Very Small Good Causes

[Lat-Literal]

But that's a stage that has to be gone through before potential volunteers are ready and able to do what could be useful.

Admirable as it may be to take on the role of enabler, who do you envisage doing this?

Is it something you are already involved in yourself and if not, why not?

Being useful, jean, is helpful. Clearly in the example I mentioned of a bunch of Civil Servants going to a school, it was deemed that they/we weren't useful. But while I take the point, slightly, I come at this from the other angle. If I were organising a voluntary group and there was a willing someone who was, frankly, pretty hopeless but harmless, I'd say yes, how kind and thank you. 100% performance is my ideal target for paid workers. 0.5% performance in voluntary work is better than nothing. This is where charities have gone badly wrong.

[Beef Oven!]

<< It's not hard. >>

Bitter experience tells me that is simply not true - I wish it WERE true, but it just ain't.

That's your experience.

[jean]

There will be other volunteers who will have the skill set and qualifications to act as coaches/trainers. It's not hard.

No, I do other things.

It is very easy to designate as not hard the things one chooses not to do oneself - and to diss other people's experience, too.

In fact I do know several remarkable people who have become involved in, and even initiated, community projects in a way I could only dream of.

But these projects were not were not academic in nature, not even at the level of basic literacy we've been talking about.

[oddoneout]

That is with all the so-called safeguarding and the situation has hardly improved.

That has more to do with lack of resources to deal with problems than a failing of safeguarding in itself - which incidentally is about more than historical sex abuse. Those working with children for instance will be expected to know about, and to know what to do about, signs of neglect etc. The extent to which their concerns are acted on will depend on the capacity of other agencies, such as police and social services.
Inevitably things don't work as intended, and mistakes are made, but from my experience as a school governor I would say better to have a less than ideal framework than none at all.

[Lat-Literal]

That has more to do with lack of resources to deal with problems than a failing of safeguarding in itself - which incidentally is about more than historical sex abuse. Those working with children for instance will be expected to know about, and to know what to do about, signs of neglect etc. The extent to which their concerns are acted on will depend on the capacity of other agencies, such as police and social services.
Inevitably things don't work as intended, and mistakes are made, but from my experience as a school governor I would say better to have a less than ideal framework than none at all.

I know it is about more than historic sex abuse. That was why I mentioned violent crime and white collar crime. There are other examples of crime I could have included. 1 in 4 adult men have a criminal conviction. I am not sure what the equivalent figure is for women. Possibly 1 in 10 or even 1 in 25. That is quite a lot of people who the voluntary sector is ruling out. Most crime is not abuse. Most abuse is not sexual. Most sexual abuse does not involve children. If recent news about international aid agencies is anything to go by, most sexual abusers in the field of employment have never received a conviction, let alone failed to be employed in extremely well paid work. It is an imprecise science where someone who has received a couple of speeding fines probably couldn't get voluntary work driving a minibus but the husband of an MP could do so on the grounds that he's never been before a court.

There is no point criticising certain international agencies here. They are a political football. Those who donate are partially driven by what it says about them politically to donate. That is, just as youths will sign up to some sudden celebrity charity initiative because everyone like them is doing it on that particular day and it is a badge that they feel they want to wear. It is also quite clear to me that the biggest problems are only partially in and about that sector. The scope for travel in international aid and development means that it will experience similar issues with staff as the armed forces and global businesses for it is also there where many staff travel. But, no, the real problem concerns size. Abuses generally occur in cities where there is just as much anonymity as when being abroad rather than in small villages where everyone knows everybody else. The problem for all international charities, whether or not involved in international aid and development, is that they are the size of cities and in some cases the size of countries. I still think at the hamlet level - that would probably include schools - that the processes do much more harm than they do good, acting as a deterrent and often not achieving the safeguarding that is an objective. The other's about avoiding fines.

Anyhow, my thread was about financing those "hamlets".

I now recall this which is probably a good place to start:

https://do-it.org/

[oddoneout]

Being useful, jean, is helpful. Clearly in the example I mentioned of a bunch of Civil Servants going to a school, it was deemed that they/we weren't useful. But while I take the point, slightly, I come at this from the other angle. If I were organising a voluntary group and there was a willing someone who was, frankly, pretty hopeless but harmless, I'd say yes, how kind and thank you. 100% performance is my ideal target for paid workers. 0.5% performance in voluntary work is better than nothing. This is where charities have gone badly wrong.

One of the difficulties with voluntary activity is getting the balance between welcoming all comers and getting the task done effectively with limited resources. Someone who is willing but hopeless is OK so long as the hopeless doesn't necessitate constant supervision and input from other volunteers or paid workers, because in that situation an extra body means less actually done(and the risk of problems with others). The garden team I volunteer with at a local historical visitor attraction was desperate for members a couple of years ago and this was picked up by various bodies jumping on the horticultural therapy bandwagon( ignoring the information about what the team did and was looking for) who thought we would welcome their clients. It was next to impossible sometimes to get across to them that we needed people who had sufficient ability(physical and mental) and basic knowledge to get on and garden with minimal or no supervision, and that what these 'clients' needed was completely outside our remit and capabilities.

[eighthobstruction]

It is very easy to designate as not hard the things one chooses not to do oneself - and to diss other people's experience, too.

In fact I do know several remarkable people who have become involved in, and even initiated, community projects in a way I could only dream of.

But these projects were not were not academic in nature, not even at the level of basic literacy we've been talking about.

....I welcome these small scale attempts ref literacy....15 years ago I volunteered to help with literacy in Huddersfield....I was made to do a 3 term BTec Literacy (or something similarl) via the local College....and while it was a good course with monitored sessions with clients, it was no great shakes, 95% coming from my pot of experience. Unfortunately due to changes of address and locale + the College Admin completely cocking up things I never got the qualification. The point I make is similar to Draco ref "safe guarding"....With a DBS check I could easily have just got stuck in....

[oddoneout]

Abuses generally occur in cities where there is just as much anonymity as when being abroad rather than in small villages where everyone knows everybody else.

Everyone knowing everyone else is just as much a safety blanket for wrong-doers as urban area anonymity, but for opposite reasons. In the small village everyone will know or find out who told and the fallout can be awful, in the big city nobody would know but then nobody cares in the first place.

[Lat-Literal]

One of the difficulties with voluntary activity is getting the balance between welcoming all comers and getting the task done effectively with limited resources. Someone who is willing but hopeless is OK so long as the hopeless doesn't necessitate constant supervision and input from other volunteers or paid workers, because in that situation an extra body means less actually done(and the risk of problems with others). The garden team I volunteer with at a local historical visitor attraction was desperate for members a couple of years ago and this was picked up by various bodies jumping on the horticultural therapy bandwagon( ignoring the information about what the team did and was looking for) who thought we would welcome their clients. It was next to impossible sometimes to get across to them that we needed people who had sufficient ability(physical and mental) and basic knowledge to get on and garden with minimal or no supervision, and that what these 'clients' needed was completely outside our remit and capabilities.

This is one area, oddoneout, where we will have to agree to disagree. I would provide chairs and have them sitting there learning through observing all day if they wished, other than spending ten minutes or so moving plant pots from A to B. That's until they were ready for other things. Also, I wouldn't put them through umpteen checks on the grounds that a child might walk into the grounds on a rare occasion. That sort of approach is just one step away from getting people to fill in six page forms to be permitted into supermarkets or on streets.

As I indicated earlier, my outlook is so different - and no doubt weirdly old fashioned in the zeitgeist - that it is nothing less now than revolutionary.

[gradus]

There are always going to be some children who struggle with reading and writing. Why do you suppose volunteers would be better able to sort this than teachers?

But the real objection to schools relying on armies of volunteers is that the schools that need them most will be in areas where the supply of well-meaning middle-class people with time on their hands is lowest.

Nobody has mentioned recruiting armies of volunteers. A volunteer dedicated to improving literacy and numeracy can provide extra teaching free of the many other demands on regular teachers' time. What's wrong with middle class volunteers teaching in working class primaries in any case?

[vinteuil]

As I indicated earlier, my outlook is so different - and no doubt weirdly old fashioned in the zeitgeist - that it is nothing less now than revolutionary.

... yes, here as elsewhere the Lat-Lit prescription has more than a little of the John Ruskin / William Morris about it.



.

[Beef Oven!]

It is very easy to designate as not hard the things one chooses not to do oneself - and to diss other people's experience, too.

Ive done plenty of things like this and I don't think it's hard. I didn't "diss" anyone's experience. I pointed out that experiences will differ and can't be presented as 'truths'.

[greenilex]

What is terewth?

(Dickens, if I remember rightly...)

[Lat-Literal]

... yes, here as elsewhere the Lat-Lit prescription has more than a little of the John Ruskin / William Morris about it.



.

That is a compliment, surely?

On the surface, I like its positioning.

Everyone knowing everyone else is just as much a safety blanket for wrong-doers as urban area anonymity, but for opposite reasons. In the small village everyone will know or find out who told and the fallout can be awful, in the big city nobody would know but then nobody cares in the first place.

The reason why you know that "in the small village everyone will know or find out who told and the fallout can be awful" is that you know small villages gossip. They always have done. That hasn't always been a great thing for decent people in the village who don't conform with village ways but it's not a bad alternative to routinely interrogating everyone so as to identify one bad apple every hundred years. Obviously it's different with big areas. When the London Mayor knows everyone in London, perhaps he can move on to heading up Oxfam.