Lottery grants then etc, but nobody expected the Govt or LA to foot the entire bill...

Jimmy Savlon used to run the London Marathon every year to raise money for Great Osmand Street Orbital, and my local hospital raised money through their fete to buy some new nurses or something (might have been a Kiddly Dianaseed machine come to think of it) but nobody lost any sleep over it.

Charities may also provide services - there's a charidee in my area that offers accommodation to overseas gap students in exchange for voluntary care work and a 'tick' on their (equiv to) Duke of Edingburgh Award - and those services are 'purchased' by local and national authorities via funding and/or additional payments. I've gotta say, i'm not entirely comfortable with scenarios like the last one because the LA's whatever often provide such a big chunk of the funding that they get 'first dibs' on the service - but that's the way the world works. It's been that way forever but even moreso since good ol' Mrs Thatch pushed privatisation to the max, but swapping bigger charidies for lottsa littlun's wouldn't change it one iota, and anyone naive enough to think it would is being very, erm, niave!

 

L&P

 

BD

[Canopus]

I'm a bit confused by the turn this topic has taken, 'cos i thought it was sort of to gauge how people felt about the NAS as opposed to lots of smaller charities? The general consensus seems to be that one big charity is flawed but probably less flawed/better than lots of littlun's(?)

 

I don't think the sample space is sufficiently large enough to draw any conclusions yet.

 

Asking people to define wheres and whyfors of what a charity 'is' or who's entititled to charity status/who isn't seems wayyyy off topic?

 

Charities are free to decline donations from whoever they want. If a charity accepts money from the government then it will almost certainly come with strings attached. I know of a local AS charity that has refused money from the government because they did not agree to various terms and conditions.

[Tally]

I don't think the sample space is sufficiently large enough to draw any conclusions yet.

Do you mean that no one has agreed with you yet?

[NobbyNobbs]

the primary school i help in in a non-religous standard school and is a registered charity... you can keep arguing demanding more evidence but the fact is majority of schools ARE charities. a lot of things are charities now because it gives them different tax rights and the ability to claim gift aid etc

[Canopus]

Do you mean that no one has agreed with you yet?

 

No. It's statistics speak for not enough people have commented yet. I think that once around 50 people - certainly 100 people - have commented then it would be possible to come to a conclusion.

[baddad]

Charities are free to decline donations from whoever they want. If a charity accepts money from the government then it will almost certainly come with strings attached. I know of a local AS charity that has refused money from the government because they did not agree to various terms and conditions.

 

Absolutely their prerogative - and in my own post I highlighted my concerns about LA funding and the LA getting 'first dibs' on services - but...

In an earlier post I also highlighted how a local autism charity lost the support of the local authority and now funds itself through lottery grants etc, but I agreed, totally, with the local authorities decision and still do! The charity was a trust set up by parents for their children. As a condition of the LA funding they were expected to offer a guidance service for the wider community, but this was, at best, always an 'ad hoc' service and the majority of the funding always went back into the housing project which supported the children of the people running the trust! Not all 'strings attached' pull charities in the wrong direction. Not all charities want to take a wider view than their own view. DAN is a charity, isn't it? How much do they want to do for 'you'?

I don't have quite the same issues with that local charity any more, but still do wonder how much of the lottery funding etc they get goes straight to the 'outreach' service and how much to the trust itself(?) And as I commented earlier, it is always noticable that when the funding is under threat it is the outreach service that's threatened with closure, and a scrabble then ensues in the wider community to lobby on their behalf... you see the flaw in that? Sadly, many other people miss it too...

 

L&P

 

BD

[Canopus]

Absolutely their prerogative - and in my own post I highlighted my concerns about LA funding and the LA getting 'first dibs' on services - but...

 

There is also the issue whether the government funding of the NAS means that it acts in the interest of the goverment before that of the people it represents. If it decides to stand up for the people it represents whilst violating the terms and conditions attached to government grants then the NAS will be biting the hand that feeds it. The NAS is not the only government funded ASD charity, so even if there were 5 or 6 medium sized ASD support organisations instead of the NAS then theoretically they could all be subject to government funding and control.

 

And as I commented earlier, it is always noticable that when the funding is under threat it is the outreach service that's threatened with closure, and a scrabble then ensues in the wider community to lobby on their behalf... you see the flaw in that? Sadly, many other people miss it too...

 

I see the flaw in that.

[baddad]

There is also the issue whether the government funding of the NAS means that it acts in the interest of the goverment before that of the people it represents. If it decides to stand up for the people it represents whilst violating the terms and conditions attached to government grants then the NAS will be biting the hand that feeds it. The NAS is not the only government funded ASD charity, so even if there were 5 or 6 medium sized ASD support organisations instead of the NAS then theoretically they could all be subject to government funding and control.

 

I don't think it's that straightforward. It's not just the government 'handing over' money but often a case of services/technical expertise being on hand/on hire etc and general expectations of all political parties and MP's etc - i.e. if one government held a particular charity over a barrel another party would soon expose and make mileage from it. That's why the NAS lobby people to lobby their local MP's - regardless of which party they might be allied to - because the weight of public opinion at local level feeds directly back into the halls of power. You'd lose that if the local charities didn't have the same profile or general 'appeal' of the NAS - perhaps even have people not lobbying for very sensible concessions purely because the people asking them were people they disagreed with on other issue. Nose cutting and face spiting is pointless and childish, but it does happen regardless! The reasons the NAS try to please everyone is for exactly that reason - to keep their profile 'appealing' to the biggest possible numbers - rather than to bow to political 'pressure' (all though, of course, that's part of playing the game too).

But that whole government/charidee thing is not far different from the conflict political parties have with their sponsors, and the latter is far more dangerous, IMO, than the former. If you look at multinational industries the biggies all fall into categories that potentially conflict with the interests of the people politicians represent. With autism there are often very direct links (Food industry - additives/agrichemicals etc/ Pharmacutical industry - chemicals/medication/vaccines etc/ Manufacturing - environmental pollution......). We can't change that, but certainly if i had to put my hand up and say who I trust least - A front bench politician or a 'Spokesman' for (i.e) a babyfoods manufacturer who potentially killed millions of infants by selling products they were no longer allowed to market in the west to third world governments I'd find it a tough decision...

And the biggest'weak link' in the chain - as far as the NAS is concerned? The professionals (doctors etc) whose patronage they depend on for their information. That's where the biggest threats regarding funding lie - whether it be direct funding from government itself or from tie-ins with those Manufacturing giants forced to fund 'independent research' ( There's an oxymoron if ever I heard one!) to prove the safety/reliability/stability whatever of their products...

Sorry - wandered from the point a bit (but not entirely - they all interlink) but again a good reason for why one biggish charity walking the middle ground might actually be a 'safer' bet than lots of little independents.

 

L&P

 

BD