What consultation has been done to inform this process? With whom? When?
Significant consultation has taken place over the last two years to inform these proposals.
All MOs have had the opportunity to contribute to the consultation.
In total, over 70 per cent of MOs have engaged at some point during this process.
What happened to the ‘solidarity’ payment proposal?
As described in Version 1 Membership Fee Proposal, there was strong consensus from the consultation that WAGGGS should explore improving mechanisms for MOs (and other supporters) to make ‘solidarity contributions’ to MOs in need. This should take effect, irrespective of the chosen fee model. Therefore, this will be addressed independently of the EGM’s decisions.
A Fee Model based upon ‘solidarity contributions’ was discounted though as, following the consultation, it was clear that there were significant concerns about whether this would become perceived as voluntary which would not be sustainable for WAGGGS.
What is the difference between Membership Fee Support Fund, Hardship Fund and MO-to-MO support?
The Membership Fee Support Fund is an unrestricted financial allocation in WAGGGS’s budget to support MOs that face significant challenges in meeting their membership fee obligations. In 2024, £25,000 GBP has been allocated to this Fund. Decisions on the application of this fund are overseen by the Audit, Finance and Risk Committee or the World Board, depending on the financial limits of WAGGGS’s Scheme of Delegation.
The Hardship Fund is a restricted fund resourced by donors and MOs and exists to support MOs facing hardship, which could include issues that affect their ability to pay their membership fee obligation. Decisions on the application of this fund are overseen by the Membership and Regional Support Team, depending on the financial limits of WAGGGS’s Scheme of Delegation.
MO-to-MO support is provided in a variety of ways. Some MOs request to provide direct financial assistance for another MO’s fees and others prefer to give an anonymous donation to an unknown recipient.
Considering that during consultation MOs have strongly expressed themselves in favour of the ‘solidarity’ element of membership fees, WAGGGS will improve knowledge of these funds and improve and simplify contribution mechanisms.
Why did Model 3 in the Consultation Pack (based on MO wealth rather than country wealth), not get taken forward to the Membership Fee Proposal?
Model 3 had the highest proportion of lowest rankings (32% of responders ranked this last) in the consultation survey.
Whilst a significant number of MOs reported that their organisation’s financial position was weaker than is reflected by their country’s wealth measure, we also heard that many MOs did not think that Model 3 could be effectively delivered (“Model 3 is least preferable, because of the work for WAGGGS and different ways of calculating restricted / unrestricted income”).
Therefore, it is recommended that the new membership fee policy include flexibility to respond to MO-specific financial challenges, but that Model 3 is not taken forward.
Proposed Motion 1.6 is recommended to provide the World Board flexibility to address any exceptional circumstances affecting specific MOs.
Where can I find a summary of the consultation feedback?
Version 1 Membership Fee Proposal includes a summary of the consultation feedback.
Who has developed Document 4: Membership Fee Proposal and Document 5b: Proposed Motions?
The documents were crafted by the Membership Fee Review Project Steering Group (comprised of the Membership Fee Project Manager, four World Board members - including the Treasurer - and senior WAGGGS staff), following analysis of the consultation outputs and advice from stakeholders such as the Audit, Finance and Risk Committee and Procedural Team.
The documents were discussed and approved by the World Board.