This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/29/give-money-charities-trust-chugging-olive-cooke-kids-company
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Who wants to give money to a charity they don’t trust? | Who wants to give money to a charity they don’t trust? |
| (3 days later) | |
| Scarcely any other area of life in Britain can have passed so quickly from hero to near-zero in the public estimation. Once a source of glowing national pride, charities have become objects of suspicion, even outright hostility. For a sector whose whole purpose is to do good, this is a pretty spectacular fall. | Scarcely any other area of life in Britain can have passed so quickly from hero to near-zero in the public estimation. Once a source of glowing national pride, charities have become objects of suspicion, even outright hostility. For a sector whose whole purpose is to do good, this is a pretty spectacular fall. |
| Related: Chuggers are right to make you feel guilty | Abi Wilkinson | Related: Chuggers are right to make you feel guilty | Abi Wilkinson |
| Now, somewhat late in the day, the regulator – the Charity Commission – has tentatively called time. At yesterday’s public meeting, remarks from the chairman, William Shawcross, were coupled with a formal warning to no fewer than 1,700 charities to examine their fundraising practices. After finance and the banks, it was recognised, another pillar of national life, needed to take a good hard look less at its ends than its means. | |
| The catalyst was undoubtedly the death, last May, of 92-year-old Olive Cooke, the volunteer poppy-seller, who had been inundated by requests for money. But rumblings had already been heard. The remuneration of charity executives was an increasing source of public qualms; the proportion of income spent on administration and advertising, rather than actual, hands-on philanthropy, was another. | The catalyst was undoubtedly the death, last May, of 92-year-old Olive Cooke, the volunteer poppy-seller, who had been inundated by requests for money. But rumblings had already been heard. The remuneration of charity executives was an increasing source of public qualms; the proportion of income spent on administration and advertising, rather than actual, hands-on philanthropy, was another. |
| Cooke’s suicide, and the pictures of unopened begging letters sent to her, opened the gates to a torrent of complaints. Her experience, it turned out, while extreme, was not uncommon. The British tend to be reluctant to talk about money – money given, as well as received. And until then, it seemed, anyone who gave to charity had assumed that the further appeals that followed were a cross they alone had to bear; an added sacrifice for doing their small bit. | Cooke’s suicide, and the pictures of unopened begging letters sent to her, opened the gates to a torrent of complaints. Her experience, it turned out, while extreme, was not uncommon. The British tend to be reluctant to talk about money – money given, as well as received. And until then, it seemed, anyone who gave to charity had assumed that the further appeals that followed were a cross they alone had to bear; an added sacrifice for doing their small bit. |
| What transpired was that many charities had professionalised their operations to the point where they were deploying the same methods of marketing and pressure-selling as their commercial counterparts. The more donations you made, the more traded databases you were on, the more you were liable to be approached for more. | What transpired was that many charities had professionalised their operations to the point where they were deploying the same methods of marketing and pressure-selling as their commercial counterparts. The more donations you made, the more traded databases you were on, the more you were liable to be approached for more. |
| The technique must have worked – why else use it? But I wonder how effective it is. After receiving a stream of follow-up appeals after one donation, I simply threw the next letter, and the next, into the bin. The only way to stop the pleas seemed not to give. | The technique must have worked – why else use it? But I wonder how effective it is. After receiving a stream of follow-up appeals after one donation, I simply threw the next letter, and the next, into the bin. The only way to stop the pleas seemed not to give. |
| The “chuggers” were the next to feel the collective wrath. When they first appeared in town centres, I had innocently assumed that they were volunteers. When it emerged that they were actually paid by the charities to hold out their enormous plastic buckets, that their spiels about acute need were focus-grouped and rehearsed, and that some people actually did sign up, on the spot, to direct debit commitments they couldn’t afford, I regarded them in quite a different light, and I imagine others did. How on earth did the finances of charities work, that it made sense to pay collectors for essentially badgering passers-by? | The “chuggers” were the next to feel the collective wrath. When they first appeared in town centres, I had innocently assumed that they were volunteers. When it emerged that they were actually paid by the charities to hold out their enormous plastic buckets, that their spiels about acute need were focus-grouped and rehearsed, and that some people actually did sign up, on the spot, to direct debit commitments they couldn’t afford, I regarded them in quite a different light, and I imagine others did. How on earth did the finances of charities work, that it made sense to pay collectors for essentially badgering passers-by? |
| For me there were two last straws. One was the revelation that Age UK (and probably other organisations) was promoting deals on goods and services that sometimes cost more than on the open market. The charity had entered into commercial arrangements that could have the perverse effect of robbing an elderly Peter, living on nothing more than a state pension, to pay big old Paul, a charity whose professed purpose was to help those very same Peters. Who could possibly have dreamed up this looking-glass scheme? | |
| Related: Charities warned over commercial activities | Related: Charities warned over commercial activities |
| But before that had come the fall of Kids Company. What concerned me was less the doubt about the work being done – there has still been no satisfactory balance sheet of how many young people were helped and to what lasting effect – than the way in which a single charity was able to become at once so fashionable and untouchable, with a privileged line into government coffers. Any hint of regulation, it seems, stopped well short of Kids Company’s famous open door. | But before that had come the fall of Kids Company. What concerned me was less the doubt about the work being done – there has still been no satisfactory balance sheet of how many young people were helped and to what lasting effect – than the way in which a single charity was able to become at once so fashionable and untouchable, with a privileged line into government coffers. Any hint of regulation, it seems, stopped well short of Kids Company’s famous open door. |
| These examples have disturbing features in common, which indicate what needs to be done. The first is the extent to which big charities in particular have embraced practices from the commercial world, without apparently considering that the quest for efficiency is one thing; pressure-selling something else. The other is how far charities have allowed themselves to become entwined with, and even dependent on, government at all levels. The recognition, from New Labour onwards, that there were some things charities could do better than government also had a downside. | These examples have disturbing features in common, which indicate what needs to be done. The first is the extent to which big charities in particular have embraced practices from the commercial world, without apparently considering that the quest for efficiency is one thing; pressure-selling something else. The other is how far charities have allowed themselves to become entwined with, and even dependent on, government at all levels. The recognition, from New Labour onwards, that there were some things charities could do better than government also had a downside. |
| That dependency on government contracts meant that charities often suffered first when money was cut. But there has also been reputational damage. The attraction of charities to beneficiaries can be their distance from politics. I certainly reconsidered giving to a couple of charities after learning how much of their money came from local government: would your tiny contribution really be missed? | That dependency on government contracts meant that charities often suffered first when money was cut. But there has also been reputational damage. The attraction of charities to beneficiaries can be their distance from politics. I certainly reconsidered giving to a couple of charities after learning how much of their money came from local government: would your tiny contribution really be missed? |
| It will be instructive to find out how much the commercialisation and contractual relationships, especially of big charities, have affected their receipts. It may be ignoble, but perhaps not unreasonable, to hazard that a fall – or the risk of a fall – in private donations may be the real reason why the Charity Commission is finally encouraging some of the more overbearing organisations to clean up their act. | It will be instructive to find out how much the commercialisation and contractual relationships, especially of big charities, have affected their receipts. It may be ignoble, but perhaps not unreasonable, to hazard that a fall – or the risk of a fall – in private donations may be the real reason why the Charity Commission is finally encouraging some of the more overbearing organisations to clean up their act. |
| • This article was amended on 3 March 2016. An earlier version referred incorrectly to William Shawcross as Lord Shawcross. |