1 of 20

WORKING WITH RAG

Oxford Chapter

2 of 20

Our RAG

  • Fundraising totals:
    • 2009-10: £70,000
    • 2010-11: £119,000
    • 2011-13 combined: ~£150,000
    • 2013-14: >£200,000

​

  • Committee (+ college reps) of 50 people

​

  • Assisted by an OUSU VP

​

​

3 of 20

Our charity selections

  • Charities nominated by any student

​

  • Shortlisted by VP

​

  • Elected
    • Split into student-run, local and (inter)national
    • Turnout in 2014: 3.7% (822)

​

​

​

4 of 20

Getting influence: timeline

  • GWWC elected as RAG charity

​

  • OUSU VP asks us ‘to make RAG more effective’

​

  • Met next two OUSU VPs and made changes

5 of 20

CHANGES WE MADE

Change successful�Change important�Change unsuccessful

6 of 20

Nomination form

Before

  • Please outline the work of the charity

​

  • How will Oxford RAG’s support benefit the charity?

​

  • Please name any specific projects to which RAG funding will be pledged

​

  • If known how can the charity help RAG?

After

  • Please outline the work of the charity

​

  • What will the impact of RAG’s support be?

​

  • Why is this charity the most cost effective use of RAG’s resources?

​

  • If known how can the charity help RAG?

7 of 20

Shortlisting criteria

Before

  • Charities elected in the previous two years are excluded

​

  • Charities that have greater impact favoured

​

  • Charities with fewer sources of funding favoured

​

  • Charities with <30% overhead favoured

​

  • Charities that can help RAG favoured

After

  • Charities elected in the previous year are excluded

​

  • Charities that have greater marginal impact will be favoured

​

  • Charities with fewer sources of funding will be favoured

​

  • Charities recognised for cost-effectiveness will be favoured

​

  • Charities that can help RAG favoured

8 of 20

What we did: electing

  • Student run – local – national/international:
    • Two years ago: 2-1-1
    • Last year: 1-1-2 (via 2-1-2!)
    • This year: 1-1-3
    • In total: moved 35% to national/international
    • Student-run and local categories separate

​

  • Added answer to question ‘what will the impact of RAG’s support be?’ to ballot paper

​

​

9 of 20

WAS IT WORTH IT?

Spoiler: yes.

10 of 20

Impact

  • Time spent – 15 hrs (high estimate):
    • 2 hours organising meetings
    • 3 hours discussing recommendations
    • 5 hours making reports
    • 5 hours meeting (many of us!)

​

  • Money moved - ~£35,000/year
    • To effective charities: ~£18,000/year (say £15k)
      • Calculation later if interested

​

  • Pessimistically, and excluding all other benefits: £15k/15hrs = £1,000 to effective charities per hour, per year we’re active
    • Seems worth it!

11 of 20

Other benefits

  • Changes to nominating encourage thoughts about effectiveness

​

  • Changes to shortlisting make it much easier to get effective charities shortlisted

​

  • Changes to electing (should) make effective charities look better

​

​

​

12 of 20

Possible benefits going forward

  • Likely to do joint fundraiser with RAG for SCI
    • Big Match raised £26k last time (>£5k irreplaceably)
    • Should do better with RAG support

​

  • Hoping to do workshop with RAG on effectiveness
    • Getting RAG committee on side massively helps publicity and enthusiasm

13 of 20

RAG & YOUR CHAPTER

14 of 20

Why it might be harder for you

  • People involved in RAG can perhaps view all causes as equal

​

  • Some may be reluctant to change charity choice system

​

  • Less credibility if chapter not well-established
    • People we met seemed to know about GWWC and were relatively enthusiastic

​

​

15 of 20

Elected charity selections?

  • Why no:
    • Less people to influence charity selection
    • More knowledgeable about charity

​

  • Why yes:
    • Free publicity and legitimacy if elected
    • Open elections can favour effectiveness too
    • Democracy! (with 3.7% turnout…)

​

  • Used to be pro-elections, now unsure

​

16 of 20

Worth going on the committee?

  • Why yes:
    • Easier to influence (important if charities not elected)
    • Links to NaSFA (possible anyway?)
    • Normal reasons!�
  • Why no:
    • Many changes can be done outside the committee
    • A lot of your work will be replaceable

​

  • My opinion: try changing RAG without
    • Unless you wanted to/are anyway!

​

​

​

17 of 20

Which charities to support?

  • Our past election results:
    • 2012: AMF elected
    • 2013: GWWC elected (somewhat close)
    • 2014: AMF elected, SCI not elected (3rd)

​

  • Meta-charities probably OK
    • Might make skeptics engage
    • GWWC name already out there (probably)

​

​

18 of 20

Next steps

  • Talk to RAG!
    • Meet them
    • Produce a report (can give ours for format)
    • Ask to do a talk/workshop to RAG committee about effectiveness

​

  • Not going to plan?
    • Get involved in the committee (maybe for small RAGs)
    • Consider doing a joint fundraiser
    • Easy option: wait a year (caveat: full-time workers)

​

​

​

​

19 of 20

QUESTIONS?

20 of 20

Money moved calculation

  • RAG raises £150k/year
    • Some events not for RAG charities, so ~£100k decided by elections
  • Before: 4 charities, so £25k if elected as one (inter)national charity
    • ~60% chance, so £15k in expectation
  • After: 5 charities, so £20k/charity elected
    • ~60% chance of 2 elected, 30% chance of 1 elected, 5% 0 elected, 5% 3 elected, so £33k in expectation
  • Difference: 33 – 15 = £18k moved