Thursday, September 13, 2007

A Step in the Right Direction

IAIN DALE IS AWAY - SHANE GREER IS STANDING IN

I just read an interesting piece in the Telegraph about the Conservative Party’s desire to incentivize giving amongst the wealthy; which given the absurd proposal to levy parking fees on out-of-town stores which saw the light of day earlier this week should be welcomed. However, whilst the idea of encouraging charitable giving amongst the wealthy possesses undoubted merit it fails to go far enough.

A few years ago I worked for a Disability arts organisation in Liverpool. During that time there were a lot of things that struck me – not least of which was the incredible service the ‘3rd Sector’ can provide – however what struck me most of all perhaps was the nature of fundraising in this country. Obviously the fundraising operations employed by the 3rd Sector varies from charity to charity. But a number of over-arching problems are present across the board.

For many charities, community initiatives etc one the biggest weaknesses they have is their dependence on big donors (usually grant-making bodies).

The availability of such money is naturally enough dependent on a given organisation’s ability to meet criteria set by a given grant-making body. Money is raised on somebody else’s terms, not their own. More worrying (and closely related) though is the issue of dependence itself. If a charity’s income stream relies on a small number of big donors (be they private individuals, grant-making bodies or otherwise), then those donors have an incredible amount of power over a given organisation: you must do x or we pull the plug.

That’s not to say big donations are bad for an organisation, rather big donations alone are bad for an organisation.

My experience of fundraising in the US [cue anti-Americanism in the comments] however suggests there is a better way. The operating budgets of charitable organisations etc in the US (and I confess my experience relates specifically to political non-profits) are overwhelmingly made up of small donations from private individuals across the socio-economic spectrum. From $5 to $500 the lower level donations breath life into the 3rd Sector.

This means a number of things. But most importantly fundraising is determined on the charitable organisation’s own terms. Dear Sir, Here’s what we do, I hope you like it and will give us money. But the nature of dependence is also different. If a small donor doesn’t like what an organisation is doing and wants it to change, the organisation has the power to say no, because a $100 hit in a pool of thousands of $100 donations is much easier to bear than a $500,000 hit in a pool of 2.

Coming back to the original point, the idea of incentivizing giving amongst the wealthy is a step in the right direction. But what about incentivizing giving across the board by creating a tax system that’s actively friendly to all levels of charitable giving? Why not look at ways of making it easier for charities to raise money by reducing postage costs on fundraising drives and donation return envelopes. There are a multitude of things that could be done put a turbo charge into 3rd Sector fundraising and the Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction – now lets hope they start sprinting.

9 comments:

Wrinkled Weasel said...

I already give, being very wealty indeed, but the bastard Tories, real utter bastards, now want to tax my airplane travel.

Since I buy a load of tickets for my lovely offspring several times a year, I am totally and uttterly pissed off at proposals to add yet another layer of tax on air travel.

It's not Green, it's GREEDY. So, bastard Tories, stop it, now. Or get a visit from my rather uncouth bodyguards who will not give you the benefit of the doubt because of the almighty Thatcher (as I do).

Yak40 said...

" incentivize " ?

At least make it "incentivise" but preferably just use real words !

Hughes Views said...

"creating a tax system that’s actively friendly to all levels of charitable giving" - it's pretty friendly already, nearly every non political charity can claim tax back on donations.

The English do seem to be dreadfully mean though except perhaps if animals are the beneficiaries. I'm told that this pre-dates the 'welfare state' although that does provide a convenient excuse for some tight fisted folk. I used to collect for a national charity via the envelope system in my (quite posh) road but I worked out I could use the time better by working in McDonalds and giving the cash to the charity! I did a calculation of the total I collected divided by the approx value of the houses I collected from and the value of the cars parked in the drives. It was a very very very small percentage!

I hate it when there's a big campaign on the telly and some twit says the amount raised shows how generous we all are when the average donation usually works out at about 30p a head - far less than is punted each week on the lottery in the hope of personal gain.

Oh dear - this is all rather gloomy isn't it?

Anonymous said...

How rich do you have to be to have anything to give? Most people in Britain cannot afford to be compassionate.

Anonymous said...

'Yak40 said...

" incentivize " ?

At least make it "incentivise" but preferably just use real words !'

Was that supposed to be an Anti-American comment?

There is nothing wrong with "incentivize" (apart from it being a daft word); it is a common misconception that -ise spellings are the correct form in British English. According to the the compilers of the OED - who should know about these things - -ize endings are the correct form.

Anonymous said...

And, uh, who is going to "incentivise" rich people to give money? Do you really think copywriters for charities, or legislators who have spent their entire lives on the public tit have the faintest idea of how to "incentivise" rich people?

If rich people like a cause, they'll give money to it. The most that should be done to offer them an incentive is the American system of making contributions to registered charities tax-deductible. End of story.

I don't know what a "disability arts organisation in Liverpool" does, exactly, but I have feeling it is something to do with government "funding".

Re the sincerely lunatic idea of charging customers to park on private property owned by supermarkets by fiat, I just don't know how any idea could be more Stalinesque.

This current batch of no-hopers running the Tory Party is genuinely disconnected from the everyday life that most people live and their patronising attempts to relate to "ordinary people" chill the spine.

Anonymous said...

Cleast Intwood, or may I call you Hirty Darry? - Thanks for pointing out that advertize, etc, is not some sort of second-rate, ignorant American usage. They brought that spelling over from England with them in the 1700s, when it was the accepted usage in England. We changed. They didn't.

Just as they still use the lovely word Fall for Autumn. Americans have unwittingly preserved all kinds of English 18th Century words and usages.

Anonymous said...

"incentivizing giving amongst the wealthy"... you mean encouraging? I don't think they've yet discovered a way of turning wealthy people into incentives.

Oh and the -ise/-ize thing has more to do with the origins of a word, whether it was Greek or Latin, thus in many cases there is indeed a 'correct' form as decreed by the fusty old grammar texts. OED's house style is -ize indeed, but I think Cambridge use predominantly the other; it's considered a matter of choice by most major publishers (though Fowler would probably not agree).

Verity - 'gotten' is another good example of Olde Englishe living on over the pond (though they've extended the usage). I still prefer Autumn to Fall though.

Anonymous said...

Hughes views said:
"The English do seem to be dreadfully mean though except perhaps if animals are the beneficiaries. I'm told that this pre-dates the 'welfare state' although that does provide a convenient excuse for some tight fisted folk"

A Thinking Allowed piece about philanthropy said quite the reverse. Pre-welfare state british donations were on a par with any (think of all the victorian public works/charity schemes). The Institute of Philanthropy put up a spokeman in the programme and said that since the 80s charitable giving had been on the up in Britain.

The current radio 4 series Giving it all away, has detailed the giving of some astonishingly generous rich (british) folk.