Ideas for funding

When I showed Vountary Action Sheffield the aims listed in Carbon Rationing Action Groups – A Short Guide their expert advised that :

(1) Where some members benefit financially from a CRAG (i.e. receive a payment at settlement as a result of emitting less than target), that group could not be considered a “not for profit”

(2) The Charity Commission are unlikely to recognise them as suitable aims for a charity (e.g. a charity must be capable of benefiting the public at large) although he did say that it would be worth checking the current guidelines as they may have changed recently.

He advised that possible funding sources are substantially reduced if an organisation isn’t either a charity or “not for profit”.

Solutions

(1) Government advice on communicating climate change is helpful. Under Make Climate Change A Local Issue “Research suggests that most people in the UK think climate change is a global issue, not a local one. We need to show people how climate change will affect them at home – and what they need to change to tackle the problem”. By donating fines to a local charity associated with the negative impacts of climate change (e.g.flood relief funds), we could overcome the barrier to “not for profit” status and at the same time build the association in peoples minds that the government recommends.

(2) Look for the Charity Commission guidelines at http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Tom, I totally agree on the constitution and starter pack ideas (a video and kill-a-watt would both be very good). Look forward to hearing what you find out. If you haven’t discussed them in Islington already, forward your outreach ideas to Jessica. Guy, Rick and Jamie for the BGC application – they don’t have to be totally concrete, just what we envisage doing.

I wonder if we can get an estimate of the cost of complying with all the necessary legislation you mention ie. the costs of gaining formal status and further funding.

Rick, interesting feedback. Could not the carbon reduction and outreach activities themselves be seen as “benefiting the public at large”? I’m sure it could be argued, but would they accept it?

It seems that an entirely redistributive group could be “not for profit”, whilst a group donating fines to a local charity could have charitable status (but not if it donated to an offset scheme?). But we don’t want to apply for each individual group, so – what status could a network or association of groups, each doing one or other of these things, achieve? That is, would the network have to restrict the choices of its member groups in order to be formally recognised, or can it be an amalgam?

My understanding from my conversation with Voluntary Action Sheffield is that any group where some members receive payments could not be regarded as “Not for Profit” and a group that does not gain “Not for Profit” status has fewer sources of potential funding available to it. I understand Guy will seek a second opinion today and I welcome this.

I can see scope for 4 types of CRAG. I think the last 3 would qualify as “Not for Profit” and be capable of both attracting more funding and a wider membership. The first could attract people from the first 3 who have developed the necessary commitment & trust to “migrate”. Although carbon reduction and outreach elements are a feature of all 4, the fact that individual members can benefit financially from payments from high emitters in the first type is the key determining factor as I understand it.

(1) “Traditional”
A CRAG where any carbon fund is distributed to those members who emit less than the CO2 target. This would have limited possible funding sources but might appeal to some e.g. motivated by the idea of personal carbon trading which rewards those who reduce their footprints below target &/or motivated to cut their fuel bills.Verification of emissions and/or a higher level of trust are required.

(2) “Cash penalties to local climate change / environmental good causes”
A CRAG where the carbon fund is distributed to local climate change linked good causes & green projects, which could attract greater support from funding bodies and endorsement from public figures people admire / respect. Might get wider coverage, appeal to more altrustic motives and require a lower level of verification & trust useful amongst a new group.

(3) “External incentive payments to local climate change / environmental good causes”
A CRAG where funding bodies reward members who emit less than the agreed target by paying into the carbon fund which is then used to support a local climate change related good cause or environmental project. Same advantages as (2) but possibly more attractive to, for example, tenants on a low income in poorly insulated housing.

(4) “Virtual Money educational”
A CRAG which is uses “virtual money” and where no-one gets a direct financial benefit. This could still attract funding as an educational project designed to stimulate thinking & discussion about the surrounding issues. Any school governors out there with a view on this ?

Guy S

website team CRAGger Islington

Hi all, I phoned up the Big Green Challenge people yesterday and they said there’s no problems with having not-for-profit status and doing trading with money. Not-for-profit means that the organisation itself doesn’t profit — CRAGs don’t profit, it’s just the individuals. Nor are we advocating spending any funding directly on giving it to people as reward money — that just wouldn’t work! It’d probably destroy trust in groups because people would see they could gain something for nothing. No, we’d only want funding for wider structural administration.

I’ve just been sent the following that may be of interest:

“Do you know of any COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LEARNING groups? Maybe you belong to one yourself?

CDL is any activity where people get together to share skills, experience or knowledge – in other words, informal education. For example:

A group of people interested in Environmental issues
A group of people from Ghana, who meet to laugh and cry together and to write their stories
A group of Disabled people who meet to have fun and share knowledge
A group of asylum seekers or travellers who gather to learn about the law and their rights

If you know about groups like these: CONTACT THE FED (federation for community development learning). We could help:
spread the word about your fantastic group
share good practice with other groups like yours
Provide helpful materials & support to assist in the running and development of your group
Open the door to new opportunities to gain qualifications

CONTACT THE FED Annette@fcdl.org.uk WE WOULD LOVE TO RING/EMAIL/VISIT YOU AND HEAR MORE ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY GROUP. www.fcdl.org.uk “

I don’t know how appropriate others may think this is – helpful materials and support to assist in the running and development of CRAGs plus spreading the word about CRAGs sounds pretty good to me – but I really don’t want to be at cross purposes with the BGC bid.

Perhaps we could think about this once the bid is in? with them being a possible source of the group facilitation resources we need if we’re successful?

See also their website:

http://www.fcdl.org.uk/index.htm

and their defra funded “Every Action Count” community engagement project that is providing resources for groups to engage with sustainability issues:

http://www.fcdl.org.uk/projects/defra/index.htm

In the meantime, I think we should let them know about CRAGs existence. Please let me know if you disagree.

Bw

Anna

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Good find, Anna – I was wondering about the facilitation / community group training. Also, it’s free! Yes, why not get in touch with them: the more interlinking and outreach the better.

Does anyone know of other facilitation training courses? (I might email Matt at COIN actually, as he’s likely to know).

I think these ideas are really excellent, David. In order to mainstream the issues of carbon reduction and carbon rationing, CRAGs need members who can make links with their local communities, both the environmental AND non-environmental networks, and who are informed and prepared to talk about the issues, as well as show people the practical things that will help them reduce their emissions. Social proof theorem = people do what they actually see other people doing = local people doing stuff is persuasive – particularly given that CC is still a controversial issue for which people need “safe places and safe people” where CC action can be taken.

imho I can’t really see how one “outreach” worker based a long way away from most CRAGs is going to be very effective use of funds …

From my experience I think the key issues are: group facilitation and how to encourage members, with climate change training focusing on the need to frame the message depending on who you’re talking to, a close third. Gadgetry also excellent – but I think we should get more gadgets for less money so that more people can do something and feel empowered early on than something very swish that only one person at a time can use.

I think Tom & Davids suggestions are an excellent idea too and think that they would be a better use of money than an outreach worker.

On the subject of documentation, I was walking in the Peak District with my walking club on Sunday and talked to 3 people but had no leaflet or even card with an e-mail address to give those that were interested. Leaflets / cards that are easily carried would also be useful to leave in cafes and on noticeboards aswell as to hand to people on an ad hoc basis.

BTW Voluntary Action Sheffield have supplied me with a template constitution for a small group and I’ve noticed Leeds “Common as Muck Constitution” on their group space.

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

If you look in the files section, there are CRAG cards ready to print (I can dig out the editable version if you want to make some alterations), and small flags, and you can get t-shirts too! These all really need to be set out on a resources page, since they’re clearly not obvious.

I am re-considering my view on outreach workers. Chris K has suggested they could be regional and save on travel. It is surprising that some major urban areas (Mnachester, Liverpool & Edinburgh for example) have no CRAGS and Greater London & the Home Counties have so few given their population (3 active – Islington, Surrey Green Party & Wokingham, 6 in Start Up – Camden, East Kent, EcoTec London, Peckham, Tower Hamlets & West Essex).

I was out with a local group this morning who look after a green space and got talking to the Parks ranger who was supervising. He told me there were over 90 such groups in Sheffield (population 530,000, carbon footprint 5.8m tonnes). It occurred to me that local environmental groups were an obvious target audience for CRAGS. But getting around 90 groups, getting carbon saving figures from them and encouraging & supporting them sounds like a real job.
( I have already offered to give this group a talk. I have pointed out to their fund raiser the possibility of raising funds as a by-product of a CRAG. )

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Regional outreach workers are certainly possible, but we’d need to hammer out on what basis they’d be employed: half-time, quarter-time, freelance? I suppose it all depends on the amount of funding we have available.

Another option would be to have a Network Co-ordinator, employed a couple of days a week, who would handle admin, liaise with CRAGs and the media, respond to enquiries, help new CRAGs get set up etc. That would help with a lot of network business where we’re quite stretched at the moment.

Jessica

website team CRAGger Islington

I agree that our priority use for a paid staffer would be a Network coordinator, to deal with general CRAG business, such as all the things we need to do to get the network, website, resources, media liaison, etc, more organised and efficient.

I envisage such a person making everything work more smoothly and so facilitating improvements for existing CRAGs and helping new CRAGs set up. I don’t see us employing someone ‘from the outside’ at this point. First, we couldn’t afford a full or even half-time person, even paying a very low wage, and secondly, there are people within the CRAG network now who don’t have formal Mon-Fri 9-5 jobs who could probably commit to undertaking various tasks on a very part-time basis if they were compensated for their time and had money to spend on material resources.

Jessica R

John Cossham

CRAGger York

I approve of the CRAG movement having a paid co-ordinator, it should help us expand, grow and be more effective in what we want to do. However, a paid co-ordinator would usually have to have an employer, someone to answer to. Who would this be?
I’m thinking of a group I started, York Rotters, which got going as a voluntary group based at the local environment centre, with a committee of me, the (paid) centre manager and one of the centre’s volunteer directors. Then we found out about a possible funding stream and the paid manager was asked to spend some time putting an application together for a p/t worker to manage YR. We then got the money from DEFRA, consisting of a year’s worth of salary plus ‘on costs’ ie advertising for a worker (not a cheap thing to do!) and various other costs connected with employing someone, including pension, insurance, office materials, budget for publications and publicity etc etc. We had already got a job advert together before getting the money, plus a timescale for shortlisting and interviewing, so when we found out we’d got it, we could start the process immediately and get someone in post within a couple of months.
When this year’s funding was coming to an end, we asked City of York Council if they’d fund the project worker and they said yes, so we then took on another committee member, one of the waste minimisation officers. This arrangement continues to this day, with a management group, employee, premises to work from and a successful project, measuring it’s successes, recording the work done, answering composting queries on the phone and internet, running training and getting volunteer Rotters out to events, schools, etc to promote home composting.

I’d like to think that a UK CRAG paid coordinator would do something similar for our movement, and therefore they would need a good management structure. Hope this info is helpful and not too late.
John

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

That’s a good example of funded set-up for a Co-ordinator, thanks! I’d imagine that there’d have to be some form of committee or steering group, with representation from local groups, who the Co-ordinator would answer to. This where the funding interlinks with the Constitution, and with Charitable status, and all need to fit together and be consistent with the aims and current ethos of CRAGs.

Can we avoid the staff overheads you mention if we follow Jessica’s idea of employing several people on a freelance basis (ie. they would effectively be self-employed and responsible for their own pension, tax etc.)?

Also, I’d imagine that some of these decisions may be set down by the funding body eg. that there be a full, advertised selection process etc. We’d need to find out what those conditions are – but I’m not sure if it would be appropriate to ask Nesta at this stage?

John Cossham

CRAGger York

I cannot answer all these questions, except that a person’s tax affairs are their own responsibility. I think our Rotters coordinator pays tax out of her income from us. We employers are not responsible for her tax, just paying her and doing the extra costs.
When I do some work for someone I am always ‘self employed’ and am responsible for all my own affairs financially, and it is a much easier situation management-wise, but the employer has far less control over me! If I miss a gig or don’t submit a column, I don’t get paid!
More than that I don’t know. I think there’s definitely a benefit in forming a committee structure and employing the person.