Proposal #41: Restructure CISV international
I propose that an effort is made to find a big international consulting company that will advise CISV to completely re-arrange the work done by CISV international with the goal of reducing cost to 50%.
Rationale
I strongly believe that for the fact that we are sending only 7000 people to camps every year, I believe our international budget is extraordinary. The biggest numbers in our budget are insurance, IO and AIM. Being an optimist, I think with some clever re-arranging of our work, these costs could be reduced by 50%. Some examples of how this could be achieved are:
- Move IO to a location where rents and labour costs are less expensive
- Reduce IO full time staff to 2-3 to cover administration and install computer software to run the rest
- Create working space at IO for 5-6 interns who will work for a small salary for 3-12 months on specific projects
- Host AIM only every two years
- Select AIM locations that will save money on both ends (travel and accomodation)
- Re-arrange the work between IO and volunteers in a more clever way.
- Participation fees could be reduced making CISV more inclusive
- A suprplus could be used to speed up filling our self-insurance fund
- Chapters and NAs will have more cash to run activities
Respectfully submitted, Nick (GER)
4 Comments:
I totally agree. More than that, I think that this MUST be done as soon as the Strategic Planning ends and before we start to think of anything else.
It's pretty obvious to everyone (and it was, from the last few years' board decisions and questions) that the organisation needs and wants change. The problem is all changes (and, even, development) in CISV have always come on an instinctive basis.
The strategic planning was great, but it was pretty much a process of "focusing on priorities", no big big change came from it (though many changes used the priorities as arguments).
Anyways.
I think that looking for a company that would do this for "free" is a very good move. I wonder if the people that would have to do this (IO) would be actually interested in looking into this kind of things - especially considering the suggestions of changes Nick puts in his proposal.
A strong move from the IEC or the Board on this direction, though posivite - is not so likely to happen for now.
motion?
Even if we have to pay 2X what we spent in the last years with rebranding for this study I still believe that it would worth it!!
Hugs
Pedro
I agree with this proposal totally. I think Aim amongst others can be hosted in a more rational way so that the costs will drop significant. Some small NAs and some PAs that don't grow such a big budget, can't send people to international meetings that might be of some importance to them and it comes to the passion and effort of an individual.
But considering the part with uniting people from all over the world that when it comes to the effort of an individual, a travel plus fees to the AIM of 1500 Euros might represent a monthly salary for some, it might mean a 3-4 month salary for others. So it's a bit imbalanced and some will say that's life, you can't make everyone happy.
But by researching deeper and making a more exact control of the expenditure/outcome we might make a small saving for the IO but also for NAs and PAs.
At the same time money can be used in much more better ways. Like education and development. And i can in a way make comparrison to football. If you want a great player you can buy his services with a lot of money, at the same time you cand invest less in a training camp and get one or two more motivated and talented youngsters instead and maybe at an even lower cost.
There are companies who do the research for almost nothing and they even provide you (but this costs a bit) with relevant solutions.
I agree that CISV's administration costs are far too high for the actual number of programs we run. I would suggest that one of the first areas to focus on reducing costs should be AIM. The number of people who have their way paid by CISV International is very high (not to mention the costs to each NA to send representatives). In fact, many people who attend the AIM every year get too comfortable -- AIM has become a program for many adults who want to get away for a couple of weeks to a new country each year. Too many people are too comfortable to make any changes -- and those of us fundraising and paying program fees at the local level pay for their annual AIM vacation.
We don't need an AIM every year. nor do we need a Board with representatives from every country plus an executive and an expanded executive.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to coordinate interns to do the work of regular office staff without other office staff to supervise and coordinate their time at IO. If we want continuity in our programs it is beneficial to have an experienced staff team.
My vote is for reducing the international board, reducing the number of AIMs and maintaining a qualified IO staff team.
Post a Comment
<< Home