Over the past few weeks I have had the opportunity to work at different levels with some of the biggest charities in the UK and I must say it has made me quite cynical about those charities and angered at the means they use to raise money. Not all charities fall under this banner but my recent experience shows me that most do. They very existence of these charities demonstrates the reluctance of successes governments to focus on the needs of its citizens and in a sense gets them off the hook. Charities need our money to be able to function and to be able to provide the benefit to those whom they represent, but is this the correct way to provide benefit? Cancer or medical charities, such as Cancer Research and MacMillan do amazing work but why isn't our government investing what is needed, after all it can afford £369m to refurbish Buck Palace, indeed it seems that London, having been able to afford a £1.8m firework display, also has plenty of spare cash that it could be using to help research and care. As for the charities themselves these have become money making machines, not just filling the coffers of the charities but also the companies who run their campaigns (most charities sub-contract their raffles and fund-raising activities to other non-charity organisations who are better equipped) and the highly paid executives who work for them - being an experienced fund raiser puts one inline for some very lucrative employment. Having read dozens if not hundreds of responses to fund-raising campaigns it is easy to develop a mental profile of the the regular contributors; elderly females who live on their own. The techniques many of these charities use, perhaps unintentionally (he wrote with raised eyebrows), create a sense of guilt in some 'I am sorry I couldn't afford to send more' or anger in others 'I am a pensioner and cannot afford to keep sending you money.' Many of my self-profiled donators seem to be plagued by charities 'I already support seven charities so cannot afford to support any more.' This points to another problem well known of and analysed by the professional fund-raisers in the charity sector: 'Donor Fatigue.' There are just so many charities, often several different charities representing one specific cause such as blindness, that existing donor's may begin to unsubscribe to the charities they support. However, some charities have yet another card to play; extreme photograph's and video's. This drives wavering donors back into the fold, although there is some backlash with a few donors threatening to stop donating if the charity keeps sending such explicit and "upsetting" material.
There are some exceptions out there and they tend to be among the faith-based charities, World Vision for example, the UK based Christian Charity focused on raising sponsorship for underprivileged children around the work, states that 85p of the money raised goes to the charitable projects it runs for the sponsored children, this compared to Cancer Research UK spending 67p in the £1 on "Charitable activities." To put this into context, in 2015 Cancer Research spent £103m to raise £430m.
I think the Charity Commission has a lot to answer for here, it ensures that charities operate within the letter of the law, but what about the spirit of the law? What about the moral and ethical imperative that drove many of these charities into existence anyway (and governs most faith-based charities)? In my own perhaps underdeveloped opinion the love of money, the root of all evil according to Paul (1 Timothy 6:10), has created a shadow over the primary objective of many charities and that continues to cloud my own opinion of many charities in the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment