TEDxSalford

Changing Our Attitude to Charity

Every month I pay a £8 direct debit payment to the charity Save the Children, yet everyday on my way to work I walk past a homeless man, and like all the other work goers in the morning, I ignore him.

This scenario is an example of the very differing ends of the spectrum when it comes to people’s attitudes towards charity. With money going from my account to a world recognised charity every month, I believe I’m doing something helpful and ‘doing my bit’ towards curing the world’s ills, yet the everyday, real life example of somebody needing charity often goes ignored, and the homeless man continues to spend his day watching person after person go by pretending he doesn’t exist.

This way of thinking makes no sense, surely charity of all kinds should be seen as equally deserving as the other, shouldn’t they? It’s certainly a hot topic, however, as a society we rank the importance of the needy, and as Dan Pallotta [TED - March 2013 Long Beach California] suggests, this isn’t the only way in which our attitude towards charity is wrong.

  The problem is massive in scale and organisations are tiny up against them and we have a belief system that keeps them tiny”

Pollotta raises some very interesting points in his talk and he certainly makes you wonder how we have created a system whereby profit and non-profit organisations are judged by different rulebooks, when in fact, they are playing the same game.

We just don’t like seeing rich people working in charities”

When we donate to charity we expect to see 100% of the money going directly into the hands of those in need, if we see otherwise we question the validity of the charity and ask why our money is paying for ‘overheads’. However, as Pallotta points out, for a charity to ever realise its full potential it must invest like a business  if it is ever going to achieve its goals and ambitions.

The similarity between profit and non-profit organisations  is that that there are no differences – the money generated may be going to different ends, but when you break it down, they are all just companies & organisations looking to make money.

If a charity wants to spend some of its money on ‘overheads’ like customer service or advertising – it should be able to. If a charity needs to invest in order to generate more money [which in turn would increase investment and would then lead to a higher chance of finding the solution to their chosen ill] wouldn’t investment be wise in that situation?

Let me give you an example:

Red Nose Day (RND) was on television recently and raised over £75 Million on the night. The organisers used TV license fee money to stage the event, which would of  required a lot of investment to cover expenses such as running costs etc. We’re fine with this as a society because we see that the needy are getting a huge amount of money – but do you really believe the charities involved received all £75 million? Don’t get me wrong, most of the money will make its way to them, however, staging an event like that costs money, and inevitably some will come from our donations.

Whilst on the topic of charity, on a recent visit to my local supermarket there was man collecting money for charity [unfortunately I can't remember the charity's name, but their work is similar to that of 'Make a Wish foundation'] and all he had to help him do his job was a sign and a bucket –  Will this charity ever raise RND kind of money? Highly unlikely, and unfortunately, they can only look on in envy at initiatives such as RND and wonder how they’ll ever get publicity like that.

This next part is where the problem lies, if this charity wanted to grow to become more well-known and more recognised it would need to invest some of the limited funds in things like advertising [What gets more attention - a poster on a noticeboard or an advert in the paper or on TV?] but if we found out this charity used say 40% of its money to take out big adverts and to organise huge fundraising events, there would be a public backlash as to why our donated money is going to cover advertising costs instead of going to the people.

We expect charities to use 100% of their donations on the cause, yet they are expected to grow and invest at the same time.”

The ‘pie’, as Pollotta likes to call it, will always stay the same, the latter charity will always be small because it isn’t allowed to invest yet the RND appeal makes more and more money every year – a prime example of what charities can achieve if they’re given the freedom to think and act big.

The next time you’re looking at a charity, don’t ask about the rate of their overhead. Ask about the scale of their dreams.”

If that man with the bucket spends everything he receives on the people in need, that’s great, it is money well spent, but unless some of that money is spent on necessary evils such as advertising, volunteer training and management, how can the charity ever hope to become more than just a man with a bucket?

We don’t seem to understand that a charity and a for profit organisation may work towards very different goals, but they are in many ways the same, and in order for charities to help those most in need, charities need to adopt the same rulebook as businesses.

We kept charity overheads low – is that how we want to be remembered!?

We seem to be stuck in a narrow-minded way of thinking; we rank those in need of charity money by using arbitrary methods, this system  and attitude is out of date and needs reform. It’s hard to change things overnight because particular ways of life and ways of thinking have been prevalent for a prolonged period of time. Despite all charitable causes being equally worthy, some charities will scrape by while others are allowed to leap into the limelight.

Take this line from the film ”Attack the Block” [this is relevant believe me on this!]

Pest: You sure about him? Where is he? Cos he ain’t exactly lookin’ out for you tonight.

 Sam: He’s in Ghana.

Pest: You going out with an African then?

Sam: No… he… he’s helping children. Volunteers for the Red Cross.

Pest: Oh… is it? Why can’t he help children in Britain? Not exotic enough is it? Don’t get a nice suntan. Tsst.

An over exaggeration I know, but the theory is true, people are happy to self-proclaim and self-congratulate when they’re in an unknown part of the world helping whatever cause, but I bet everything I have that like me, that same person then walked past a homeless person in their home town and ignored him.

How can we justify one person’s suffering over another’s? How can we justify a way of thinking that accepts companies investing and grow inorder to make a profit, but then show disdain towards charities that do the same. This demonstrates that we’re apparently fine with companies such as Sony spending our money to make money and make shareholders rich, but then disagree with charities, such as Save the Children, raising more money through investing donations so they can help disadvantaged children.

I worked for a little while as a paid fundraiser for Save the Children, and I bet you all the wage I received that less people would donate if you told them some of what they gave will go towards paying my salary – so money going to shareholders in a company is fine, but paying for people to help work and run a charity isn’t. What perfect sense that makes…

How did it come to be that we’ve become a people that rank and order the needy in terms of importance? We say we base ourselves on a society of equality, but how can we be equal when we put pain and suffering in a hierarchy, and enforce stricter regulation on charities than we do on big business?

Featured Picture courtesy of www.charitiesblog.net