# How to miss the point!

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2010/08/03/how-miss-point/
- Published: 2010-08-03T14:41:00+01:00
- Author: Kevin Baughen

I don’t often openly rant in this blog as generally it’s not helpful or useful. 
I will therefore apologise in advance if what I’m about to say ‘bends’ my rule but
please bear with me as there is a serious point for all marketing, communications
and fundraising people here.

In a recent edition of Third Sector magazine, I read with increasing annoyance the
story of how the recruitment policies of a charity resulted in the withdrawal of
a valuable, effective and unrelated service to its beneficiaries.  I will let you
[read the full story](http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/1018297/Sex-offender-appointment-leads-closure-website-disabled/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH)
yourselves but a quick précis is that an umbrella charity organisation representing
disabled people had secured funding from cross-sector sources to deliver the end-
benefits.  Government reports concluded that this was a good example of such working
and that funding secured from central and local government had been used as intended.

However… the charity recruited a Chief Executive who had been sentenced for a sex
offence in 1993.  No Criminal Records Bureau checks had been undertaken as the Trustees
did not believe their beneficiaries qualified as vulnerable.  This breached the 
terms of the funding agreement with the local councils and so the funding was withdrawn.
Without funding, the service was withdrawn.

## Advertisement

There are a few other twists (like a Charity Commission investigation, paid for 
out of the public purse and further financial offences committed by the Chief Executive)
but the long and short of it, I believe, is:

 1. Questionable process and procedure led to an issue which had nothing to do with
    the charity’s beneficiaries
 2. i-dotters and t-crossers within various public bodies must have their checklists
    completed in their black and white world – still apparently nothing to do with 
    the charity’s beneficiaries in this case
 3. a valued and effective service was withdrawn because the public bodies and the 
    charity itself could not come up with a common sense solution – depriving the charity’s
    beneficiaries of a service through no fault of theirs
 4. And, according to the Treasury, the service and partnerships which underpinned 
    it worked and were being considered for roll-out across other parts of the UK –
    which would have benefited other disabled people and their carers who no longer
    have this opportunity

I’ve said this at countless meetings, workshops, presentations and conferences: 
the opinions and needs of our key external audiences should be prioritised over 
ours as organisations if we want to satisfy those needs and engage them in what 
we’re doing.  This isn’t rocket science and I’m sure it’s not news to the majority
of readers.

I’m not suggesting we all get reckless and put individuals at risk but seriously,
whose needs have been met in this whole debacle?  Council procurement departments
got their policies followed.  The Charity Commission was able to conduct an objective
investigation and introduce appropriate sanctions.  Central Government funded a 
service that met their expectations.  Risk management teams (who, to be fair can’t
seem to win either way) were able to ensure they ‘protected vulnerable individuals’
even though the individuals themselves did not consider themselves as vulnerable.

And the disabled people who actually used and appreciated the fully functional, 
cost effective and successful service?  What of their needs?  Can you imagine how
disastrous it would be to your organisation if the needs of your beneficiaries were
last on your list of things to consider?  And by needs I mean their real needs, 
not what we might think they are (see risk assessment above).

I can’t help but think all the organisations concerned have missed the key point
and lost sight of what they were supposed to be doing and for whom.  Funnily enough
the only marketing and communications truism I know.