Charity payback - Next phase of discussions

riajoy

Hi everyone,

As Sandy mentioned over on the charity payback thread last week, and as part of the Social Purpose pieces of work that I'm leading on, it has come to my attention that Charity Payback needs a refresh.

This is to ensure it continues to sit at the heart of everything we stand for. And for that reason, I am making this my primary focus.

The journey so far:

So as part of this journey, I have read a lot, had conversations with members, and also ran an internal workshop to get an understanding of what changes could be made.

The two main areas of focus were:

Fulfilling some of your wants and expectations
And
Aligning with the bigger social purpose picture and starting to make an impact within communities across the UK. You probably have seen my thread here

The major things that I have uncovered that you want to evolve in terms of charity payback (and bear with me because these requests have had to be broken down in order to make them manageable) are:

The want to give to more than one charity per payback period. Ensuring that smaller, more local causes that otherwise don’t get the funding can be supported
To have a trusted and reputable third party involved - have the whole process independently adjudicated
To make more of an impact, and know where the money has gone and how it has made a difference
Going local but with a national impact
The ability to nominate more that one cause/charity per period
Ensure that there is a vetting process in place for all nominated charities to ensure that they are legitimate and our money is in the hands of those that really need it

I know that every single request isn’t covered in the above list (I have seen the master spreadsheet that the educators have worked on) but I do think that if we manage to solve those during phase one, or even just a few of them by trying something new out, then we are making progress. As always, it would be lovely to hear if you would agree, or not?

The proposed route forward:

So with the above in mind, and thanks to your long-standing support, builds and feedback, I feel like I have a potential solution that could fulfil a number of the changes you want to see.

One caveat to make though. In order to fulfil these asks, we need to partner with experts in the local community/causes field, and for that we need to know that we have a trusted, credible partner onboard. From what you’ve said, this feels key.

I have researched hard, met with a number of potential partners, vetted and presented proposals back to our teams, and I think I have an exciting proposition on the table that we could test out.

Of the four different partners I have met, one stood out and made me and the team around me massively excited.

Why? Because they really could help us to turn charity payback into something that helps support so many local community projects up and down the UK (and they also fix a number of problems that you have highlighted).

The proposed partner is called ‘Neighbourly’( https://www.neighbourly.com).
There’s a lot of information on their site so i urge you to take a look, but I will also try to summarise why they could be brilliant for us:

What do they do?

“Neighbourly is an award-winning giving platform that helps businesses make a positive impact in their communities by donating volunteer time, money and surplus products, all in one place”.

They could help us to build impact themes related back to our social purpose ‘reconnecting the disconnected’, using their specialist knowledge, visibility, and access to inform us of the biggest problems being faced by people in society and within communities across the UK.

They can then create relevant topic/impact areas for us (they have over 12,000 community/local charities across the UK within their platform already).

They would then map out where they are locally, what they need and how they will use our funds to help, distributing funds to these small local projects in desperate need of support.

They would then report back on how this has helped and what we could do to further support (be this through volunteering or additional support).

It’s worth mentioning that the cost of partnering with Neighbourly would NOT come out of the charity payback donations, we have agreed for this to come out of the marketing budget if we all agree to move this forward.

So what would change if we partnered with Neighbourly?

It would create a fair approach to distributing funds to community projects that have been highlighted by a trusted and reputable partner.

We would introduce a trusted vetting process from an independent party that includes charity commission registration status, companies house registration status, financial records check, media and social media check, FCA registrations, spot checks, and cyclical vetting.

We would be supporting local community projects, distributing funds far and wide at a grassroots level but with national impact.

We would have an Account Director from their end to represent the charities/causes and ensure that whilst aligning with our social purpose of ‘re-connecting the disconnected’, the impact is made in areas that need it most.

Also, they are on hand to answer any question that arises from us and our members on a daily basis.

Results provided by Neighbourly, using their impact metrics and reporting models to ensure that our funds are making a difference.

Members and employees could also nominate their own local causes into our giffgaff page on Neighbourly. Then providing that it connects to the subject area that we are trying to impact that payout period, and they pass the vetting process, your nominated cause will also get a cut of the kitty.

Over to you….

So this is a brief intro into who they are and what they could do for us.

If we all feel positively about them as a partner then we will enter into phase 2 where we’d discuss the area of focus and impact that we collectively want to make at the launch phase.

So that’s enough from me, let’s all discuss together.

Like you, I'm very aware that we don’t have much time if we want to make this change for June, but I am here to drive this forward and facilitate it if we believe that this could be a good step forward. I would need your support and help though.

Thanks for reading, let’s chat.

Ria

kathleen414

riajoy It’s worth mentioning that the cost of partnering with Neighbourly would NOT come out of the charity payback donations, we have agreed for this to come out of the marketing budget if we all agree to move this forward.

Thank you riajoy for the detailed update and I will take the time to go and see what they are about but the above is heartening news to start of with 🧡

jaymailsays

riajoy
Hi Ria,
This is really good progress from where we were last year.

As always the devil will be in the detail. Is it the case that to get Neighbourly onboard, it is conditional upon their projects receiving funding from payback? If so that would be a significant departure from the historic way nominations have been organised.

Not necessarily a bad thing, just that we need to be clear, what the proposed agreement's aims are, in plain english.

Would there be a penalty free trial probationary period of say 14 months, where either side can walk away without redress?

This is a unique opportunity to explore and develop a different, diverse approach that could help more in our society, who are really feeling the pinch either financially, physically or emotionally.

ujo55

riajoy
Is it fair to say in summary that what you are proposing is:
The charity nomination step and voting step would both be discontinued.
Money donated from payback would be handed to the 3rd party who would pass it on the local causes of their chosing compatible with the giffgaff chosen theme ‘re-connecting the disconnected.
It seems members would in future have no involvement in this process.
If I am correct it is run by us, not run by you.

houndontheloose

riajoy I think what you are proposing is a good idea. Furthermore, if for some reason it doesn't work out, you're only signing up to them for 12 months, so it can be reviewed early next year.

georgecooksey24

riajoy keep up the good work

msmon55

riajoy main problem I see with this proposal is many members wait to see who the winning charities are before they decide if they'll donate. This could seriously lower the donations coming in from members.

davek89

riajoy I like the idea in principle, although I've not heard of Neighbourly before so want to find out more about them. Personally, I'd like the option for my donation to go to a named charity of my choice, which may not be feasible with this route. However, I will wait and see how this progresses.

riajoy

kathleen414 Thanks Kath, i'm here to answer questions

riajoy

jaymailsays Hey! The primary reason for looking into Neighbourly was off the back of the issues raised in relation to the current charity payback system, this doesn't mean it should be restricted to that, this is just the starting point and my focus at the moment.

With Neighbourly, if we decided to go with them, it would be a 12 month licence which we could either renew or terminate at the end, this would be up to us all to decide based on the felt impact and success.

Ultimately we could support anything between 50 and 100 causes per payout period (depending on how much is given) £800 - £1000 to small causes could make a huge impact. Its about giving smaller chunks of money, but at scale up and down the UK - To the most in need.

I agree that this could really change things, and in a good way. If going smaller, local and supporting community projects across the UK is one of the major objectives and goals, then Neighbourly could help us to achieve this, and can do so quickly for us.

jesi23

riajoy With Neighbourly, if we decided to go with them, it would be a 12 month licence which we could either renew or terminate at the end, this would be up to us all to decide based on the felt impact and success.

Would it be possible to have a two-prong approach? One ‘charity’ to be ‘Neighbourly’ and one voted by members as per other years, so that we keep the illusion of ‘Run By You’ ? After all, as a company, we have supported many different charities with different initiatives? And maybe ban ALL charities which have received donations from giffgaff in the past being nominated for the non-‘neighbourly’ charity?

_{_🤡}

riajoy

ujo55 The Voting would need to be on a subject areas rather than one specific charity, so for example supporting homelessness across the UK - this isn't one charity, to achieve this we would need to support many. So to answer that in short, the voting would become based on areas of impact at a local level if we were to do this.

Then further to this, in the platform members can also nominate their own chairties/causes. It would need to align with the topic area that will have been voted for at the start, but it means that members are more empowered to see their own local cause get a cut of the charity payback kitty.

essie112mm

After reading through the proposals twice I also feel that members would lose control over potential recipients of Payback donations.

I am further alarmed by the fact that in future charities which help people overseas would be excluded. As someone who believes strongly that charity begins not at home but where there is need, regrettably I cannot support what is being proposed.

riajoy

essie112mm Hi Essies. I have been more specific on the control members would have in my reply to @ujo55.
The community consensus on the charity payback thread is that supporting smaller charities in local communities was the desired approach. Also paying out more than 2 charities a period, another clear theme coming through. With these 2 things in mind and also looking for something that still empowers members to put forward impact areas as well as nominate their own charities within this choose impact area, this felt like an option worth sharing with you all.

wagstaffes

riajoy to be honest I really like this idea. Many more smaller charities will benefit from it. We can still nominate individual charities to be included in the list, there's independent scrutiny, and, they will have a much better chance of actually getting some funding than under the current system. You've got my vote.

ujo55

riajoy
Just for the sake of accuracy, presently 2 charities bennifit each payback period, so 4 not 2 per year.
Clearly because the Community Team have beeen unwilling to engage with members in a meaniful way regarding possible changes / improvements to the charity process over not a number of months but a number of years, what we are now faced with is a take it or leave it situation.
There are merits in what is being proposed raijoy, I would have liked to have seen this proposal considered along with the many fine ideas put forward by members in the past 2 - 3 years so the best way forward could have been identified and achieved.
To be honest it seems giffgaff have already made the decision to go with neighbourly so discussion is pointless, but given a choice I would keep for the moment with what we have, if there were some serious intention from the team to canvas the wider community to get a consensus as to the way forward, I don't want to impose my opinion on anyone.
I just hope this 3rd party doesn't let giffgaff down as others have.

kath72

riajoy The Voting would need to be on a subject areas rather than one specific charity, so for example supporting homelessness across the UK - this isn't one charity, to achieve this we would need to support many. So to answer that in short, the voting would become based on areas of impact at a local level if we were to do this.

Then further to this, in the platform members can also nominate their own chairties/causes. It would need to align with the topic area that will have been voted for at the start, but it means that members are more empowered to see their own local cause get a cut of the charity payback kitty.

So to be clear ... with the neighbourly scheme we only get to choose a broad area for donations on the giffgaff forums, we then have to go to neighbourly to promote our charity... taking it out of the forum. Would this not lead to less involvement ... a very small proportion of the community get involved in nominations as it is

I have serious concerns about the interpretation of ‘what we asked for’ my overwhelming impression is that one or two have suggested lots of smaller charities, the majority are happy with 2 charities to get a larger donation but they want the nominations process to allow more smaller charities to win.

i agree with @suppers_ready post almost completely. Members who care passionately about a smaller charity have successfully campaigned in the past. All we need is a designation for one of the 2 winners to be small or local and that is the solution. Ealing night shelter and Claire’s house could do a lot with what we have ... £1000 donations wouldn’t have the same dramatic effect .... lots of pebbles cast into lots of buckets creates lots of ripples ... I love that with giffgaff we have the potential to make a huge splash in a couple of buckets

I appreciate that you have tried to think outside the box @riajoy but I don’t think this is what the majority were asking for

on balance, this idea is ‘not for me’

essie112mm

riajoy The community consensus on the charity payback thread is that supporting smaller charities in local communities was the desired approach

Hi Ria,
I have no objection to that. However, I would highlight my agreement with this:

suppers_ready That said, for me the real essence of giffgaff charity payback is the opportunity for members to nominate something close to their hearts and to campaign on the forum for that charity to get the money.

Furthermore, I reiterate the point that your proposal excludes charitable donations to overseas projects. That is for me a real sticking point. I was actually intending to nominate this charity in the next nominations thread. It is a community based project and these people have nothing. We are all humans, no matter our colour, religion, or where we live in the world. Need is need.

So whilst I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in putting forward your proposal I cannot give it my support. 😞

suppers_ready

When I read the OP yesterday the first thought that crossed my mind was be careful what you wish for. Clearly a lot of work has gone into the proposal, and to be fair, it does cover most of the major grievances that have been aired about the existing process. It also has the benefit of removing the angst that the charity nomination process has suffered over recent years.

That said, for me the real essence of giffgaff charity payback is the opportunity for members to nominate something close to their hearts and to campaign on the forum for that charity to get the money. Two such occasions are when Clare's House won, and the last period when Ealing Night Shelters won. On each occasion one member campaigned passionately for their respective chosen charity and the charities got a big boost that they wouldn't have got any other way,

I've looked at Neighbourly and they don't seem to support International Charities (apart form the Netherlands?). I nominated Sightsavers for years who work primarily in Africa and Asia, so they would be excluded, although I never made the shortlist for the vote anyway.

Personally I would rather leave the process as it is with all it's perceived imperfections. It gives members the opportunity to make a real difference to a charity that they feel passionately about.

I don't think many members who have engaged in the charity discussions on the forum will be in favour of the Neighbourly route, whether that's reflective of the wider user base?, who knows.

My last point would be that at the end of the imperfect process we have now, two charities receive a serious amount of money. If we went the Neighbourly route many more charities would receive money, albeit a smaller amount, but in both cases a positive outcome is achieved.

roxy_r

Morning everyone,

As suppers_ready pointed out, it is quite hard to incorporate absolutely all feedback into one proposal from the very beginning. We want to do it right but if we do it ourselves that means it will take quite a bit of time as at the moment we do not have the right infrastructure built into the systems to allow us to do more.

What we have here could be something we try if we want to see change happening sooner which is something you've all asked for. Neighbourly brings in the piece of the puzzle that we are missing for now and gives us a platform to use to do good. The reason for the impact areas is because if we do want to go local but also make an actual impact, we need to look at charities within a specific domain each period. This is actually where you come in, choosing the area/domain each payback period, then Neighbourly would go find relevant small charities but also you have the ability to nominate one on their platform.

Again, this is just stage one and we will have to see, in balance, what are the improvements and what we would want to change after but we do have a real chance at doing some good for those charities that sometimes get lost because they are too small or too local and those are the people that sometimes need it the most. At the same time, perhaps Ria could have a conversation with Neighbourly about the possibility of them tweaking things according to our feedback in the future, would that be something that would help ?
It is not perfect, but it would do good nevertheless.

riajoy

wagstaffes Thank you! I really appreciate your thoughts and feedback

riajoy

Hi everyone, thanks for your thoughts so far.
It's worth stressing that this suggestion would be a phase one trial, to test a new approach based on years of feedback.
Any change made to payback wouldn't be an overnight fix and would need to be trialed, tested and iterated upon. It would need to be an evolution rather than final fix.

jaymailsays

roxy_r Neighbourly brings in the piece of the puzzle that we are missing

Not much has been said about the 'Neighbourly' competitors, who didn't quite make the cut Roxy.

Who were they and why were they not able to persuade giffgaff that they were up to the job?

I did notice that at least one of Neighbourly's sponsored charities is based and provides advice, exclusively outside the UK.

z201205 People in hardship in these worrying times may want the payback so that they can buy goodybags. Especially if it could be paid before the due date.

That seems to be a possibility and up for consideration according to Alex's post.
https://community.giffgaff.com/d/33093116-exceptional-circumstances/20

riajoy

houndontheloose Thanks, yes its pretty low risk from our side if we were to get community buy in to try out this way of working.

tradertall

I think it's a good idea 🙂