Mtn04-AIM09-GBR.

I think the AIM currently fits the IEC well. They get to meet first internally, then EEC, then the entire board, and then some wrap up with EEC and themselves. Any compression of AIM will squeeze the IEC/EEC even more than today, giving committees even less time to work (under supervision of their head).

I would second the cost-reduction target.
- More centralized hosting
- Lower standards as long as security is kept up (in countries where applicable).

What about some sort of cost sharing based on cost minimization. Essentially running AIM close to where the most participants come from, close to cities with a big international airport. In short:
- Reduce the sum of travelled miles.
- Reduce the cost of tickets -- esp. the Latin American destinations have been very expensive (GUA, COL, CRC). Thailand was (from Europe) cheaper as there are more flights.

Possibly politically incorrect in CISV as smaller NAs would have a hard time to be awarded an AIM, but possibly overall good for the organisation.

Then again, my ticket to Guatemala is 240USD, which makes it a miracle price compared to say, Europe.

My other thought was that a lot of cost efficiency comes now through the fact that many committee members are either NJRs or Trustees (depending on the committee) or national committee chairs (where the NA gives funding for those people to go to AIM) and this very much increases the amount of people able to attend AIM for each committee. The problem, of course, is they can only work at night or during pre-aim. If we run everything at once, it will save money in one direction, but probably those who have to chose between a funded role in CISV and one which they have to fund themselves will make the obvious choice and committees will suffer without a simultaneous shift in budget.

So I like square AIMs, but I want square budgets too.

The idea of the square AIM was that board and IJBC sessions take place in the mornings and committee sessions in the afternoons, and everybody meets for plenary in the evenings. So, contrary to Sarah's point, it would work very well for participants to take a double role as trustee/commiitee member or NJR/committee member. Also, contrary to Lars' point, the square AIM concept could take away board meeting time, and not necessarily committee meeting time.

Also: With our current system we first need a country that is willing to host, before the discussion on cost effectiveness starts - in the end we are happy to have an NA volunteering to go through the hosting process. Cost effectiveness then is only a criteria, if two countries compete, like France and Spain for 2012. So, I don#t really see a chance in finding cheaper locations, unless we decide to host it in the same (cheap) place every year.

AIM is something that every volunteer in CISV should experience once, so that they value participation in programmes that much more!

I've been asking the same questions as Laura since I first found out the (rather exorbitant) cost of attending IJBC/AIM in Sweden in 2006. My thinking was: if ARMM can be done for so cheap, why does AIM and IJBC run 5-6 times the cost?

Granted--there are a few differences: It's a lot harder to find meeting space for 300 than it is 30-50 and the material/food/personnel costs rise exponentially as well (you need more people to help cook/serve).

CISV USA's NBM (similar size to AIMs ~250-300 people) reduces its costs by signing a long-term contract with a hotel in Cincinnati. This has both benefits and costs--the registration costs are cheaper and the plenary rooms are free, but airfares can be expensive and travel times from the West coast are often long.

What can be done? The most immediate change would be to reduce the standards of the AIM. Some of the "old guard" might complain, but really...as long as there is a comfy bed, secure location and alright food they really don't have anything to complain about!

In addition, I think CISV Italy took a step in the right direction at last year's AIM by having their JBers help out in the kitchen and serve food. This reduces the overhead cost of catering and gives more of the local chapter an opportunity to experience the meeting.

I'm going to agree with Sarah as well...tickets to AIM in Colombia (from expensive Grand Forks, North Dakota!) were less than half of the cost of tickets from Atlanta to Italy ($600 vs. $1400!). Rotating AIMs as it is now seems to do an alright job of evening out the travel costs.

Martin: I would not use Italy as an example for a good AIM; it was (after 20 years) the first CISV activity I have attended where I did leave meals hungry...

As for plane tickets; even if I am not going this year the difference between Colombia and Italy was 8 fold: 150EUR vs. 1200EUR. Anyways; it shows the example; we need to minimize travel cost globally, and rather share the expenses (through some cost sharing agreement), rather than to optimize our own cost.

Nick: where is that AIM participation statistics per country/region? ;)

Going to the same place many times in a row is probably also a good idea; would make AIM tourism less attractive, and it would probably be easier to get good deals. (And one could have a higher degree of learning by doing...)

Lars--I do agree that at times last year a separate trip to McDonalds the next piazza over was a requirement. I also think that it might be a (growing) step in the right direction. I've found CISV as an organization is very unwilling to try new logistical things. Ideas I've pitched from experience planning 350+ person events for high school youth groups are immediately thrown out as "will never work" without trying.

Without a breakdown available (and it being very late here in the US), my guess is that the most significant portion of the cost of IJBC/AIM registration is meeting space rental and hotel room reservations. Since this is the most post-Devils themed website, here are a few suggestions I'd love to see thrown out toward reducing this aspect of costs:

-For IJBC (and, less likely, AIM): Instead of having participants stay in hotels, set them up with host families from the chapter. Include in the cost of the meeting a metro pass or have families drive participants to a central meeting location. I know of many youth groups in the USA who logistically plan meetings in this manner.

-Downgrade the site: I had dinner with my former NJR partner from the USA who brought up a good point: we paid $120 at ARMM (cheap!) to spend five days sharing beds and sleeping on floors. Sure, our backs might be a little bit stiff at the end of the meeting, but we're saving a ton of money.

:::Begin dreaming:::
-Invest in and build a centrally-located CISV meeting site to be used for AIM hosting every year. One can dream! This might be both a way to save money as well as earn a bit of extra revenue by renting out the space to other organizations for their meetings/events.
:::End dreaming:::

One thing I purposely avoided mentioning was travel costs. I really haven't seen anything put into play in CISV that adequately shares costs (in my opinion). I also think that we, as an organization, aren't doing our part to make airfares more affordable (or FREE!) for meeting participants. Most major airlines around the world have a special department that deals with company travel for meetings and special events. Many times they offer deals beyond what you might see published on travel websites.

In addition, many airlines offer a "Business" frequent flier program that allows a company to accrue points off of flights flown by their employees. I set up one of these accounts for the airline I usually travel to CISV functions with and in a little over a year have accrued a little over half the required points for a free ticket. By taking advantage of these programs, we'd likely be able to save the organization a fairly large amount of money on airplane tickets without much extra work.

I'm not going to add arguments, I just believe that something should be tried. I was disappointed by the non-use of Nick's suggestion (Square AIM). I believe that something has to change, but at the same time is hard to find a good solution without trying, so let's learn by doing and try out some new suggestion!

@Martin: I like your ideas how to make AIMs cheaper, but most of them involve more "volunteer action". I'm afraid this is actually a time in CISV when the trend is actually towards getting things done by professionals, even if things get more expensive.

@Teo: I also still like the Square AIM concept, and I won't get tired of promoting it. Here's another good reason for it: Participation in AIM is most expensive for juniors, because many of them take part in IJBC AND AIM, once they've paid for the plane ticket. A normal trustee however, usually pays for the 5 days of "pure" AIM only. On the other hand there are juniors that have to leave after IJBC, because their NAs won't pay for AIM, and committee members that leave after preAIM, because AIM itself is so expensive, which again doesn't make sense.

The Square AIM would generate a meeting of everybody for the same amount of time, for the same price.

@Lars: I don't know where to get the data from, where the AIM participatns came from, but I's be even more interested, how much money is spent on travel. I'd wish somebody could make a survey on travel costs and throw that information into the discusion of AIM costs. The price for accomodation is only a part of the story.

Lars, I agree with you that the meeting as it is now suits some people more then others. As we all know, unfortunately someone will always lose out. It's about finding a happy medium I guess. I think that at the moment, committee work and recruitment could have more focus.

The hosting location is an interesting one. I do believe that we could save a bit of money on less fancy sites and less 'add ons'.. however (and even though I have never seen a budget), I guess that there are a lot of things that cost that can't be cut. also, I would never want an NA to make a huge risk of losing a lot of money on an AIM.

I have pondered about this after a discussion at ETG and after writing the motion, and the more and more I think about it, the real money is in the travel. Ok, well every other year (for GB) the real money is in the travel. This is the hardest to fix. I guess that the happy medium between the current rotation and having AIM in the same place each year is having 3 locations close to major airports in a rotation Eg Madrid / New York / Bangkok.

But then again, when you start thinking about AIM location fixing - you start to think about the purpose of the AIM. Many people may argue that AIM is just a meeting, and just a procedural thing, and many may argue that the culture of AIM should reflect the culture of the organisation (as an educational organisation). I recieved an email from a trustee reminding me about what AIM really is, and really achieves and it made me consider this point. That AIM in a way still is an 'activity' to many people. I have certainly learned more in my 6 years in CISV International then on my CISV programmes.

Going slightly off- point.
What I would like to say about this year's AIM is that I like the look of the schedule. Firstly, colour coordination is one of my great loves . Secondly, It suggests the intention and purpose of the sessions by saying which are for the board and which are for everyone. Finally we see a much more purposeful and interested observer schedule. I see a lot of potential in this, and I see a lot of potential in a comment in the IJB report about the IJRs talked to IEC about how juniors can be more involved in AIM and the schedule. If committees were wise they would lap up these parallel sessions to promote their programme, what it's about and spread the skills and resources that they have in their committees.

I agree with Teo, that it's all about trying something out. Even if it's crap, I'm sure we'd learn quite lot from the experience. Why not go crazy and say lets not have AIM one year, channel the saved money into hosting additional programmes, and see what we all learn about electronic communication. hmm

Laura: Regarding AIM-as-activity; don't we always tell the parents that it does not matter where an activity takes place?

Locking the locations would make AIM tourism less interesting, maybe reducing the participation, but we would probably be having a lot more effective AIMs as we know where we would be going, making sure that the locations are fit for purpose.