Talk:2013 Activity Plan/Ideas: Difference between revisions
(→Sex-ed improvement project: new section) |
(moving comments to specific sections of the main discussion) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Good idea. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | :Good idea. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Ideas relying on more staff == | |||
I believe WMUK has recruited staff more quickly than any other chapter created to date, if someone is aware otherwise I would love to look at an alternative case study. Compared to other chapters we can probably claim to have a (comparatively) robust plan and strategy, however going away from our plan and increasing staff numbers further while it is less than a year since our first employee started, means that we should be cautious about assessing the benefits and risks. Ideas that heavily rely on new permanent staff being recruited, as opposed to contractors or similar arrangements, are likely to need a lot of work shaping a convincing proposal to address these reasonable reservations. | |||
Here's the jargon bit -- The charity has to maintain an appropriate balance of cost of overheads and fundraising administration against the outcomes that deliver our mission (see [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc19.aspx CC19] and [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/rs3.aspx RS3]). Keep in mind that where reasonable to do so, proposals based on limited project costs rather than staffing overheads reduce long term risks; saying that, a ''track record of successful projects'' may often be used as a proposal for staffing as a more effective and efficient solution for an indefinite core programme of activities. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:50, 20 August 2012
I think it would be helpful for people to sign their ideas to help with any follow-up. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ideas relying on more staff
I believe WMUK has recruited staff more quickly than any other chapter created to date, if someone is aware otherwise I would love to look at an alternative case study. Compared to other chapters we can probably claim to have a (comparatively) robust plan and strategy, however going away from our plan and increasing staff numbers further while it is less than a year since our first employee started, means that we should be cautious about assessing the benefits and risks. Ideas that heavily rely on new permanent staff being recruited, as opposed to contractors or similar arrangements, are likely to need a lot of work shaping a convincing proposal to address these reasonable reservations.
Here's the jargon bit -- The charity has to maintain an appropriate balance of cost of overheads and fundraising administration against the outcomes that deliver our mission (see CC19 and RS3). Keep in mind that where reasonable to do so, proposals based on limited project costs rather than staffing overheads reduce long term risks; saying that, a track record of successful projects may often be used as a proposal for staffing as a more effective and efficient solution for an indefinite core programme of activities. --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)