Proposal #12: Host fees - solved on national level.
I propose that every NA charges their participants who participate in a camp abroad or in the country the amount of money which is needed to organize a camp of the same lenght in their own country. Each NA will be responsable to set they own fee system using as a basis the cost of a 4 weeks village for 12 delegation as shown in the following example.
Example:
1) Take the average cost of a camp of 12 delegation of 4 weeks in a country (do not include the value of donations such as food or paper): Italy = 17000 Euro
2) Divide that amount by the number of participants (Italy: 48) to see how much money each Italian village participant going to a camp should pay (without IO fees, national fees, etc):
Italy = 355 Euro
3) Divide that amount by 4 to get the weekly cost and by 28 to get the daily cost to see if this is a reasonable amount:
Italy = 89 Euro (fee per week)
Italy = 13 Euro (fee per day)
4) For youth meetings, seminarcamps and summercamps the same calculation will be applied:
Cost of summercamp, seminar and 3 weeks villages for italian participants = 267 Euro
Cost of 15 days IYM for italian participants = 178 Euro
Cost of 8 days IYM for italian participants = 102 Euro
Supposing that CISV Italy sends:
30 delegations to 4 weeks villages (120 kids) = 42600 Euro
15 Summer delegations IYMs (60 kids) = 16020 Euro
10 IYM delegations to 15 days IYMs (60 kids) = 10680 Euro
30 Seminar participants IYMs = 8010 Euro
Tota income through host fee: 77310 Euro
This money can be used to host the yearly activity CISV Italy does: 3 Villages, 3 IYMs, 2 Summers, 1 Seminar. This figure are super realistics and could be applied to any country.
Rationale
The proposal is addressing both the different value of money in different countries (PPP/Bigmacdollar) and the armonization of the cost of the activites based on their lenght.
This will avoid IO to collect and redistribute fees (see youthmeetings, summercamp and seminar camps) and introduce fees for village participants too, saving time and costs due to international money transfers.
4 Comments:
Sorry for being the first to comment again, but I better write down my ideas before I forget them.
Since a motion cannot ENFORCE a fee structure upon NAs, this motion is basically asking CISV international to ABANDON host fees (for IYM, summercamp and seminarcamp), and leave it to NAs to solve this riddle.
Teo provides us here with a simple forumla that calculates a fee which could be called "participant per diem" (PPD), to be charged from every participant per campday.
I really like a few things about this proposal:
- It gives the same weight to every CISV camp programme (yet including IC, where host fees make no sense) and creates a bigger amount of fairness between the programmes.
- It is up to the NA to calculate the PPD-amount, also depending on how much they want to subsidize their chapters: Giving out large amounts of money will kill any motivation to fundraise. Giving out little money, chapters may not want to risk ruining their chapter budget with hosting a camp.
- I especially like the fact, that less administration may needed from IO.
A few caveats I see:
- Similar to my comment to the previous proposal, I would always try to avoid any kind of new fee that will make participation more expensive. Exception: If this leads to more programmes hosted overall.
- I'm not sure if this will also work for small NAs, especially single-chapter NAs.
- In some way I would still like to see a kind of cross-country-support-system for weaker NAs. I don't think that our current host fee system is doing that, either, though.
If I'm not completely mistaken, I think CISV GB has already installed a system like that for villages. Maybe they can tell us more.
We have some chapters in CISV Brazil that already uses this system - like São Paulo and Campinas - and we are encouraging the other chapters to do the same.
Since the international fees are not enough, this is a logical and easy way to manage local fees in order to have financial stability.
The challenge in a developing country like Brazil is to balance the total amount of fees (local + national + international) and the capacity of the families to afford it.
But anyway, we are quite sure that a consistent local fee management - considering the 5 Year Host Plan and the number of participants every year - can provide the financial stability that the chapters need to grow. The local fee shall be complementary, and not substitute the international fees.
Well, this might work if it's done on a country-by-country basis. But it basically means that the entire cost of participating in a CISV program will be passed on to participants. This won't do much toward making CISV more accessible, will it? I would rather try to think about how to make CISV programs low- or no-cost as a way of allowing a greater diversity of people to participate.
Essentially we are back to the Village model, where an NA balances the number of delegations sent and received, and hence the cost in theory evens out. Large NAs (generally rich ones) pay a bit of a penalty as they send less delegations than they receive.
In the end it is up to an NA to decide how to finance this. Some places it is easy to fundraise for specific activities (e.g. by getting food or cash donations one village by local community), other places this is difficult, but it is possible to offload the cost to the participants. Other places participants (or their parents) are not capable of paying large sums of money, but will gladly work to either raise funds or lower cost.
In essence, leave it to the NA to sort out how to fundraise.
Against the motion I would note that this might hit smaller NAs hard, as they maybe hold an activity every 2-3 years, and hence have few members to spread the burden of hosting across. For them it is more likely to make it easy to host if they receive financial support via the international organisation.
Post a Comment
<< Home