charity kerbside clothing collections

Charity Kerbside Clothing Collections

Planning for Charitable Clothing Recycling Collections in South Australia

Research and evaluation of a proposal to conduct Charity Kerbside Clothing Collections

Report by Peter Tregilgas

to Zero Waste South Australia

October 2005

Report to:

The Minister for Environment and Conservation through Zero Waste SA Planning for Charitable Clothing Recycling Collections. Research and evaluation of a proposal to conduct Charity Kerbside Collection

Prepared by:

Peter Tregilgas – Cultural and Social Enterprise Services

Steering Committee:

Mr Ian Harvey Zero Waste SA – Chair Mr Philip Matthews Zero Waste SA Mr Peter Tregilgas Cultural and Social Enterprise Services Mr Steve Nivison Manager Goodwill Uniting Care Wesley Adelaide & Chairman, National

Association of Charitable Recycling Organisation

Acknowledgements:

• Local Radio ABC891, Graeme Bennett for permission to use audio of interview with Minister for Environment April 05

• NWS9 News, Sally Powell for permission to use video of National Nine News item April 05 • Staff of Zero Waste SA and in particular Philip Matthews, Ian Harvey and Marcia Hewitt • Staff and representative of Charitable Recycling Stores in SA: Baptist Community Services,

Goodwill Stores, Lifeline, Red Cross, Salvation Army Family Stores, Vinnies Family Centres • Steve Nivison, Stephanie Pascale, Celia King Uniting Care Wesley Adelaide, Goodwill • Anne Wilson • Nicole Gilding • Kitka Hiltula and Alan Reddick • Bruce Lang, Unley Council • Robert Leslie Cole

Design:

Report Printed & Electronic: Kitka Hiltula and Alan Reddick w w w.kitka.com.au & ww w.reddickdesign.com.au Zero Waste SA peter tregilgas Chesser House, cultural and social enterprise services L8/91-97 Grenfell St abn: 66357539575 Adelaide, SA 5000 t: 0400-191054 Tel : 82042051 e: [email protected] E: ww [email protected] w: w w w.tregilgas.com

Contents

Executive Summary 4

Recommendations 4

Section 1: Overview and purpose 6

Introduction 6

Aims of the project 6

Key issues for consideration 6

Methodology 7

Discussion 9

Section 2: Situation Analysis 11

Description of current charitable collections systems in SA 11

Waste and the charitable industry 16

Section 3: Review of options for charitable collection and waste disposal in SA 23

Local government and charitable recycling 23

Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) -Recycling Depots 25

Public Schools -issues for hosting Collection Banks 26

Alternative options 26

Section 4: Analysis of feasibility for charitable kerbside collection pilot 28

A Model for SA 28

The Model 29

Implementation Strategy 35

Marketing and promotion 36

Cost of pilot 37

Risk analysis 37

Monitoring and evaluation 38

Appendices 39

Planning for Charitable Clothing

Recycling Collections in SA

4

Executive Summary

“Charity begins at home” - a traditional proverb Charities provide an historic and significant role in the chain of re-use of clothing and textiles. The contribution to the State from charitable recycling social ventures is to operate over 140 retail outlets which generate $16.6 million and employ at least 212 people, including 173 full –time. However charitable recycling is experiencing severe strain from the burden of waste as it seeks to earn income from the generosity of fellow South Australians to support the valued activities of charities. In 2004/05 charities spent over $421,000 in fees for landfill alone, not taking into account the cost of transport or labour. The Charitable Recycling sector is engaged in waste by default. This has been caused by historical factors that are no longer pertinent to their operations due to changes in economic conditions and the market environment. The key factor for the viability of Charitable Recycling is the collection and sale of quality donations through their respective retail stores. Clothing resold though retail outlets represents an average of 27% of the total donations. Of concern is that currently some 37% of the donations are disposed of as landfill. These latter statistics are a particular distress to charities who perceive that the public generosity would be undermined if the public were aware of this level of disposal. The problem for charities is not so much supply; (they are drowning in collected material) it is the ability to communicate that the better the quality and the more valuable the material that is donated the greater potential for its reuse and therefore its real value to the community. Collection of donations is the access to valued product for resale. The community has had the view that charities can take all offerings and this has led to a situation where the charities own generosity has been abused. In particular the dumping of material anonymously in or around donation deposit banks and at the doors of their shops should not be disguised as “doing the right thing”. This practise has meant that several charities have had to move away from this method of collection to more “face to face” donations direct to their stores or to expensive home pick up. The partnership between the public as donors and charities needs to be remodelled to reflect a more contemporary understanding of the issues of charitable trading and waste management. Charities have tended to work individually to solve market issues including waste, however this issue is systemic. This report has addressed the challenge faced by charities to improve their collection methods thereby improving value to the organisations and reducing the costs of operations due to excess waste. The report has identified that the cost of waste may be significantly reduced through the intervention of government by exempting Charities from the EPA levy for landfill (as is the case in NSW) and further, that opportunities exist that may find a use for the bi-product of charity collections in the form of an alternative fuel. These options are consistent with the State Plan of growing prosperity while also achieving “reduced social and economic inequality”. This report has identified partners to engage in an Australian (and perhaps world) first pilot project to establish a Charitable Clothing Kerbside Collection. The project is a systemic solution and requires a close collaboration involving community, government and industry. The process is to change community donation habits through education and a change in the method of giving and collection. The process will provide a close relationship between the donor and their neighbourhood through local government who will contribute to establishing a kerbside collection system that is both frequent and convenient. The interest expressed by the media in this project following the initial announcement by the Minister for the Environment of the project study would indicate that enthusiastic public interest would be generated throughout the



5

implementation of the pilot, with a readily recognised potential to extend the project beyond its initial tenure. These proposals are in harmony with the State Plan to build sustainability through “national leadership in environmental management” and “partnerships between government, business and community”. Just as the State Plan strategy for South Australia offers a series of interconnecting, reinforcing and complementary initiatives it is suggested that the optimum benefits from the implementation of new collection methods for charitable recycling will be achieved if is associated with a package of action. This includes targeted public education on quality donations for recycling, exemption from EPA land fill levy, development of alternative fuel generating industry utilising waste materials in close relationship with commercial and charitable recycling industry.

Recommendations

It is widely recognised that significant improvement on environmental matters requires sustained action or intervention on a number of fronts. Integrated strategies comprising a series of interlocking and mutually reinforcing complementary initiatives are likely to yield the optimal benefits for the community. It is therefore recommended that the following actions are taken as a “package”. It is recommended that: • The pilot proposal developed in this project be implemented as a collaborative action of

State and Local Government, the recycling industry, particularly the CDL operators, and charitable community organisations. The project should be identified and evaluated as a contribution to the South Australian Waste Strategy 2005-2010.

• A collaborative public education campaign be conducted in association with the pilot

project, auspiced by NACRO and Government, to improve awareness of the environmental social and commercial dimensions of charitable recycling, and particularly the importance of quality.

• Government facilitate the collaborative relationship between charity recyclers and the

alternative fuel industry to develop complementary strategies for waste disposal with minimum resort to landfill, consistent with state targets for reduced landfill over the decade.

• Ministerial and industry wide support for further exploration of legislative recognition for the

industry including licensing, quality standards and EPA fee exemptions be sought. • In recognition of the cost of waste to the Charitable Recycling Sector in terms of unwanted

deposits, the Charity sector work collaboratively with agencies including KESAB to seek a Government review of littering legislation, regulation and penalties



6

Section 1 : Overview and purpose

Introduction

Zero Waste SA (ZWSA) has held discussions with Goodwill and the National Association of Charitable Recycling Organisations (NACRO) in relation to the deposition of unwanted materials alongside clothing collection banks. It is recognised that the deposition of unwanted material presents a significant cost burden to charitable organisations and adversely affects their capacity to fund a range of community charity activities and programs. In addition the presence of unwanted material is unsightly and creates pressure for the removal of collection banks, further reducing the funding capacity of the charitable organisations. As is noted in the body of the report there is an important distinction between the collection of clothing and household items intended for resale by charitable organisations and the issues about the collection and disposal of “hard waste” rubbish; the inevitable detritus of household use, technological changes, breakages and changes in interests and priorities as children and adults age

Aims of the project

The purpose of the study is to establish whether kerbside collection of clothing is a viable option for charitable collection organisations and if so, determine the necessary arrangements to enable implementation. It is also proposed to investigate the relocation of clothing collection banks into locations such as public school grounds and/or CDL collection depots. ZWSA in conjunction with Goodwill and NACRO intend to use the results of the study to: implement an initial pilot kerbside collection system (if determined to be viable), and trial the placement of clothing banks on sites such as public school grounds and CDL collection depots. Planning for Charitable Recycling Collections Study Project has been identified to research and evaluate key issues confronting the sector. It is recognised that the deposition of unwanted material presents a significant cost burden to charitable organisations and adversely affects their capacity to fund a range of community charity activities and programs. In addition the presence of unwanted material is unsightly and creates pressure for the removal of collection banks further reducing the funding capacity of the charitable organisations. This study seeks to determine the viability of a new clothing collection system which will provide an improved efficiency for the industry an importantly reduce waste.

Key issues for consideration

• Refuse and improper goods dumping is perceived to be increasing at deposit banks sites. The number of deposit banks is correspondingly decreasing, impacting negatively on charities’ capacity to collect.

• Penalties and methods of control for improper dumping of goods at deposit banks have proved ineffectual and consideration is required to identify responsibilities for improper dumping.

• Costs to charitable recyclers are increasing -refuse dumping fees have increased significantly



7

since introduction of EPA levy and other fees. The double bind of cleaning and disposing of material from deposit bank sites and an increase in dumping at sites is causing charities to consider its role in recycling operations.

• Funds generated by charities through sales of donated goods is utilised directly for the provision of services to the community. The imposition of costs associated with unwanted refuse in collecting donated goods is reducing the potential for charities to serve the community.

• Identification of material to landfill -current collection systems are anonymous and may prompt donations of unworthy material. The charitable recycling sector is at the end of the chain and has no option but to forward extensive quantities of material to landfill. There is a need to educate donors of the roles of charitable recyclers and the types of appropriate donated goods desired.

• Image of charitable recycling is at risk with hosts of current collection banks and more broadly.

• Consideration of image - information opportunities for charitable recyclers through promotional partnerships with Government, Council and the private sector.

• Opportunity to build a closer relationship between the donors of legitimate material and charitable recyclers.

• Opportunities to improve the service to the community by improving the efficiency of the charitable recycling as Social Enterprise ventures. Enhancing employment, social and environmental opportunities.

Methodology

The research methodology was established by the steering committee in five components. The following outlines the key process undertaken within those guidelines:

Establish and Manage Project

The Steering Committee reviewed protocols, timeframes, deliverables, work scope and processes for shared and external communication. The Steering Committee met a total of four times including a facilitated meeting with the local NACRO Chair and members of participating charities and staff from the Unley Council.

Investigation & Consultation - Current collection models & issues

The project consultant undertook research to identify: • Quantitative understanding of recyclable clothing industry • Identification of issues related to charity collections • Identification of models of collection interstate and New Zealand • Consideration of alternative methods of collection for charitable clothing The methodology undertaken was to review available desktop research (including library resources and websites) and to conduct field interviews with the charitable organisations through meetings in South Australia and telephone contacts both interstate and in New Zealand. As part of the consultation process a quantitative survey of operations in SA and interstate was conducted. This study has considered the business operations of the larger organisations with four or more retail outlets and membership of NACRO. Further interviews were conducted related to alternative collection proposals including CDL-Recycling Depots and schools. A list of consultations is provided in the appendices. Significant academic research is scant and charitable organisations do not appear to have the resources to conduct effective research. The Masters Research by Robert Cole on



8

Motivations for Charitable Giving (goods) in Australia: Implications for the Collection of Goods and Charity Retail Shop, University of SA (2000) is a most significant academic work and is acknowledged. Two attempts were made to develop a survey of charitable recyclers in the context of this study. One developed by the author sought data from NACRO Members nation-wide, (copy included in the electronic report version). The response by SA operators has been ulitised as a resource and is the basis of local quantifiable data. The response from interstate operators was insufficient to warrant consideration. The second survey by NACRO of its members ran concurrently and sought data for the forthcoming National Conference (Oct 05). This provided some limited data and is referenced. The steering committee acknowledged the difficulty of identifying published research and the limited available resources to charitable organisations. They consequentially accepted that consultation between these ventures was the key collaboration and the development of a viable pilot project the most significant activity required from the project.

Define and develop Draft Collection Models

A model of a kerbside collection had been proposed as part of this study and the consultation sought to identify concerns. Charities have tended to work individually to solve market issues including waste. Kerbside collection is a systemic solution and requires a broader approach. Models for kerbside charitable collections are innovative and those identified are operated currently as a pilot and as a private venture. There is the opportunity for South Australia to work collaboratively with charities through their national peak organisation to develop a unique project.

Refine Kerbside Pilot Project with Local Government &/or Waste Authority and other collection bank options

The research project evaluation proposal including feasibility (technical & financial) was based on the information drawn from consultation between charitable organisations and potential partners. The project proposed initially as a pilot has been evaluated in terms of identifying a model for collaboration based on a desire for change that would improve the business position of charities and provide a service for the community in partnership with state government through Zero Waste and local government with the Unley Council. A further element of the project research was the need for a flexible approach to innovation. This report sought to investigate other potential arrangements including locating collection banks at CDL Depots and public schools. While the process of investigation identified that not all proposals are likely to succeed, some partnerships may be possible. Importantly the consultation process also identified alternative options such as the alternative fuels project of Resourceco P/L that deserve further investigation but were outside the timeframe and scope of this project.

Report

In consideration of the contribution from the charitable sector the report was proposed to be available for wide circulation. Consequently the written report and supporting information including media is available through the web source: w w w.tregilgas.com/charitycollectionreport



9

Discussion

Charitable organisations operating recycling businesses are operating in a crowded market as the number of cause related charitable and not for profit organisations diversifies in Australia. “Givewell”, an organisation which profiles charitable organisations as a guide for potential donors comments that research over the last 5 years has consistently shown that public support to Australian charities has been growing steadily. It also confirms that the most important determinant of an individuals’ relationship with and potential donation (in whatever form) continues to be the nature of the cause the charity works with. Selection between similarly operating charitable organisations will be influenced by perceptions of operational methods and operating costs, with an increasing expectation that the charity will be business-like, maximise the direction of funds to the direct delivery of action or services in relation to the cause, rather than the administration of the organisation, and perceptions of the sustainability and longevity of the organisation. Of course there is a great distinction between donation of household goods where the removal of unwanted goods provides a benefit to the donor as well as a sense of contribution and direct personal financial contributions which provide less tangible results unless they are a major financial resource. In the South Australian environment those charities operating recycling business are high profile, well-established and with high levels of community recognition and understanding of their purposes and activities. Their traditional range of social welfare work and support for the disadvantaged are funded through processes for which the retailing operations provide an accessible and public face. At the same time through public education, formal schooling programs and media commentary the community has a heightened consciousness of environmental issues such as sustainability, energy and water conservation and global warming, and the recycling of both hard and green refuse has become normalised over decades. A strategy for efficient recycling leading to the collection, for sale, of high quality used goods needs to capitalise on the dual motivations of being charitable and environmentally sound, as well as the emphasis community members place on convenience. Research by Robert Cole on Motivations for Charitable Giving (goods) in Australia: Implications for the Collection of Goods and Charity Retail Shops.” identifies that women tend to be more active in donating clothing and household items, perhaps because of their direct relationship to household management for which they continue to take more responsibility, despite social changes relating to women’s increasing participation in employment. An implication is that donations may be maximised by processes which are directed to the convenience of women in households who may be less mobile, with dependent children, or reliant on public transport to a greater degree than males of comparable age. In Cole’s survey results there was strong support for the convenience of donating after hours or at weekends which is likely to be related to the need to physically transport the intended donation to an accessible collection point or bin. Clothing bins were identified in the research as the preferred donation method by 72% of the sample with 23% preferring to phone for a home collection. Of course this is in the context of the collection bins being perhaps the best-known collection method, and in the absence of an active promotion of alternatives which would be recommended as part of any change in collection strategy. Of interest also for this project was the fact that in Cole’s research findings there was no strong evidence that face-to-face donation had a marked influence on the quality of the



10

goods donated .Intuitively one would expect that a collection process which involved the active invitation to the charity to collect from a home address might enable some focus on the priorities of the organisation for particular items and the issue of quality. Should changed collection processes be piloted, it is important that evaluation seek evidence of its impact on quality and quantity of donations and the perceptions of householders of both the charitable and environmental dimensions of donation. The anonymity of the bin collection method may contribute to the use of them as general dumping points for rubbish which contributes to the costly discarding of such a high proportion of the items as waste. Community located bins were preferred because of “convenience”, but household collection could become much more so if actively promoted and normalised. Accessible, graphic information in plain English and community languages would also enable consistent messages about the selection of goods for donation by the householder. Also significant in teasing out what is implied by the requirement for convenience is that the bins were always available because fixed. To achieve both convenience for the donors and to increase the volume of quality goods for the charities may require the alternative to become a regular predictable service to the household, so that the stockpiling of items is manageable at the home site and that there is never too long a gap between collections. Perhaps some individual households could opt into or “contract” with a particular organisation for a regular collection cycle which happens automatically. In addition the process would offer “one off” household initiated invitations to collect at the next scheduled collection in that suburb. A combination of these approaches would maximise the returns to the charities. Home collection would also address issues strongly evidenced in Cole’s research and acknowledged by the community organisations involved; which include the concern about the condition, unsightliness, vulnerability to theft and vandalism of bins at donation sites. The pilot proposal is congruent with the key objectives of the SA Waste Strategy 2005-2010. The pilot contributes to the fostering of sustainable behaviour in the community whereby the community becomes more discerning in its approach to recycling while tapping into the wish to contribute to the welfare of the disadvantaged in the community. The pilot directly reduces waste at two levels. Firstly at the household level by providing effective collection of readily reusable items and secondly at the level of the charitable organisation whereby there would be a reduction in the proportion of unwanted or unusable items rejected for charity retail and sent to landfill. The pilot proposal is a contribution to a more effective infrastructure and system for the recycling of items for resale, or reprocessing. The harnessing of the traditional practices of charitable giving together with environmental consciousness provides an effective policy instrument. Finally the proposed pilot partnership arrangements between community organisations, local and state governments exemplify the sort of collaboration that is essential in order to achieve large scale and embedded change required by the strategy. Clothing remains an item geared to rapid turnover through fashion changes. The proposed strategy for charitable recycling works over the more preferable elements within the waste hierarchy from recovery to reduction. Avoidance of the creation of waste would require significant changes to the industry and cultural shifts in the community beyond the scope of this project.



11

Section 2 : Situation Analysis

Description of current charitable collections systems in SA

Opportunity shops as many charity second hand shops are known as are plentiful in Adelaide and SA. Sensis Yellow and White pages directories list these organisations under heading of Opportunity Shops, Charitable Organisations, Recycled Clothing and Second hand Dealers. This study has considered the business operations of the larger organisations with four or more retail outlets and membership of NACRO.

Operation of charitable recycling stores

South Australia has the benefit of 142 charitable retail outlets that generate $16.6 million and employ at least 212 people, including 173 full-time (see Table: Retail Outlets & staff). These stores are open to the public as a general rule five days a week with larger operations including Vinnies, Goodwill, Red Cross and Salvation Army Family Store open 6six days. The capacity of these organisations is achieved with a significant contribution from nearly 3000 volunteers. Table: Retail Outlets & staff (source: consultant survey) Organisation Staff Outlets Vol'teer P/Time F/Time Metro Region Total Anglicare SA 50 4 2 4 4 Aust Red Cross Stores 285 2 6 13 19 Baptist Com Service 7 7 Goodwill Family Stores 180 64 11 1 12 Lifeline 250 11 1 11 11 OARS 4 4 Salvation Army Stores 225 23 66 27 5 32 Save the Children 12 1 13 Vinnies Centres/Shops 2000 1 38 25 15 40 Total 2990 39 173 68 21 142

The role of charitable trading stores in the contemporary program of charity services is to assist the community with a range of activities including: • low cost clothing • vouchers for clothing for emergency assistance • connection for persons to the welfare system • distribution of safety and medical equipment Charity recycling has become a recognised sector and is very popular for the more socially mobile seeking a used but serviceable bargain or fashionable items perhaps a little retro or for a fancy dress party. The pressure on charity recycling is to provide quality fashionable clothing at low cost and like any clothing retailer to maintain a stock turnover ratio that will generate continued interest in the stores. The Goodwill visitation survey indicates that 49% of the customers who were visiting a Goodwill Store in December/January this year were shopping at there least once a week. This suggests a very strong customer base and while this may be result of good promotion it is indicative of the customer loyalty to charitable stores. It is widely



12

known that the most desirable, most current fashion bargains don’t last long and as most items are “one offs” regular visits are required by astute shoppers.

Source: McGregor Tan Goodwill research March 05 The reasons for shopping also reflect the values of charitable recycling. 25% of those shopping at Goodwill were doing so to support charity. Less predictable and even more significant was that 42% of the shoppers were doing so as they perceived both value and quality in the products of the stores. This result is a key issue of this report as it indicates that quality is a core component to the success of charitable trading. The potential to generate increased income by charitable organisations will very much depend on tapping into sources of quality material (and not simply quantity) to capitalise on these perceptions. Donors need to be aware that what the charities provide is not simply another rubbish collection service as provided by local Councils, but an avenue for directing unwanted goods for resale. The distinction between the recycling of waste where the ingredients of the product can be recovered and the operation of resale stores needs emphasis in the community.

Source: McGregor Tan Goodwill research March 05



13

The business of charitable trading and collections

The lure of the charitable sector to think that free stock and free volunteer labour will mean significant cost advantages that result in a profitable operation is challenged by the notion that waste disposal is a significant cost in running the business. The fact that the commercial sector retains an important place in the second-hand clothing and textile business indicates that efficiencies in the business operations and identification of additional markets may improve profitability and in turn the benefit to the community. The business of recycling is focused on the opportunity to gain a high value for re-use products. The cost of sorting and transport for any product other than Category 1 is greater than the return. However charities work closely with commercial operators within the rag business to reduce waste by on-selling Category 2, 3 & 4 materials. Table: Analysis of cost of sorting & sales (source: Goodwill) Cost Per Kg Sorting staff & operating expense

$2.50

Transport/collection contractors

$0.12

Sales % Sold Sorted $/Kg Cat 1 (A-Grade: Shop Stock) Goodwill Stores 15% $12 On sell other charities $4-6 Cat 2 (B Grade: Export) 30% $0.70 Wholesale Cat 3 (C-Grade: cotton based Rag)

40%

General (70%) $0.30 Polishing (30%) $1.20 Cat 4 Wool/Orlon 15% $0.30

The high value business of charitable recycling is in the resale of donated stock through trading stores. As identified in the table above the costs to charities of labour and other expenses means that the collection process and sorting needs to be focused on the A-Grade shop stock .Any other material handled by the charities is simply a by-product with a cost recovery of less than that of the cost of the sorting itself. Charities’ marketing focus needs to reflect the nature of the business they are seeking to attract. All operators from the charitable recycling sector indicated that a major campaign was required to educate the public that quality of donation was the key to support charities and provide quality and value to the consumer. Importantly this message is consistent with the reasons to shop as indicated by the Goodwill customer research.



14

Collection methods of different charit ies

The key concern of charitable recyclers is to attract donations of sufficient quality to provide a viable return on the business investment of the charitable organisation in order to support the welfare activities of the charity. Charitable organisations have taken a sophisticated view to the management and development of their trading operations and have made business decisions based on experience, market research and operational experience. Goodwill and Vinnies continue to utilise deposit banks located in public areas. Vinnies have utilised their association with the Catholic denomination and located many of their deposit banks in the grounds of the parishes. Deposit banks generate a considerable return. The average income per bin location is in the order of $17,500 pa when the number of bins and the proportion of stock gained are compared to the gross income for the organisation. Consequently the loss of deposit bank sites is a considerable deficit to the potential collection revenue. However the collection of donated good through the deposit bank system is significantly flawed by the gratuitous dumping of unwanted material at the sites and the corresponding cost of cleaning up. The unwanted material dumped at deposit banks also creates difficulties in terms of image for charities and the constant need to identify and relocate sites. The anonymous donation of stock as provided by the deposit bank system is seen by some organisations as the cause of the unwanted refuse. The solution to those organisations including the Salvation Army Family Stores and the Australia Red Cross is to focus donations on the “face-to-face” method where donors either bring their material, to the store or it is picked up by the operator. Robert Cole a former Regional Manager of Australian Red Cross Family Stores and Manager for Goodwill has addressed this significant issue in his Masters Research Thesis Motivations for Charitable Giving (goods) in Australia: Implications for the Collection of Goods and Charity Retail Shop, University of South Australia (2000). The following table summarises the principle methods of collection by charity recyclers in Adelaide: Table: Source of collections by Percentage (source: consultant survey) Organisation Deposit Banks Pick up Donor drop off Aust Red Cross Stores - 30% 65% Goodwill Family Stores 80% 5% 15% Lifeline Central 80% 10% 10% Salvation Army Stores 10% 30% 60% Vinnies Centres/Shops 65% 25% 10%

Charities have also developed a range of projects and processes to improve their collection methods. There has been to date little effort to approach the collection on a collective basis, rather the charities have in real terms acted as friendly competitors. A selection of innovations and alternative collection processes include: • Supply of “Sulo” style Wheelie Bins to corporate or other organisations where a

staff/community donation relationship is established. The Wheelie Bin method has developed a degree of sophistication with Red Cross for example supplying to Corporates with a staff greater than fifty. The collection of material has been monitored and the anecdotal evidence is that an improvement in quality is noticed but the quantity is intermittent, with the cost of the



15

wheelie bin and their collection a high investment. • The Salvation Army has introduced the “Red Bag” as a means to promote collections and

community involvement. A specific campaign is undertaken, involving relationship-building with schools and sporting organisation to attract donations. In addition to donations however the Salvation Army has implemented a scheme of providing $5 per Red Bag for quality material. This of course is a real incentive for quality collection and provides a fund raising opportunity for community groups.

• Targeted promotion including telemarketing has been utilised by charities. This process utilises the supply of plastic collection bags and targets specific socio-economic areas.

National Association of Charitable Recycling Organisations (NACRO) collaboration between charit ies

NACRO is a peak national organisation established by charities to assist with developing the charitable recycling industry. The organisation is an Incorporated Body under the NSW Incorporation Assoc Act 1984. The objectives of the organisation in its 2001 constitution include: • to assist each member to provide maximum financial support from recycling operations for its

charitable purposes. • to enlist and encourage co-operation and support from the Federal, Government, industries,

corporations, Trade Unions and the community for the recycling operations of members and to assist State Councils in their contacts with State and Local Governments;

• to promote the research and development of recycling operations and to facilitate the exchange of information, experience and advice between members;

• to monitor and inform members of legal or political matters relating to the recycling operations of members.

NACRO is managed as a national body, which currently has fifty four members with a State Council operating and representing each state and territory. Membership of the Association is only available to organisations that are constituted in accordance with the appropriate charity legislation in states and territories and have obtained Deductible Gift Recipient status from the Australian Taxation Office and operate recycling programs for the purpose of emergency assistance and/or the supply of low cost clothing. The organisation is empowered to enter into arrangements with any Government or authority, local or otherwise that may seem conducive to the Association’s objectives. Consequently any arrangement for a Pilot Project may best be pursued with the NACRO. However the organisation does not have specific resources to manage an activity or project and would need to establish agreements with operators who have the capacity to deliver project objectives, and where government funds are involved address accountability requirements also. The organisation provides an appropriate and sustainable link between the industry and governments at different levels, and a vehicle for the piloting of effective alternative strategies in the interests of its members.

Goodwill factory sorting



16

Waste and the charitable industry

History of Collections

The “rag” trade in South Australia has traditionally been in the hands of commercial operators. The J. Inverarity Company was one of earliest in this business commencing with a steam-powered flocking machine in 1903. Flocking is the product manufactured by ripping and tearing cloth to form a fibrous material usable for bedding, insulation and padding. The immediate post-war boom and technology innovations such as the inner spring mattress led to the installation of additional machinery which in turn caused a shortage of raw material. According to A Short History of J Inverarity Pty Ltd the company set up a “public rag-collection scheme” at their premises in Thebarton. The rag collection service was advertised on radio and the Inverarity’s was the “only pick up service that dealt directly with the public and gave cash payment”. According to the John Inverarity document, charities entered the market in the 1960s capitalising on cash for rag and supplying product for flocking and general welfare. Charities’ involvement in the recycling of clothing has largely been in the general development of Opportunity shops. Several organisations have played a significant and long term role in the development of these welfare-based ventures. As sophistication in the management of welfare services has grown, so has the development of charitable recycling ventures into complex multi million dollar social enterprise ventures providing valuable resources to complement the fund-raising efforts of the organisations.

Charit ies and Fibre Industr ies

Flocking of recycled materials is now essentially a redundant industry. Innovation of synthetic materials, the sophistication of machinery for flocking and the cost of imported virgin product has meant the economic end to the reuse of materials in a value added product. The Smith Family Charity provides a product into the South Australian market for felt insulation utilised in automobile production. The Smith Family has developed a strong and viable business operation based in Villawood Sydney, however the irony is that despite the best efforts by the charity to develop a recycled product, contemporary flocking machinery manufactured in Europe do not have a robust tolerance for recycled materials and requires virgin product to produce consistent quality felt products for the automobile market. If recycled raw material is to be used the inevitable zips and buttons need to removed by hand unless additional capital equipment is made available. Virgin product can be imported for considerably less than the labour or capital cost required for ripping and tearing to support flocking. Consequently operations including the Smith Family flocking operations in Warrnambool (2003) have been abandoned. Regrettably J Inverarity P/L has also recently ceased operations in 2004 leaving South Australia without a flocking manufacturer. While there are still members of the flocking industry (including Tontine of Dunlop Industries) that accept material, the role for charities in being able to collect rags and other materials that have a value for manufacturing in an industrial context is now limited to material specific rag for specialist uses such as polishing. Textiles that pose an industry-wide problem include polyesters which have no value for recycling and consequently are only being collected by charities to be deposited in landfill. Polyester has been described by some charity operators as the “plastic bags of clothing” and remains an issue of disposal for the industry.



17

The image of charitable collections

Charities have previously promoted a capacity to take everything and this image has continued despite the change of circumstances. The flocking industry has declined and as a consequence the Charitable Recycling operations have been caught by default in a redundant sector of the industry. This image that charity will take anything has perpetuated the notion that any gift is a good one and is certainly one of the excuses for dumping rubbish at deposit banks or providing worthless donations that will cost the charity to both sort and dump. The industry needs to communicate with those donating and the general community to refocus its position statements to reflect the nature of the industry. It is a matter of concern that in many situations charities have no choices but to dump their excess in landfill. This is at a cost to both the charity and the environment. Charities are embarrassed by this position and consider that to tell the public that 50% of their donations actually end up as landfill may result in fewer donations. Importantly, communicating truthfully may indeed result in less garbage and more valuable material that can be reused both in terms of the donation and the value of the income to the community.

Current l itter regulations

One of the principal collection methods for Charitable Recyclers is goods deposited at “Donation Banks”. These are located at numerous sites throughout the city and metropolitan area. Whilst this method of collection remains the core source for donations one of the major concerns has been the depositing of rubbish both in and surrounding the donation units. Rubbish depositing has been a concern for some time and provision for “on the spot fines” (max $500) has been incorporated in the Local Government Act [Local Government Act Part XLIA comprising ss. 748a -748d and heading inserted by 12, 1976, s. 70; amended by 32, 1978, s. 76; 12, 1986, s. 36; 69, 1990, s. 24; 34, 1996, s. 4 (Sched. cl. 23); 66, 1997, ss. 16, 17; repealed by 64, 1999, s. 6(zv)] The nature of this method of charitable collection makes it difficult to enforce the act through penalty. This is largely due to the deposit banks being commonly located on private land (shopping centres etc) rather than public land or council kerbside/roadways. The Deposit Bank Collection system is employed to some extent by all of the charitable recycling operators, however dumping of material at the door of stores is a matter of concern for all operators. The rise of the Garage Sale phenomena is a component of the problem. Dumping of material at the door of charities or near the deposit banks is common on Sunday nights requiring a concerted clean up each Monday morning. The materials are the unwanted matter from garage sales and rarely have a real value to the charity. The situation also encourages scavenging from the deposit banks and store sites. The problem of refuse dumping has been increasing, while the responsibility and cost for removal has become by default that of the collectors and not the State or Local government or the perpetrator. Charities are not alone in this issue. Dumping is a practice beyond the deposit banks and is of concern to the wider community. KESAB, the long standing environmental organisation has examined this matter on a national scale and sought assistance from the State Minister for the Environment to expand its activities.



18

I l legal Dumping

Illegal dumping is increasing in “black spot” areas of metropolitan Adelaide. Local government does not have the resources to effectively respond to the issue. It is a costly management process. There are examples of interstate strategies that have been very successful raising the awareness of illegal dumping, enforcement, applying penalties and clean up orders. The NSW RIDS (Reduce Illegal Dumping Squad) has been very successful. KESAB has proposed to employ or house an Authorised Officer thereby providing local government and KESAB alternative options to address the issues of illegal dumping and littering relative to compliance. This should be considered further in the context of the state strategy and the complementary pilot proposal provided in this report Outcomes would reduce illegal disposal, heighten awareness, and be self-funding through expiation fees recovered.

“Dob In” Schemes & Authorised Officer

Compliance with litter regulations and priority of management of litter issues by local government in SA is falling behind other States. Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia have all implemented stronger and successful strategies for compliance, litter reporting by community, and expiation with success. KESAB’s role is often one of working with Councils advising re litter management, and nearly always being restricted because of real or perceived weakness of the Local Government Act and supporting regulations to expiate. Income generated from “Dob In” compliance and expiation regulation ensures cost recovery. Western Australia and Victoria report some 15 – 20 000 litters per annum with an estimated 80% efficiency of collection ($1 mill +) South Australia needs to review the total litter management process. KESAB has recommended to the Minster that litter management options be strengthened and underpinned by new or revised regulations linked to recent stronger anti-pollution measures embraced by the EPA.

Current waste management

The charitable recycling sector is by default engaged in the waste industry. The combination of past practices and the cost of public dumping have created a combination of factors that means charities are currently bearing a substantial burden beyond the anticipated cost of operating a business. The burden of waste is particularly demonstrated by those charities involved in the collection of material through the deposit bank system. Vinnies cost of waste is as high as 27.5% of their gross sales. This position is unacceptably high in any operation regardless of the potential benefits of being a charitable organisation. The deposit banks are clearly a problem in terms of their ability to attract unwanted dumping, however this by-product of the charitable recycling industry is increasing each year and is costing the community at least $420,000 in lost assistance for those most in need. Waste is a product of any business operation. The charitable industry needs reform to tackle the issues of waste. The operators have already done this to an extent with the introduction of new models for collection such as ‘face-to-face’ pick up services and donations though the stores but while this may reduce the proportion of waste to sales the issue is still the significant cost of removing and dumping unwanted material.



19

Table: Gross sales and cost of waste of responding organisations (Source: consultant survey) Organisation Gross sales Cost of waste % of Waste to Gross Goodwill Family Stores $3,800,000 $180,000 4.7% Lifeline $520,000 - Salvation Army Stores $9,033,000 $101,000 1.1% Vinnies Centres/Shops $3,300,000 $120,000 3.6% Total $16,653,000 $421,000

The business of charitable recycling is focused on the opportunity to gain a high value for re-use products. The cost of sorting and transport for any product other than Category 1 is greater than the return. Charities work closely with commercial operators within the rag business to reduce waste by on-selling Category 2, 3 & 4 materials. The cost to charities for dumping is considerable and as identified in the Table: ‘Cost of Waste’ below has increased by a minimum of 255% in the past two years. This position has been caused by the increase in waste tonnage and the increasing cost of disposal. It is appropriate for all tiers of government to identify opportunities to reduce cost burdens on charities. Table: Cost of Waste (Source: consultant survey) Organisation 2003 2004 2005 Aust Red Cross Stores $15,000 $20,000 Goodwill Family Stores $100,000 $138,000 $180,000 Lifeline Central - - - Salvation Army Stores $80,000 $92,000 $101,000 Vinnies Centres/Shops $85,000 $100,000 $120,000 Total $165,000 $345,000 $421,000

The Port Pirie Regional Council has identified waste as a burden for Lifeline Charitable Trading and has waived the fee for dumping. This relationship has probably been developed by local activity and understanding but it is an inspiration for other Local Governments who have control of waste facilities.

Environment Protection and the Charitable Industry

The cost of disposal at licensed waste transfer stations to landfill is considered by many to be the cause of considerable illegal dumping. The steady increase in fees charged, the perceived difficulty of access due to the location of controlled dump sites, time and travel costs including petrol and the size of many domestic vehicles all impact upon behaviour in relation to waste disposal. For example, the sheer size, weight and difficulty of the handling of unwanted mattresses now that they are no longer taken by many charitable organisations poses a challenge in many households. Dumping may be seen as preferable to unsightly storage or the costs and difficulty of legal disposal. The legislative and policy framework provided by the EPA has a direct impact on the charitable industry. It is in the interests of the EPA, Government and Community to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of collection and recycling, and to minimise cost-shifting for legal disposal from households to charitable organisations. The intent of successive legislative and regulatory changes is not only to address cost changes but to drive behavioural change. In the Environment Protection Act 1993 there is currently no reference to the operation of the charitable sector in recycling and retailing of clothing or household items.



20

EPA Issues

The use of deposit bins, the income generated and the associated dumping issues need to be seen in the context of the other costs for the charitable industry. From the data available, each deposit bin utilised by charitable organisations involved in the study generated an income of approximately $17,500 when averaged across organisations and locations. While the data on the quantum of waste by weight sent to landfill by the organisations appears somewhat inconsistent it is very clear that the actual costs incurred by the organisations are considerable, some $421,000per year. From data provided by charities on the costs of waste disposal with commercial landfill agents it is evident that the current cost of disposal is in excess of $60 per tonne. Included in this charge is $10.50 per tonne which constitutes the waste depot levy required under the Environment Protection Act 1993. There is a perceived correlation between successive rises in EPA levies and the practice of illegal dumping in the community in general and the abuse of the deposit bins for waste disposal. While the EPA Act 1993 currently does not mention charitable recycling it also does not provide for any licensing arrangements with associated standards for compliance. NACRO might provide a mechanism for addressing national standards of environmental behaviour which support the continued refinement of the activities of the recyclers for environmental and community benefits. Licensing may also facilitate the systematic application of an exemption policy for charitable organisations that undertake to minimise the quantum of waste to landfill and maximise the direction of funds to support social inclusion. The identification of an annual level of waste which can be disposed of by recognised (licensed) charitable organisations without fees would have a powerful incentive effect to support the wider application of the proposals made in this report. It would also have a very positive effect on the organisations return of funds for community benefit. New South Wales has enacted legislation providing for exemptions for charity. It is suggested that national arrangements would be desirable rather than having inconsistencies from state to state for organisations that have national identity. NACRO provides a mechanism for this as does the appropriate Ministerial Council. Exemption from EPA fees for charities operating recycling social enterprises would significantly reduce the financial burden on their operations. In South Australia it is suggested that support be sought from the Minister for the Environment. If associated with the pilot proposal in this report the exemption policy would result in progressively lower levels of forfeited fees as the charity recyclers receive better quality goods and more specifically targeted products with consequent reductions in the proportion of unusable donations which must be discarded as waste. (See Exemption from the payment of contributions under Section 88 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. This exemption has to be applied for using Clause 21C of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996).

Description of kerbside clothing collections interstate and New Zealand

Interstate and New Zealand experiences point to the viability of kerbside collection of clothing and material associated with charitable trading, although there are only few incidences of operations. The quantities of collections are sufficient to maintain commercial operations and significantly reduce landfill. Both interstate and New Zealand operations involve commercial operators.



21

Queensland and New South Wales Government and Local Councils have established agreements with NACRO regarding positioning of deposit banks but Victoria is the only state where a kerbside collection is currently operating and this is also the subject of a pilot trial. The pilot is being conducted by the City of Geelong as part of their recycling program. The project is in partnership with several charities including the Brotherhood of St Lawrence (BSL) of Melbourne and the commercially operated FM Recycling (Thomastown) and the Geelong Council’s recycling contractor Clean Away. The trial project is an eight month project which commenced in June 2005. The collection process is as follows: • A defined group of 8000 residences were provided with a specially designed bag (75x50cm

wheat bag style with pull tie made from woven plasticized material). • Council provided resources and communication to residences as part of their waste

management strategy. • The bag is placed on top of the regular kerbside recycling and collected by the Council

Recycle Contractor. • The Charity Bag is culled in the first sort by the contractor. • The bags are picked up by the designated participating charities (in the agreed proportions).

The bulk is collected by FM Recycling on behalf of BSL. • A survey has been conducted with residents. The first three month trial has been completed and is currently being evaluated. The interim results include the following: • The process of collection has generated 14 tonnes of charitable material. It is estimated that

95% of this collection was diverted from landfill. • The process of collection of coupling with recycled material has meant contamination due to

broken glass. • The open weave plasticised material and open top was initially used to allow compacting –

this needs to be amended to reduce the contamination. • New bag is likely to be recyclable rather than reusable. • Strong survey response of 600 from 8000 (7.5%) indicates 85% satisfaction with the project. The New Zealand example is a collection system operated by the nationwide textile recycling collector Doonan’s Cleaning Rag Service. The business has depots and operational connections in all major New Zealand cities and in Auckland operates the Textile Recycling Centre. The company has strong connections with charities and provides collections and an outsourced service including the operation of shops on a fee for service basis. The organisation’s business focus is largely industrial textiles and they play a significant role in providing a collection system which enables the charities to focus on the re-sale of donated “wearables”. The business operates an offshore venture in Papua New Guinea and the B-grade material is exported and sorted at that destination. Collection is via traditional models including deposit banks plus a Kerbside (“Street”) collection system that has been in operation since 1964. The deposit banks still provide 65% of the collection and like Australia the bin system is subject to considerable unwanted dumping. The business operation is value-based rather than weight-based so information on quantity of collection is difficult -however their waste level is approximately 15%, which considering the focus on second grade collection may have efficiency implications for the Australian Charitable recycling industry.



22

The model for kerbside collection is as follows: • General marketing including specified residential areas. • 8-9 million plastic bags distributed direct to residences per year. • Distribution up to 10-12 times per year (NZ population = 4 million people, approx 1 million

houses). • The material is collected from the kerbside by the operator and taken to a central depot for

general sorting. • Quality of the material collected is better from the kerbside system and differs depending

upon the socio-economic profile of the collection area. The lower – middle areas provide a higher quality that the equivalent deposit banks in those areas.

The New Zealand system is valuable in terms of its cost effective promotion and collection but has little relationship with charities and no connection to local government. These charitable organisations including the Salvation Army have operations including collections similar to those in Australia which focus primarily on the collection of material for reuse as charity clothing sales and welfare.



23

Section 3 : Review of options for charitable collection and waste disposal in SA The Zero Waste SA Charitable Recycling Project brief indicated that the purpose of the study was to establish whether kerbside collection of clothing is a viable option for charitable collection organisations and if so, determine the necessary arrangements to enable implementation. The brief further indicated that ZWSA in conjunction with Goodwill and NACRO intend to use the study to implement an initial pilot kerbside collection system and sought to identify metropolitan Councils that are prepared to host a pilot collection program, including any pre-conditions and develop to a fully costed implementation plan.

Local government and charitable recycling

The original Zero Waste brief purposed of the study was to establish whether kerbside collection of clothing is a viable option for charitable collection organisations and if so, determine the necessary arrangements to enable implementation. It is also indicated that ZWSA in conjunction with Goodwill and NACRO intended to use the study to implement an initial pilot kerbside collection system and sought to identify metropolitan Councils that are prepared to host a pilot collection program. Councils periodically receive complaints about the state of deposit banks and their surroundings and invariably are involved in clean-ups. The current system of policing unwanted waste at deposit bank sites is incorporated in the Local Government Act, however this has process has proved ineffectual. Any system that reduces the problem has benefit to Councils and the community in general. When the proposal was announced by Minister Hill, it caused some initial consternation in Local Government circles. The LGA was unaware of the proposal and the investigation into its viability and the was sensitive to proposals for the provision of new or expanded services by Local Government that may have rate revenue implications. The consultation process included the Local Government Association. Waste and Environmental Management Policy Officer (Chris Lease) was helpful and provided an informal and personal response which is included in the appendices. He questioned whether the proposal would be considered part of the core business of Local Government under the Act 1999 Section 7 Functions of Councils, however acknowledges the concerns of local government in that Councils periodically receive complaints about the state of deposit banks and their surroundings and invariably are involved in clean-ups. Any system that reduces this problem would have a benefit to Councils. From a Local Government perspective on the charitable clothing collection proposals it is important to investigate the demand for such a service and the demographic of donors to supply enough quantity of clothing for the service to be viable. Anecdotal evidence from operators involved in kerbside collection of recyclables and waste for Local Government suggest that a service in conjunction with hard waste may add an additional $5 to $10/household/pa to collection costs (this ignores other costs such as distribution of the bags for collection, promotion and education and disposal of unwanted items). Across a Council’s area the increase in contract price could be substantial. Council engagement in charitable recycling is currently ad hoc. While the depositing of rubbish has been a concern for some time and provision for “on the spot fines” (max $500) has been incorporated in the Local Government Act (1999). However the nature of this method of



24

charitable collection makes it difficult to enforce the act through penalty. This is claimed to be largely due to the deposit banks being commonly located on private land (shopping centres etc) rather than public land or council kerbside/roadways. Council provides a small degree promotion to the Charitable Collections in the context of their communications with ratepayers regarding waste and recycling. This however tends to be a small reference to “other” recycling. An important issue for the charitable recycling sector to advance would be the elevation of “Charitable Collections” to a category in its own right. The Charity Kerbside Clothing Collection project would certainly encourage this level of profile. Regional councils may have special relationship with local charity operators. Port Pirie Council for example have identified waste as burden for the regional Lifeline Central Inc and have waived the fee for dumping. This relationship has probably been developed by local activity and understanding but it is an inspiration for other Local Governments who have control of waste facilities.

Unley Council as the pilot host

In May this year, Unley Council’s recycling contractor advised that circumstances had changed in the marketplace and their ability to accept textiles as part of the fortnightly household kerbside recycling collections would no longer be an option. This is consistent with market trends in that there is no identifiable re-sale for general rag textile (see Section 2 – History of Collections). The contractor indicated that the current level of collection is approximately 100 kgs per week. For the time being (and at least until the end of the year) collection of textiles will continue, but from January textiles would no longer be collected. Unley Council’s Health & Environment Office contacted Zero Waste SA regarding the Charity Recycling Project who invited Unley to explore the opportunities for Council’s involvement in a community-based collection scheme. The proposal to undertake a pilot of this kind was consistent with Unley Council’s Community Goals which include the following: 1.2 Enhancing the well being of the community through facilitating the provision of

appropriate services and facilities and opportunities for involvement. 3.3 Work in partnership with the community to promote environmentally sustainable

development practices. 3.4.1 Provide efficient, environmentally friendly waste collection and recycling services. Following consultation and meetings with members of the Project Committee a report was prepared for the Unley Council’s Works Committee. The report (see Appendices) indicated that the Charitable Recycling proposal will further empower the special needs of particular groups or individuals in the community, e.g. people with disabilities and older persons who may have previously used the Council’s kerbside recycling system because they were unable to make use of deposit banks. The proposal is not expected by Unley Council to have any negative impacts on the local economy or specific local industries or businesses. The implementation of the trial will not have any significant detrimental or impact on the environment. On the contrary, complaints about noise and illegal dumping should reduce. From the outset it was established that the Unley Council would be more likely to assist if a cost-neutral approach could be adopted. Current analysis by Unley Council indicates that the cost of implementing the trial would be minimal, with only some advertising expenses. Unley currently utilise a weekly notice board “Unley Life” in the Messenger Newspaper to communicate with residents and business and it is envisaged that this method would provide a collaborative promotion for the project (see Marketing & Promotion in Section 4).



25

Unley Council’s involvement would likely be in receiving calls from residents and forwarding them to the appropriate collection agency/contractor and assisting in publicising the service. It is anticipated that existing staffing resources would accommodate the ability to receive the calls. At the Unley Council City Services Committee meeting of 19th September the Zero Waste SA report was received and subsequently approved by Council on 28th September 2005. This thereby provided an ‘in principle’ agreement to work with the Project. Unley Council has recommended that a further report be prepared by the administration outlining project plan details, cost and risk analysis to seek Council’s full endorsement.

Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) - Recycling Depots

The project brief requested consideration of the potential to host deposit banks at CDL Recycling Depots. Consultation was held with the President and Executive Officer of the Recycler Association of SA and members of NACRO. Recyclers of SA represent 38 members and a total of 114 recycling depot sites. A similar proposal for location of deposit banks at CDL sites had been considered some years previously, however this project had not come to fruition. NACRO representatives were supportive but they anticipated that the material donated at the recycle depots may not be of the equivalent quality as the kerbside collection. This position would provide an outlet for collection of B-grade stock and rags for resale. It was also appropriate to consider venues to replace deposit banks during the pilot project and develop a new routine for collection of general donations from the public. Depots offer secure fenced venues for the location of deposit banks. The security also extends to the operating hours of the depot and should prove to be genuine deterrent to indiscriminate dumping of unwanted materials. This level of security provides a definitive position on any person who deliberately dumps material outside of the agreed operating times of the recycle depot. Recyclers of SA identified particular synergy with the project in terms of promotion and are keen to develop a sustained collaborative campaign to identify their depots engaged in the pilot and possibly utilise the charities’ access to media through community announcements highlighting the association and the importance of recycling. A general proposal to identify the possible synergy of a partnership between Recyclers SA and NACRO to assist in the Zero Waste Project Study was presented at the Recyclers of SA Executive Meeting Thurs 8th September. The executive expressed an “in principle” agreement to establish a partnership through a pilot project complementing the Unley/NACRO Kerbside project.



26

Public Schools - issues for hosting Collection Banks

Representatives from the Education Department have considerable reservations to the placement of deposit banks on their properties. At present some schools use clothing and other materials for their annual fund-raising activities and the Zero Waste Project may distract from these collections. The direction of the Education Department was seen as a learning process rather than connecting schools to external processes. Currently they have a focus on material resources, waste/energy renewable resources and water and environmental issues and schools have contracts for waste and include recyclable elements. The provision of deposit banks at schools would require significant investment in security fencing and other infrastructure expenses to prohibit pilfering and asses to school property. The location of deposit banks would also require access to school property for pick of material and while this may be restricted to the weekends a range of safety concerns were raised. Issues such as arson, vagrancy, health and other risk management issues including security, staff requirements and resource availability were cited as reasons for not being part of the Project. However, there are potential opportunities for collaboration. The connection to the sustainable schools curriculum for charitable recycling, production of information sheets, use of the Express and Raw Magazine and engagement with SA State Schools and Principals’ Association were cited as examples. Involvement would be left to the discretion of individual schools. It should be noted that while developing a system wide approach for Charitable Recycling at public schools may not be viable, a significant number of faith based schools (particularly Catholic Schools associated with Vinnies) participate in collections and house deposit banks.

Alternative options

In examining the collection of materials for charitable recycling it is appropriate to consider a range of methods and whether any innovations may apply for either the collection or disposal of waste. A range of collection methods have been canvassed in this report that are already in operation to some extent by one or more of the charities. Additional concepts that may be considered include the United States of America charitable collection models including: • Promotion of collection weeks/drives at major shopping complexes. This model is common in

the US and with a promotional partnership with the shopping complex, provides space for pantechnicon collection vehicles for a specified and well promoted period for locals to donate goods

• The US also offers a tax deductibility for donations of goods to charities. This would require considerable lobbying to enact in Australia but it would certainly draw out the higher quality goods.

The alternative use of the by-product of charitable recycling has traditionally been the manufacturing of a flocking product. With the demise of this industry and the increase in non-natural fibres there is an importance to examine alternative opportunities. The following two were canvassed and deserve addition consideration: • CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology were canvassed through the units Director Dr Ian Russell in

Geelong. The problem is not Charitable Recycling’s alone, the carpet and other fibre industries have significant waste and an innovative product could have significant impact. It is



27

useful to remember that the rise of and subsequent fall of the flocking industry was basically technology related. Dr Russell indicated that scientists would be interested to research and develop new products but would require research grant assistance to seriously address the issues.

• The importation of virgin product could be counteracted with the development of new markets. Discussion with the SA Department of Trade and Economic Development has indicated that there may be options for export to China and India where labour costs may enable secondary sorting and possibly cut and tear operations to provide materials for additional markets. Further evaluation of these positions would be required.

• The most significant opportunities appear to be with the development of alternative fuels. South Australian company Resourceco, in collaboration with Adelaide Brighton Cement has been conducting a trial of burning materials in a high heat furnace for the manufacture of building products. Following discussion with Resourceco’s company director Mike Haywood, a trial burn of a bale of waste category material from Goodwill returned results that it was suitable for the purpose. The current position is that the material would need to be refined (cut) to suit the burning process. This is in hand with Resourceco planning to install cutters for significant raw materials that would also provide suitable fuel. The future quantity of fuel would potentially utilise the lion share of the charitable recycling collective waste of over 1,200 tonnes per annum. Importantly the cost of disposal through this system is quoted at $35 per tonne (including GST). This cost significantly reduces the current expenditure of $62 per tonne.



28

Section 4 : Analysis of feasibility for charitable kerbside collection pilot

A Model for SA

The Zero Waste consultancy services brief for charitable collections proposed that the “purpose of the study is to establish whether kerbside collection of clothing is a viable option for charitable collection organisations and if so, determine the necessary arrangements to enable implementation.” South Australia has reputation for innovation in recycling and with processes such as the Container Deposit Legislation is the enviable national leader. The model identified for a Charitable Kerbside Clothing Collection Pilot is unique to South Australia. It draws on collaboration between local Charity Recyclers through their national peak organisation (NACRO), Local Government through the agency of the Unley Council and the CDL depot operators with the peak organisation Recyclers of SA. The following information is drawn from the discussion and investigation as outlined in Sections 2 and 3 of this document and particularly consultation with Zero Waste SA, Charitable Recyclers and NACRO members, Unley Council and Recyclers of SA. This consultation involved: • Joint meeting Charitable Recyclers/NACRO with Zero Waste SA – 28 July ‘05 • Kerbside Collection Planning workshop day NACRO – 13 September ‘05 • Presentation to Unley Council City Services Committee – 19 September and subsequent

approval of the Unley Council, 26 September ‘05 It is proposed that a Project Steering Group be formed to maintain these consulting relationships and promote integration of the various contributions. The project should create a seamless system for end users, donors and recyclers with strategic outcomes for governments. It is intended to improve collection system in the following ways: • Improve quality of donations • Improve quantity of quality donations • Improve proportion of quality donation to waste in the total collection • Improve service to donors and build motivation to donate • Improve image of Charities engaged in Recycling • Reduce the cost and quantity of waste forwarded to landfill by the Charitable Recycling

sector.

Condit ions for assistance from Government

The Charitable Recycling Project was assisted by Zero Waste SA in recognition that the deposition of unwanted material presents a significant cost burden to charitable organisations and adversely affects their capacity to fund a range of community charity activities and programs. In addition the presence of unwanted material is unsightly and creates pressure for the removal of collection banks further reducing the funding capacity of the charitable organisations. Discussion with Zero Waste in the course of the project identified key issues for support of a pilot project. It was identified that an on-going project of evaluation be undertaken during the pilot to explore its sustainability and satisfaction of partners and donors. These would include: • Cost implications for the initial pilot were within reasonable levels of funding available to Zero

Waste SA through existing budget allocation • The pilot project would identify potential opportunities for:



29

o Future expansion of project through replication o Potential for self funding

• Contribution of Charities o Collaboration between Charities

• That effective methods of measurements be introduced by the pilot operators to identify: o the quantities of materials collected o the quantity/proportion and categories of re-use o the quantity of waste resulting in landfill

• That to ascertain effective measurement and comparative data for collection and waste: o Deposit banks be removed from the pilot area o Designated deposit banks in an adjacent area be monitored o Monitoring of targeted Charitable Recyclers

• Operational Risk analysis (including OH&S) was undertaken by the participating organisations.

The Model

The proposed model is based on “at call” waste collection arrangements. This system is utilised by several local government areas to manage the “hard waste” collection but is yet to be developed for other collections such as Charitable Recycling. Many charities already operate home pick up collections system and the model builds on this in with an integration of the support of a local council to assist communication with householders. The Unley Council already operates an “at call” hard waste system. In addition the model proposes to remove deposit banks from public areas and relocate them to secure recycling depots where the public is already accustomed to depositing recyclable materials. The pilot model process is that with support from the State Government though Zero Waste SA to NACRO representing Charity Recyclers a promotional campaign in the Unley Council area will be developed and householders will be encouraged to donate clothing to charities via a kerbside collection system. The first public trigger will be the distribution of a purpose designed “Collection Bag” to residents. This will coupled with a promotional and public relations campaign to raise awareness of the new opportunity to donate. Householders who choose to donate will contact the Council; they will advise them of a specific pick up date. The Council will log the resident contacts through their systems and notify the Charity Collection Operator (via fax or email) of the pick up details. The charity operator collects the bags, which in tern will be taken to a cental depot for weighing, sorting and distribution to charitable retail outlets. The pilot model proposes to withdraw deposit banks from the council area and relocate them at Recyclers of SA depots in proximity to the Unley area. This will enable persons to continue depositing a range of textiles in bulk. The former sites will be sign posted to inform persons of the new arrangements and direct them to the nearest CDL facility. It should be noted that deposit banks may still be located in facilities such as parish or school grounds where there is a close relationship with the donor and the charity organisation. This combination of these two processes is expected to virtually eliminate waste dumping in the context of charity opportunity collections in the area it operates. The model accommodates loyalty of particular households to preferred charities. While the project is designed as a cooperative approach to collections individual charities are at liberty to continue their individual marketing and collection processes including pickups from homes and personal drop offs at specific stores. The “in principal agreement” among the charity recyclers to establish a memorandum of agreement between NACRO and Goodwill to provide services on there behalf was taken



30

with the acknowledgment that in a long term wider application of the model an equitable process of division of goods to the collaborating charitable organisation would be required. The kerbside collection pilot process in brief • Distribution purpose designed collection bag • Direct marketing promotion campaign targeting households • Householders choose to utilise the donation system • House holders communicate with council • Council advises householders of collection date/day • Council informs (fax/email) charity collection agency • Charity picks up from household • Householder supplied with new/reuse bag (unlimited pickups) • Additional collection option – CDL Depots

The Collection Bag

The model proposes the use of a purpose designed “collection bag”. The bag is an important connection with the collection as it will provide the triple function of being part of the awareness promotion campaign, carry messages of the operators as to how to use the system and be the receptacle for depositing and collecting donations. Following concern of other bag models (NZ – Plastic rubbish bag, non re-usable and Geelong – light woven plastic, problems with contamination) it was proposed that a purpose designed model was required to address the key requirements.

• Durable and Multiple use • Weather proof • Convenient to use for Donors/Collector/Sorter

o Easy open -open top with draw string (no eyelets). o Handle (small) on the bottom for loading/handling.

• Printable o for logos of participants (NACRO/Unley Council/Zero Waste/Others Etc) o phone contact for pickup & bag replacement o other messages such as Quality, Max Weight and/or safety warnings

• Load & Size for both and sensitivity for the donor and collector (OH&S) as it would have to be lifted o maximum of 20kg o dimensions -70cm (height) x 65cm width

• Cost effective – with attention to the cost of manufacture and style or look: that would encourage usage (such as the Green Shopping Bag)

A quotation was sort from the Queensland based Greenbag Company who identified material of 140gm NWPP (water proof), 300D Nylon backed with PVC. Producing 20,000 initial units including artwork, printing and freight to Adelaide would be a total of $41,400. Additional costs for replacement or additional orders of 10,000units would remain at $2.05 per unit.



31

Assumptions of sustainabil ity

The estimates for the sustainability of the project beyond the pilot period which may enable continuation and possible replication need to be based on conservative assumptions. These targets may then be tested in the project evaluation.

Estimated collections in the Unley Kerbside Pilot

Charitable donations are based on several factors. These include available time for a general household clean-up, seasonal fashion shifts and relocation. The experience of NZ indicates that donations may be as high as 10 times per year, however this system has been in operation for 3 decades and public acceptance is high. Unley Residential area contains 17,000 households. This is 2.9% of the total occupied residences in SA (ABS, SA at a Glance 2005). While there was no available data on the frequency of donation, the information gained for this report would indicate that the kerbside model would promote a pattern of frequency based on convenience coupled with season influence. It is assumed that persons with an established loyalty to a particular charity are likely to maintain their current face to face giving pattern Table: Unley Pilot donation frequency minimum estimates Category Estimate Calculation Value

Donations per household

50% of households then halved for conservative estimates

17,000 household divide by 25%

4250 donations

Donation frequency per year

twice per year Donation per household x 2 8,500 donations

Quantity of donation

estimated 50% of Collection bag maximum (20kgs)

Household donation frequency x 10kg

8,5000kg

A-grade stock Current 15% of sort 8,5000kg x 15% 1,275kg A-Grade Stock Sales Current value $12.00 1,275kgs x $12/kg (retail) $15,300

Estimated collections in Recyclers of SA, CDL Depots

The move of deposit banks to CDL depots is estimated by Charities to reduce the quantity of donations. This position would be partly due to the hours of availability for depots. It is not anticipated that the collection at the depot will improve the ratio of categories for sorting. Importantly the new deposit and collection system through CDL depots is anticipated to significantly reduce the quantity of unwanted material dumped at sites resulting in substantial savings.

Sustainabil ity Targets

Beyond the initial trial the opportunity to maintain the project and expand will be subject to the ability of the project to generate income through improved sales from collection of quality stock and the reduction of expenditure caused by waste. The estimates of the Unley Kerbside collection indicate the current sorting ratio of stock from donation at 15%. If this position was doubled through improved quality of donation due to convenience and other aspects of the collection system, charities would have the opportunity to significantly improve business results.



32

The cost of waste to charities is a key issue for this report. Proposals have been floated that may have a significant cost saving capacity for the whole of the industry through initiatives including waiving of the EPA levy for Charities, and the potential to utilise waste as an alternative fuel. The core to savings will continue to be each charity's own practise for collections. The scenario proposed in the pilot is to effectively reduce waste to a minor portion of the business operations. This would be achieved by removing deposit banks from the area and developing the low waste kerbside collection. As identified in the table below, if charities seek to reduce waste by the portion of household population in the Unley Council area below they may be able to save 3% of the current spend. Table - Cost of Waste Organisation 2004/5 3% Aust Red Cross Stores $20,000 $600 Goodwill Family Stores $180,000 $5,400 Salvation Army Stores $101,000 $3,030 Vinnies Centres/Shops $120,000 $3,600 Total $421,000 $12,630

Unley Council part icipation in pilot project

As indicated in Section 3, Unley Council’s Health & Environment Office took up the offer to explore the opportunities for Council’s involvement in a charity based collection scheme following the Minister for the Environment announcement of the Zero Waste project and subsequent media interest. In addition to general service issues Unley Council considered that the proposal would further empower the special needs of particular groups or individuals in the community including people with disabilities and older persons and potentially reduce significant council concerns such as complaints about noise and illegal dumping.



33

Unley Council have indicated that their participation would be based on a cost-neutral approach. It is thereby recognised that a small allocation exists for kerbside textile collection which had been previously categorised as hard waste. However the real contribution has been identified in a range of collaborative promotion and administrative cooporation and includes: • Council provide access to households in the Unley area to promote the pilot and potential

on going scheme • Use of council staff as contact point for householders to book service and subsequent

contact of charity for collection • Use of council mail-outs for insertion of brochure or other promotion • Use of Council advertising and promotion including “Unley Life” Messenger Newspaper

inserts • Use of Council website for promotion, monitoring and customer survey In a practical approach to the pilot operations, it has been suggested that the pick up arrangement will be based on the current waste collection zones and schedule of the council. The initial hopefully conservative estimates suggest 4250 pickups during the 26 week period (or approx 32 per day).

Following consultation and meetings with members of the Project Committee a report was prepared for the Unley Council’s Works Committee (see Appendices). The report was received th

September and subsequently approved by Council on 28th September 2005. This thereby provides an ‘in principle’ agreement to work with the Project. Unley Council has recommended that a further report be prepared by the administration outlining project plan details, cost and risk analysis to seek Council’s full endorsement.

CDL depots part icipation

The original Zero Waste Consultancy Brief (March 05) proposed to “investigate the potential for locating charitable collection banks within CDL collection depots and public school sites, and other locations that may reduce the disposal of unwanted materials near collection banks.” As previously discussed the option for public school sites has been dismissed, however the opportunity to work with Charitable Recyclers of SA is discussed here as a genuine complement

to the Kerbside Collection Pilot and may lead to a long-term association. The pilot project conditions require the charity recyclers remove publicly accessible deposit banks from the pilot area in order to evaluate the collection system. In recognizing that the deposit banks play an important role in collections and to alleviate the possibility that people may simply dump material where the site had previously been located it is proposed to relocate the deposit banks to CDL Depot sites. Signage at the original site would draw the public’s attention to the new model of operation and the location of CDL depots in close proximity. Public and education is required prior to this action. The pilot proposal seeks to integrate charitable recycling and the involvement of Recyclers of SA is a practical example of this collaborative synergy. Recyclers SA depots would be engaged in the pilot by incorporating them within the pilot’s promotion campaign. Development of the evaluation study will further help to identify the benefit of utilising CDL depots for collection by charities (including quantity and quality of donated goods) and the issues of Recycler SA and their customers. The choice of sites covers a range of suburbs with differing socio-economic reaches. This is anticipated to provide strong data profiles particularly as the proposed sites are adjacent to the core pilot area.



34

Contribution of Recyclers SA Inc would include: • The provision of sites to NACRO and the project pilot at no cost • To operate the pilot project in the inner southern metro area adjacent to the Unley Council

(See Table) estimated to commence autumn 2006. • To engage with an evaluation project to identify the benefit of collection by charities and the

issues of Recycler SA and their customers. • Subject to the successful operation of a pilot and satisfactory evaluation expand the project

to most member sites at a future date to be determined. Contribution by NACRO and Zero Waste SA would include: • Supply of clean deposit banks. • Regular pick up of donated goods either on demand or routine schedule. • Storage and sorting. • Specific training and handling. Table: Proposed Recyclers of SA member depots for par ticipation (adjacent to Unley Council) Blackwood Blackwood Firewood & Recycling Main Road

Brighton Kamleh Can Depot 53b Sturt Road

Glen Osmond Edmond Drinks 389 Glen Osmond Road

Edwardstown Daws Road Bottle Co 76 Daws Road

North Plympton Daws Road Bottle Co 114 Mooringie Avenue

Marleston Western Region Recyclers 59-61 Grove Avenue

NACRO - Charity contribution

NACRO provides the capacity to deal collectively with charity recyclers. NACRO could take responsibility for coordination and facilitation of the project. NACRO provides the higher level partnering with local Government as well as with the State, as well as the capacity to resolve internally among members any operational issues that might arise. This in fact simplifies implementation from a Government perspective. What is proposed contributes to the consolidation of the organisation and an enlarged operational in addition to advocacy role. A funding contribution from the NACRO members towards the project could provide some equity and “buy in” for the project which could have major benefits for what is already a multi million dollar activity in the sector. For the pilot this may be at a token level. The host organisation for the pilot project would contribute through the inputs of transport, collection, sorting, weighing, and storage. It was noted by NACRO members that Goodwill was the only organisation with available capacity to provide a consolidated service to Unley Council to collect and store/sort materials collected at their Dry Creek Warehouse. At the Charitable Clothing Kerbside Collection planning day for NACRO (13/9/05) members expressed their enthusiasm for the pilot project to proceed, and confidence that they had in place the mechanism to harmonise arrangements across different organisations to adapt to the one model of “at call” collection should this be an outcome from the project. The meeting of members endorsed a recommendation that a “host organisation” was required to deliver the project logistics and proposed that a Memorandum of Understanding would be needed to be established between the host organisation and NACRO in the context of support from Zero Waste SA being directed to NACRO to manage the Project.



35

In the longer term NACRO would address the equitable distribution of materials across the organisations who describe themselves as friendly competitors. Should the pilot be as successful as expected a sustainable jointly funded facilitation and coordination capacity could be attached to NACRO.

Implementation Strategy

The pilot implementation is reliant of the support of the State Government through Zero Waste SA. Project coordination has been identified through NACRO with an agreement for Goodwill to undertake the logistics of collection, storage, project management, monitoring and evaluation. The pilot is proposed for 26 weeks to commence in autumn 2006. The timing was selected by the charities in recognition that traditional peak operations for Charity Recycling occurs in January. The time frame of 26 weeks was seen as an adequate period to effectively implement a scheme and evaluate results over the traditionally slower autumn and winter periods. The following is a summary of activity to implement the Charitable Clothing Kerbside Collection Pilot. Early October – Report received by Zero Waste SA October 23-25 – NACRO National Conference (Adelaide) October/November/December • Zero Waste SA resource confirmation • Memorandum of agreement – NACRO & nominated host organisation • Establishment Project Steering Group

o Zero Waste SA o NACRO & nominated host organisation o Unley Council o Recyclers of SA

• Development of Unley/ NACRO/ Recyclers SA partnership &/or agreements o Risk assessment documentation commenced o Development of evaluation project guidelines

• Project Coordinator o Preparation job & person specification o Advertise for appointment early January ‘06

• Marketing o Prepare marketing brief and tender January/February

• Appoint Project Coordinator • Marketing

o Review and appoint successful agency o Commence marketing promotion concept development (see Appendices: Proximity Proposal – Timeframe) o Design & order – purpose designed collection bags o Prepare signage



36

March/April (Autumn ’06) • Implementation of project

o Confirmation of processes for collection – Council/NACRO/Recyclers of SA o Training of relevant staff o Commence media campaign and direct marketing o Commence distribution of bags o Relocation/location of deposit banks to CDL’s

• Commence collection May/June/July • Monitor operations • Maintain evaluation processes • Commence customer survey • Provide progress report to Steering Group Aug/Sept • Conclude pilot – recommendations for continuation/cessation • Prepare summative report of KPI monitoring • Prepare final customer satisfaction report

Marketing and promotion

As noted in previous discussion, public education about the new methods of donation and information about the preferred type of donated items and their quality is essential to the pilot. This needs to be available well before any changes to existing collection sites. Plans to utilise local newspapers, Council communications, bus stops, libraries and to tap into community communication networks via service clubs, schools and shopping centres should be included. Some communication in a number of community languages is desirable, and could open new donor networks. As the pilot seeks to establish new behaviours all messages need to be regularly reiterated over the duration of the project. It is clear that there is considerable interest in the community and by the media in the dumping of rubbish at collection sites. The Governments launch of the Zero Waste Charitable project brought considerable media coverage on Radio, Television and in the Press (See appendices). Strategy and activity to monitor and publicise progress will continue to provide a positive context for promotion of this innovation. A broad proposal from a reputable consultant for a communication strategy is provided in the appendices (See Appendices – Marketing and Promotions Proposal: Proposal for NACRO Unley Council Kerbside Recycling Test and Timeframe – Proximity Adelaide). This sample information is provided by Proximity Adelaide with their agreement. This proposal provides indicative costs for elements of the strategy. The document is amended from the document presentation provided at the NACRO Planning Day and represents the elements agreed by NACRO members to effectively implement the pilot project. Any contractual agreement for expert input to the pilot project in this area would be a matter for the implementing agents.



37

Cost of pilot

The process of consultation has provided more detailed information about potential costs. This has resulted in some increases in proposed expenditure, beyond those identified in the concept proposal. (See Appendices -Presentation 15 Sept) Charity Kerbside Clothing Collection: Pilot Project -Budget Estimates Expenditure Category Capital Outlay Collection Bags • 20,000 (Greenbag Quotation as per specs) 17,000 Unley households plus replacements.

$41,400

$41,400 Marketing Proximity Proposal $47,000 $47,000 Project Coordination & Evaluation

Project coordination & management • 40 Weeks project coordination (SACS Award level 4 - 0.6FTE incl on costs) • General admin and communication • Pilot Measurement and evaluation incl Local Survey expenses

$31,000

$2,000 $4,000

$37,000 Project Expenses Relocation of Deposit Banks (20 sites) • Signage o existing Deposit Bank sites o Recyclers of SA depots

$2,500

$2,000

$4,500 Total $129,900

Risk analysis

Each organisation proposed for involvement has specific risk issues and the capacity to assess those in regard to their own participation. It is proposed that each member of the Steering Group would undertake specific risk assessment pertinent to their needs. The project in terms of Zero Waste SA involvement is low risk because of a number of factors including; • the supportive policy climate in government following release of the SA Waste Strategy

2005-2010 • the good reputation of the organisation acting as host ,and of the members of NACRO • the demonstrated willingness to collaborate already evident among the partners • the significant gains (public relations, funding and environmental) to be made by the

parties from achieving the outcomes projected • the timing for implementation allows sufficient lead time and avoids high pressure points

for the charitable organisations • the strong history of donating in the community which requires behaviour modification but

not radical shifts. In addition, as professional organisations existing OHW&S coverage is in place. The MOU with Goodwill should require evidence that Goodwill has insurance in place appropriate to the changed collection method, i.e. the handling of 20 Kilo bags and their transport. The two



38

handles in the design are intended to ease handling both for households and the collectors. The “at call” method poses minimal risks to participating households because the quality of the receptacle and its use has been developed utilising existing industry expertise and available research. The bag is designed to hold up to 20 kilos of material, and is not large enough for households to force too much additional material inside.

Monitoring and evaluation

Continuous formative evaluation should be undertaken throughout implementation with summative evaluation to assess outcomes, impacts and satisfaction at its conclusion. Data gathering for evaluation purposes should be built in to the coordination process. It is not anticipated that external consultancy evaluation would be required although expert scrutiny of the design would be desirable. As there is existing commercial practice in the area, the collection of information about the proportion, weight, quality of donations etc is gathered by the charities involved. The client satisfaction survey can be quite simple, and the numbers of participants large enough to enable sampling if necessary. Simple data collection instruments should allow cumulative data collection. As those involved can be specifically briefed regarding the pilot the issue of accurate data collection and its purposes can be well understood at each point in the process. As previous the Charitable Kerbside Clothing Collections model is intended to improve collection system and reduce waste. The following key indicators will provide the basis of evaluation measurement: • Improve quality of donations • Improve quantity of quality donations • Improve proportion of quality donation to waste in the total collection • Improve service to donors and build motivation to donate • Improve image of Charities engaged in Recycling • Reduce the cost and quantity of waste forwarded to landfill by the Charitable Recycling

sector.



39

Appendices 1. Recommendations & Report to Unley Council (Word)

2. Marketing & Promotions Proposal: Proposal for NACRO Unley Council Kerbside (PowerPoint)

3. Recycling Test – Proximity Adelaide (Excel)

4. Descriptive PowerPoint presentation – 13 Aug 05 (PowerPoint)

5. Consultation list (Word)

6. Local Government Association SA (LGASA) informal response (Word)

7. Litter Regulations in Australia – KESAB (Word)

8. Web Sites of Interest (Word)

9. Media coverage (images, audio, video)

These appendices are available from: http://www.tregilgas.com/charitycollectionreport/report.htm

charity kerbside clothing collections

Documents