My seven year old daughter was aghast last week when confronted with details of my charitable giving. At home one evening she caught me turning away a door-to-door fundraiser from an animal welfare charity. When I told her I didn’t support domestic animal charities, she collapsed into tears, wailing how cruel I was. Peace only broke out when I promised she could choose an animal welfare charity to support.
I would like to sit my daughter down and have a rational discussion about different charitable causes and where money should best be applied. Seven seems a little young for this though. But for those giving to charities in the UK who are adults, or even those adults who don’t yet give, there is a distressing statistic I want them to confront.
At a recent seminar for charity staff and trustees I put up the following slide, drawing on research published by NPC last year.
It shows the imbalance in funding between domestic violence and donkey welfare charities—the fact that The Donkey Sanctuary in the UK shockingly gets £3m more in income than the top three UK domestic violence charities combined.
To remove any doubt, let me be clear—I think this relative lack of funding for domestic violence charities is wrong. It is unfair, it is immoral and it should be addressed. There are good, effective charities tackling domestic violence which need support to do more great work. But based on the response of people at the seminar, it appears that while it is ok to show this imbalance, questioning it is more dubious.
Some people objected to the opinion I expressed, arguing that we should celebrate all giving and not pass judgement on where people in aggregate direct their donations. I disagree. Where money goes and how it gets spent is enormously important in making the sector and individual charities as effective as possible. Yes, I would like to encourage giving, but I also want donations to be made more thoughtfully with regards to need and impact.
Many people shrug their shoulders at the balance of funding, or laugh at the vagaries and idiosyncrasies of donors. While that is understandable, it is not enough. Anyone who thinks the way money gets allocated is wrong should try to change things. NPC’s contribution is to produce research, encourage debate, help charities demonstrate their impact and to advise donors. All this in the hope that a more rational allocation of funding will emerge. Presenting the data on domestic violence versus donkeys at a seminar was a contribution to this effort.
I like to think that my daughter will understand the point I was trying to make in time. Aged seven is a bit early for such understanding. I wish others who are much older would grasp the problem and want to do something about it.
(PS For those who read Stephen Bubb’s blog—I don’t have a dog, but perhaps the above serves as a relevant comment from my personal life.)
Pingback: I admit it, I’m guilty of wasting charitable funds | New Philanthropy Capital's Blog
Pingback: Do enough donors care? | New Philanthropy Capital's Blog
Pingback: Is saving a donkey morally wrong? | New Philanthropy Capital's Blog
I appreciate the sentinment, but surely the whole concept of charitable giving is based on individual choice. And while it is impossible for every individual to be knowledgeable regarding the impact of all charities, or even the existence of some of them, it may be hasty to pinpoint peoples’ ultimate choices as not thought through.
People make their choices drawing from personal experiences, causes that tugs on their heart strings, alongside the way they wish to see the world in the future (i.e. cancer eradicated, all the donkeys happy.) Furthermore, many choose a charity based on what they know/percieve of the charities existing support (i.e. the belief /perception that one cause already receives significant support elsewhere.)
And, whilst there is another discussion altogether around the huge marketing needs of charities to do so, it is ultimately up to charities to raise awareness of their cause and the need to support it.
The only alternative I can see is to raise council tax, or set up a quango, in order for one body to funnel the support for local charities, based on collective assessment of impact and need – or simply to run the services currently provided by charities themselves. This could still provide an inbalance, so to make it fully fair, this would need to be done on a national level…
This is a very left wing idea. Are we sure we want to go down the road of removing personal choice, and the “feel good” feeling of directly knowing the impact our small gift has provided to some disadvantaged child / animal / area.
Pingback: Domestic violence: women’s charities face 100% funding cuts | Society | guardian.co.uk | StephenKMackSD's Blog
The previous poster hits the nail on the head, “I appreciate the sentinment, but surely the whole concept of charitable giving is based on individual choice.”
Exactly. And this is why the charitable sector simply does not work. Finances for things as important as domestic violence services should not be at the whim of donations but should be guaranteed through the public sector. Yes, this is a ‘left wing idea’ as she espouses, but I think that also means that it is a good idea. The ‘feel good’ aspect is a horrifying justification for charity, and should not be the reason that money goes to different sources.
Surely you can see that this free market idea of individual choice that is so prevalent in the charitable sector should not be applied here, where it is related to peoples’ livelihoods?
The original poster does not go far enough – your politics of semi-regulation of where charitable donations go seems to me like a half arsed attempt towards public sector funding. You should give your views a serious overhaul.
Pingback: The Anti-Feminist Backlash in an Age of Austerity « The Disorder Of Things
Hi
I feel very strongly about the use of my money – micro finance or ethical shopping cause a lot of extra time and effort: not to merely make me feel good, but as a political point – to add weight.
Unfortunately, many people have not grown up & just want a nice fuzzy feeling – not to be asking whether the resources are well used. I have known Ill cared for donkeys – in a run down sanctuary that should have been closed down, not supported..etc.
Equally we all know of people who behave appallingly, exploit any and everyone,but bafflingly have a whim about feeding birds or protecting butterflies – so will oppose housing developments..
So charities too – need to ask themselves – do they send the wrong messages trying to be too corporate & paying huge salaries at the top – yet relying on volunteers to be at the sharp end..etc etc.
We do need to be strategic in our giving and spending, we do need to choose – based on outcomes. Ie if £20 saves 100 butterflies & the eco system benefit is 5x, is that better spent than £20 to the rspca who uses funds to run expensive litigation at questionable benefit whilst actually unable to rehome all of the animals it saves…
I suggest an ethical review of all charities & social enterprises might itself yield the most long term gold..
Hey there! I’m very interested in cost-effective giving, and as it happens do only give to human-focussed charities at the moment. However, this entry doesn’t seem to answer the question it poses. You *state* that choosing animal charities over human ones is irrational, but you don’t make any kind of case for it. I would love to see what the arguments are for valuing human over animal life. If you could either make them or point me to a place where someone else makes them I’d be very grateful.
And are you really sure that UK-focussed domestic violence charities do more good for humans than The Donkey Sanctuary? The Donkey Sanctuary does quite a bit of work providing veterinary care in developing countries to families who rely on their donkeys for their most basic needs (food, clean water etc.), and as I’m sure you’re aware, donor money goes much further in poorer countries than it does in richer ones. I would love to see your working on this one.