The general story is that Cui Yongyuan Public Welfare Fund sent a letter to Hunan Education Department asking for cooperation with the Fund's "Rural Teacher Training Plan", and Hunan Education Department replied "No objection, no support, no participation". This "three noes" attitude angered Cui Yongyuan, and Cui replied to Hunan Education Department with "no effort, no action, no shame". The education department said he was wronged and didn't understand, while Cui Yongyuan insisted on criticizing the education department. To answer how NGOs handle the relationship with the government, we must first clarify the tangled mystery of this matter. This seemingly isolated incident actually reflects many shortcomings in the relationship between NGOs and the government in China. Generally speaking, NGO is regarded as an important part of civil society and its independence is very important. In a democratic society, this assumption is very close to reality. Once the status of NGO is independent of the government, its organization is not subordinate to the government, and its capital is not dependent on the government, then its attitude towards the government will be very different. Traditionally, NGOs not only compete with government departments for the same type of social services, but also cooperate with government departments to deal with social problems, such as environmental protection and poverty alleviation. However, recent studies have increasingly found that in the transitional period, the independence of NGOs is not a necessary condition for them to play their role effectively, even for promoting social transformation. Yu Jianxing and others have made a detailed follow-up study of Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce, and found that "growing through participation" is the common development mode of these chambers of commerce. At the same time, these chambers of commerce not only provide social services, but also improve their internal governance. They are not in a position of constant confrontation with the government, but often cooperate with each other to jointly deal with some social problems, such as labor disputes. When I observed the private think tanks in Shanghai, I also found the same pattern, which surpassed the dichotomy of "government -NGO" and grew up through participation. I think this explanation may be more suitable for analyzing NGOs in China. According to the perspective of "growing in participation", the problem of special fund model can better explain the special fund model adopted by public welfare funds in Cui Yongyuan and avoid the problem of "independence". Because Cui Yongyuan Fund obviously does not have independent legal personality, it is a special fund under the China Red Cross Foundation. Simply put, Cui Yongyuan Fund is not a typical "NGO". Of course, the main reason for this situation is the previous "dual management" regulation for private equity funds, which requires both business authorities and registration authorities. The latter is usually undertaken by various civil affairs departments, but the competent business departments are not easy to find, and even if there are competent business departments, the civil affairs departments may not be qualified to register as independent non-governmental organizations. Under this dual control, choosing to become a special fund under an established institution can actually be said to be a great institutional innovation. However, problems also follow. The Red Cross Foundation is not an independent non-governmental organization, and its business unit is the China Red Cross Society. I call this kind of organization a government-run NGO, which means that it is more like a branch of the government than an independent NGO. The most obvious evidence is the corresponding administrative level it enjoys. As I have explained in the article Thirteen Points of the Red Cross, the Red Cross has actually become a vice-ministerial unit because of its historical legacy and retired cadres. This special status also makes the behavior of many staff members full of bureaucracy, probably because they are confused about the exact nature of their own organizations. The administrative level of the Red Cross Foundation is also equivalent to a bureau-level organization. In this way, the subordinate special foundation has two dilemmas. The first direction is the incompatibility between modern NGOs and government-run NGOs in administration, personnel, finance and project operation. This typical case is the "One Foundation" project in Jet Li. One Foundation tries to become a professional modern NGO, but the practice of the Red Foundation is still relatively traditional, at least in the disclosure of annual financial reports, the two have completely different positioning. It is inevitable to part ways. The second direction is the official operation of special funds, which has been assimilated into the style of government-run NGOs. However, compared with the flexible demand of the charity market, this bureaucratic style is difficult to adapt to the market and produces contradictions. At present, it is not clear whether the personnel relationship of Cui Yongyuan Fund staff belongs to contract outsourcing or China Red Cross Foundation. According to Dong Feng, a volunteer of Cui Yongyuan Fund, he wrote to the Hunan Provincial Department of Education, requesting to cooperate with the Fund's "Rural Teacher Training Plan", and put forward six requirements in the tone of government official documents: 1, and issued documents or notices to inform the education bureaus of thirteen counties and districts in relevant cities about the selection of teachers; 2. Announce the notice, process and standard of this selection activity on the government website of the education department; 3. Urge the County Education Bureau, as the supervisor and auditing unit of the teachers participating in this activity, to verify the information according to the relevant selection criteria and sign the Application Form for Teachers Participating in Training to show supervision and ensure fairness and transparency; 4. Publicize the list of primary and final teachers on the government website, accept public supervision fairly, and ensure that every penny of public welfare can really be used for rural teachers; 5, the relevant standards, list, process, etc., in the selection of teachers in the county education bureau government network and local media announcement; 6. After the training, urge the county education bureaus and schools representing participating teachers to organize learning exchanges between participating teachers and non-participating teachers, and between participating schools and non-participating schools in accordance with the selection commitments, open exchanges, and jointly improve the level of rural education. Here we put aside the moral right and wrong of this practice. Judging from the suggestions listed in the proposal, this practice is quite bureaucratic. Moreover, from the performance of the operation of special funds, we will find that this is not necessarily an effective way. This proposal itself completely handed over all the work of selecting and auditing rural teachers in the early stage to Hunan Education Department. In fact, the Cui Yongyuan Fund is only responsible for bringing teachers selected and recognized by the government to the city for training and broadening their horizons. Judging from the "accountability" of a project, this kind of preliminary work may have great loopholes. For example, relatives of government officials may take the opportunity to be elected, but this is actually not that rural teachers are in urgent need of training, but that they have squeezed training places. How to select rural teachers who really need training, so that those who are interested in rural education have the opportunity to continue to be respected by future generations after training, is the purpose of the Cui Yongyuan Special Fund, instead of letting the government education department randomly find a group of people. Here, Cui Yongyuan Fund not only failed to strengthen its own organizational goals, but also gave up two standards that are crucial to NGOs: efficiency and accountability. Perhaps it can be said that this is bureaucracy that harms specialization. Another very important issue is that the goal of the special fund should be to move towards independent and effective NGOs, rather than being mixed with government-run NGOs. If we simply browse the business of China Red Cross Foundation, we will find that it covers everything, from saving lives to education, medical care, old-age care, poverty alleviation and other fields. Strictly speaking, this has obviously violated the original intention of the Red Cross to save lives and focus on medical care. Because it involves almost all social problems, it will also increase the internal coordination cost, and each branch will get more budget and generate internal friction in order to compete for its own field. Too many goals also make it difficult for organizations to focus. For special funds, their position in this process may be very embarrassing. On the one hand, we must rely on the Red Cross Foundation, on the other hand, we must expand our own brand and business, which may lead to potential conflicts and waste a lot of resources. Another explanation is that this is because the staff asked the local government to cooperate in the name of Cui Yongyuan. To put it bluntly, it is "stars play big cards." This is an explanation that many people don't want to hear, but in fact, stars and local governments play big cards because of their great social influence. From a realistic point of view, if playing big cards can affect the behavior of local governments, then playing big cards will become a star's choice. Judging from Dong Feng's words, Cui Yongyuan Fund's strategy of playing the big card really won the favor of the previous cooperative government, so it may become a strategic choice of Cui Yongyuan Fund's "Rural Teacher Training Program". The government's investment in education is not enough, but the strength of Cui Yongyuan Fund may lead to some changes, which may not be a bad thing, although playing big cards may not sound good. As previously analyzed, if the professional function of your institution is accomplished through the government, even if it is done, it may not be a good thing. This is the embarrassment of Cui Yongyuan Fund. The "three noes" response of Hunan Education Department, a hidden disease of the government, angered Cui Yongyuan and the public, but moral evaluation did not help to understand the logic behind this matter. According to the logic of bureaucratic hierarchy, the corresponding administrative level makes it unnecessary for Hunan Education Department to respond to the request of China Red Cross Foundation. So strictly speaking, the response to Cui Yongyuan Fund is more due to the pressure of "stars". But government agencies have their own considerations. Some institutions will appear more radical, such as China Merchants, which are under pressure of performance appraisal; Other institutions, such as the education sector, are not. Although it is hard to say that the education departments in all places are in the same mentality, usually such institutions hold the mentality that more things are not as good as less things. This can be seen from the attitude of "no support, no objection and no participation" of Hunan Education Department. For the front-line NGO staff in China, the government's "three-no-cares" is actually great good news, which means acquiescence to what NGOs can do, which is conducive to the development and growth of autonomous organizations. For Cui Yongyuan Fund, its goal is relatively simple, that is, to let rural teachers broaden their horizons and bring back some useful books after training, thus affecting the quality of rural education for a long time. This is also easier to achieve. The most interesting thing is that this sounds like the "responsibility" of education departments everywhere, so why don't education departments do it? On the one hand, of course, it is the mentality of "more things than less things" under the "three noes" remarks mentioned above. Anyway, the assessment of the competent officials does not include broadening the horizons of rural teachers, and education officials may not have the motivation to do similar things. On the other hand, there are de facto resource constraints. The education department does not have this part of the budget at all, because on the whole, the local government's budget for education is pitiful. In the pitiful budget, the education department is also doing the maximum calculation. The so-called higher education, which usually brings obvious output, is more favored by government financial support than compulsory education, and broadening the horizons of rural teachers may not even be considered in policy options. Mentality and factual resources restrict the education sector, and the Cui Yongyuan Fund just makes up for this deficiency. However, the Cui Yongyuan Fund's six requirements for Hunan Education Department are equivalent to the fact that, under the existing human resources allocation of the education department, whether there are a large number of vegetarians or not, from the government's point of view, it is an extra workload without a corresponding increase in resources, which is naturally unacceptable from its bureaucratic thinking. Even if Hunan Education Department accepts the proposal of Cui Yongyuan Fund, I don't think it is a good arrangement. Since Cui Yongyuan has found that the education department is "hardworking, inaction and shameless" and the inefficiency of the bureaucracy is almost common sense, why does Cui still have expectations for the education department? One possible explanation is that the Cui Yongyuan Foundation is not qualified for teacher training. Although the Red Foundation is involved in the field of education, the qualification of training teachers is still in the hands of the education department. Therefore, through the "blessing" of the local education department, it will help to clear the name and resolve unnecessary troubles. This may be a strong motivation for Cui Yongyuan Fund to seek government support. Otherwise, it is difficult to fully explain why we should cooperate with the government education department. The real reason behind this is, of course, the inaction of the education department, and the bureaucratic three-no mentality and tight budget in the education field are the hidden diseases behind the government's inaction. Specialization is the way out. I don't want to criticize the kindness of stars, but it is necessary to specialize in how to work in NGO industry. Judging from the "three noes" dispute between Cui Yongyuan and Hunan Education Department, at least Cui Yongyuan, as an NGO practitioner, is very unprofessional in government communication. I'm not denying the influence of celebrities on policy advocacy, but Cui Yongyuan's firepower is misplaced in achieving a specific goal of training rural teachers. This reprimand for the "lack of effort, inaction and shame" of the education department was put on the CPPCC meeting, demanding that "the redundant staff in the education department be streamlined and the efficiency of the use of education funds be improved. It can also be seen that one of the problems of many celebrities' public welfare is that they don't have more professional abilities, and mainly because they are too busy to obtain the professional abilities needed for the specific operation of NGOs through training, such as public relations handling ability. At present, the professional quality of Cui Yongyuan Fund staff is also worrying. Dealing with the relationship between non-governmental organizations and government departments is also an important topic in developed countries. Generally, NGOs have professionals in charge of government relations. They are familiar with how to communicate in languages and ways familiar to government officials, rather than responding to government responses according to their own wishful thinking. This will usually intensify contradictions and help solve problems. Moreover, due to a high degree of bureaucracy, that is to say, it takes a lot of time and energy to handle affairs. It is conceivable that Cui Yongyuan Fund will continue to deal with government departments in the future, which is obviously an issue that institutions should consider. It is good for stars to do charity, but it would be better if they could do it in a professional way. For the rural education and training program of Cui Yongyuan Fund, there are several things to consider in the short term: First, Cui Yongyuan Fund should evaluate the existing training programs to find out whether there are more effective ways to train rural teachers. I don't think it is a particularly effective plan to transport hundreds of people's rural education from rural areas to cities for training, because a large part of the cost will be spent on transportation, not training. In the Internet age, we can broaden our horizons through lower-cost methods, such as cooperating with "one kilogram more", showing TED educational programs to rural teachers, and letting volunteers in the city communicate with teachers in the past. I just give an example here. I think the Cui Yongyuan Fund, which has a lot of experience in training rural teachers, should be more experienced in finding more effective solutions. Secondly, to evaluate whether the scheme of selecting teachers in cooperation with the government can really select teachers in urgent need of training, we should not only consider efficiency, but also consider responsibility. At present, it is not clear how the Cui Yongyuan Fund evaluates whether the cooperative education department has selected suitable teachers. However, in the past, the incident that government officials went to the city to train under the guise of rural teachers should serve as a warning. Perhaps within the education system, the form of notice issued by the education department is still an effective way to mobilize rural teachers, but this is obviously not the only reliable way. Unless there is a problem with the qualification of training teachers, the list can be published on the website of Cui Yongyuan Fund. I don't see that the website of Hunan Education Department is easier to access than the website of Cui Yongyuan Foundation, and even this problem can be easily solved by setting up a blog or cooperating with the public service channel of the portal. Third, if we must cooperate with the government, the communication in the early stage should be smoother. Even if you have different understandings, you can continue to communicate, and you don't have to be honest. These will all involve related courses of NGO project management, such as determining the intention first, then signing a formal contract to clarify their respective rights and responsibilities. This can effectively avoid subsequent differences. The war of words can attract attention, but is it helpful to the goal of this rural teacher training? Cui Yongyuan's purpose is not to advocate policies. Even so, the focus should be on the Ministry of Education rather than local education departments. The education department has no ability to change the education policy, and can only change some practices according to the actual situation. I don't completely deny the effectiveness of the big-name strategy in dealing with the government. It's just that we should use the big-name strategy with caution, or use it on different occasions. I don't think it is suitable for this kind of rural education and training. More professional communication methods may bring more effective results. In the long run, Cui Yongyuan Fund should develop into an independent "Cui Yongyuan Public Welfare Foundation" in organizational form. As far as Cui's personal influence is concerned, it is feasible to follow the example of One Foundation and embark on the road of specialization, although it will be difficult. On the one hand, it is not easy to handle the relationship with the government, the public and other organizations at the macro level, on the other hand, it is not easy to improve management and professionalism within the organization.