We have all encountered them on the streets of our major cities -- charity muggers,as they are called, or reduced to the portmanteau word 'chuggers'. As far as I can tell, the term 'chugger' is English. Not even the most trusted charities are immune from this trend.
Some time ago in Perth I was accosted by collectors from Medicine Sans Frontiere (MSF), the French charity which is often known by the English translation of 'Doctors Without Borders.' They explained that as they are known to refuse any government contributions, they alone could get emergency relief into Somalia, which was suffering from a famine. It is not too closely guarded secret that MSF is well thought of in the Islamic world and not well regarded in Israel. Somalia is an Islamic entity. I offered the MSF collectors $100 cash on the spot. They refused to accept my donation. They only wanted a commitment to a regular payment scheme. Having previously been stung by another charity, I refused and so MSF lost my $100.
The charities will tell you that regular payment schemes give them guaranteed cash flow which makes budgeting easier. This is, to a certain extent, true. What they don't tell you is that the average payment scheme lasts 15 to 18 months, but the first 12 months of payments are absorbed by the marketing company which recruited the donor as their commission. Now, I know several pensioners who donate in excess of $2,000 to charity (as they call it) via regular contribution schemes without realising that these donations, which are a significant proportion of their meagre incomes, are in fact commissions paid to marketing companies.
On the latest available figures (2005) Australian individuals and businesses donated $11 billion to charity annually. Of this amount, $7.7 billion came through cash donations from individuals, while another $2 billion came though events such as fun runs and so on. It is estimated 87% of adults donated to charity, or some 13.4 million individual donors. For the 2008-2009 tax year, the average donor claimed $450 in deductions for charity. Taxpayers with incomes of $1 million or more claimed an average of $48,700 tax deductible donations. Some 33% of all donations were to religious institutions -- churches, synagogues, mosques and so on. Community based and welfare institutions, international and development aid groups and medical research all each accounted for 10% of the total funds donated. Donations peak in June, just before the end of the financial year, and around Christmas time.
I really have no problem with people making charitable donations, but I hate being harrassed by young backpackers, most of whom I believe are on an hourly rate, to sign up to a long term plan to aid a charity to which they have no connection beyond a paypacket and no personal commitment at all. I do believe philanthropy is the basis of a civil society and that it is commendable, but that it should be targeted if it is to benefit society.
Let me give an example. My mother is by most measures a wealthy woman. She loves the ballet, the opera and the symphony. The symphony asked her to become a patron. She refused, saying 'I'm not a philanthropist, I already pay $1,000 a year to go to the symphony.' At the same time, she makes donations to dozens of so-called charities over the phone, some of which verge on being fraudulent. The symphony relies on its patrons to survive. It is a worth ornament of modern life and surely is a more deserving cause than many of these bogus 'charities.'
It is literally months since I have had an unsolicited call seeking an donation because I tell them abruptly not to waste their time and mine by making future calls. I do make donations to organisations I think are worthwhile, such as the Salvation Army, and other civic groups whose aims I support but I don't make them in the street or over the phone. But even the Salvation Army, to whom I made a donation in the Red Shield Appeal, rang me to sign me up to a regular contribution scheme.
When an organisation such as the Salvation Army, which is held in high esteem by people rich and poor, feel they have to get onto the regular contribution scheme bandwagon, it's a sad day for philanthropy.
No comments:
Post a Comment