New research on charity trustees shows things aren't changing much. But does the model itself prevent change? Plus, Labour's crossroads: how can they combat Farage's insurgency of incompetents?
I wonder, Alex, if we could align your thinking here with the “Nice Guys of Philanthropy” that I wrote about a couple of months ago. Did you see that piece?
No, I haven’t seen that one yet. I’ll put it on the list! Was just revisiting your post on direct mail and thinking how much it applies to other things I’m interested in, like the use of charitable ‘volunteering’ in the place of organising, activism, or community development. Like you, I think the systems and shapes we create have an ideology all of their own, whatever purpose they’re put to.
Yes. Yes. Yes. On trustees. As one myself, nudging 50 this year, I am the second youngest and one of three women out of ten trustees and all are white. It’s a homelessness charity - I don’t have to go into the groups that are overrepresented in the homeless population that don’t appear in that board and for whom that board has not the slightest inkling that this might be to the detriment of everyone they give up their time to serve. I’m picking my battles with the dysfunction. Just not sure which one yet.
I feel your pain. The problem is that the trustee cheerleaders are ALL from charities where the size is huge. And their trustees are all high ‘calibre’ - and then they never even want to talk about class and worldview as anything other than ‘EDI’. It’s classic ‘my board is excellent so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the model - and if yours isn’t, the problem is YOU.’ Which also diverts attention from the structural issues.
Agreed. All that said, I’ve literally just facilitated a workshop with a small (federated) charity board and whilst totally disfunctional, they are acknowledging this and having the difficult conversations.
I wonder, Alex, if we could align your thinking here with the “Nice Guys of Philanthropy” that I wrote about a couple of months ago. Did you see that piece?
The whole series is Foucauldian which was painful for some fundraisers.
No, I haven’t seen that one yet. I’ll put it on the list! Was just revisiting your post on direct mail and thinking how much it applies to other things I’m interested in, like the use of charitable ‘volunteering’ in the place of organising, activism, or community development. Like you, I think the systems and shapes we create have an ideology all of their own, whatever purpose they’re put to.
Yes. Yes. Yes. On trustees. As one myself, nudging 50 this year, I am the second youngest and one of three women out of ten trustees and all are white. It’s a homelessness charity - I don’t have to go into the groups that are overrepresented in the homeless population that don’t appear in that board and for whom that board has not the slightest inkling that this might be to the detriment of everyone they give up their time to serve. I’m picking my battles with the dysfunction. Just not sure which one yet.
I feel your pain. The problem is that the trustee cheerleaders are ALL from charities where the size is huge. And their trustees are all high ‘calibre’ - and then they never even want to talk about class and worldview as anything other than ‘EDI’. It’s classic ‘my board is excellent so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the model - and if yours isn’t, the problem is YOU.’ Which also diverts attention from the structural issues.
Agreed. All that said, I’ve literally just facilitated a workshop with a small (federated) charity board and whilst totally disfunctional, they are acknowledging this and having the difficult conversations.