COMMUNITY CHEST (Review of role and functions)

Column: 2416

COMMUNITY CHEST:

(Review of role and functions): 7.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if the Ministry will review the role and functions of the Community Chest to make it more effective in the management and coordination of the voluntary social services sector; and (b) how many voluntary organisations are there which carry out annual fund raising activities but are not affiliated to the Community Chest.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): The Community Chest, or ComChest for short, is the fund-raising arm of the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). Its basic mission is to help the social service sector raise funds for critical programmes. It currently helps to raise funds for around 150 programmes run by more than 50 voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) each year. This has allowed the VWOs concerned to focus on delivering services to their beneficiaries rather than fund-raising per se. Through the generosity of individuals and organisations, the Community Chest has consistently raised over $40 million annually over the past few years.

NCSS has a membership of more than 250 voluntary welfare organisations within the social service sector alone. Most, if not all of these VWOs do carry out some form of fund-raising for programmes which are not directly funded by the Community Chest. ComChest does not fund all the programmes offered by the VWOs as its role has evolved over time.

When the Community Chest was first started, the objective was to relieve the VWOs from the burden of fund-raising by providing an option for centralised fund-raising. Over the years, however, many

Column: 2417

VWOs have been able to raise their own funds and prefer to do so because it helps them to promote their own causes to the community. One needs to remember that the fund-raising exercise is not just necessarily to raise funds, but also one of engagement with the community. Donors themselves have also, in some cases, expressed their preference to make direct donations to the VWOs concerned for the causes they had particular care for. Consequently, when both NCSS and my Ministry reviewed the role and functions of the Community Chest, we decided not to take a dogmatic approach. Instead, what we have decided is that ComChest would continue to focus on critical and needed programmes, especially those which have less donor appeal, for instance, counselling and community based mental health programmes, as well as those run by smaller VWOs who may have more limited fund-raising capabilities, but nevertheless, are performing useful and critical roles in the social service sector. The Community Chest will also support new services in order to address emerging social needs in the community.

More recently, the Community Chest has also been proactively advising donors on the social services and programmes that require greater support, even if some of these have not yet sought support from the Community Chest.

ComChest has also become even more outcome-focused in its funding, meaning, we look at the real impact of the programmes on the beneficiaries, rather than on just the declared aims of the programmes. Nevertheless, I want to assure this House that the Community Chest will not turn away reasonable requests for funding effective and necessary social service programmes.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): I would like to ask the Minister whether the

Column: 2418

capacity of the ComChest as a central fund-raiser will be limited and its effectiveness diluted, if there are other VWOs who are not participating in what ComChest is set up to do.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I do not see the Community Chest being disadvantaged or necessarily limited because others are also doing fund-raising. This is not a zero-sum game and I see this as complementary. As I have said earlier, there are some donors who really do prefer to channel their funds to specific causes and specific VWOs which they have particular affinity to or are engaged for in the long-term.

On the other hand, having a centralised alternative for less glamorous causes is a healthy balance. That is why I have decided not to be dogmatic but allow both options to apply. Ultimately, it is the donor public who, in a sense, vote with their money and it depends on the effectiveness of the VWOs to convince donors of the merits of their cause and to deliver good services to the beneficiaries.