I was recently asked to give a talk at CASS as part of a one day discussion on “the morality of charity.” Inevitably much of the talk was around funding and the embedded and differing relationships between the funders and the funded. I thought I would try to capture that part of my talk into a short piece, partly to help me get a little clarity.
The starting point for so many funders and commentators is whether charities are efficient or not? This is a thought piece in itself and I will to return to it on another occasion. My simple position is that given the uncertainty of sustainable funding, the lack of finance for investment and the often pointless focus on the justification of core costs, I believe the sector generally does an outstanding job in stretching its funding to match the growing need.
In my talk I was asked to consider whether the means of charity and philanthropy demean the recipients. For me the issue and indeed the answer is in the word recipient. What is your mental picture of a recipient – cupped hands, a weak and thankful smile? And is that what makes the funder feel good? “They” are not recipients; the people we talk about are just that – people. When you help a sick relative, or drive an immobile neighbour to the shops – are they the “recipients” of your good grace or are you just playing your part in what we call family and community. I believe the simple difference is distance; emotional and often physical. A homeless person, or a starving person – they are recipients because you simply don’t know them.
Many ask the question; is it right to feel good about giving? Yes – but, not in a self satisfied way. By knowing that you are playing your part and participating is important – it’s not a “me” thing. It’s about being “on the team” and feeling good about your contribution. Others talk of duty and I am not sure that I am entirely happy with that either. In some ways, it is not bad, however a duty does not feel motivational and is often executed with a dull sense of necessary obligation. Is this sustainable?
The hosts at CASS asked me to consider the fundseeker/donor relationship, a subject that is not well understood and often discussed. There is always so much pressure on the fundseeker to do more. My experience is that most good relationships in life, business and beyond work on the basis of some sort of mutuality. Funders or donors appear to want to know more and more to support their decisions. At its very worst, I believe that the variety of funding types forces charities to become “truly multi lingual” in the world of money – European, Central & Local government, Foundations, HNW – the newer ones – venture philanthropy, social finance – the list goes on – there is always a better way to do it. Not forgetting the need for organisations to account for every penny – why do you have core costs, why do you spend money on fund raising? My response is to ask why we as a society don’t demand the same answers from for profit companies or public bodies – why are they allowed core costs – sometimes bloated ones at that?
We now have in depth, often short-term impact analysis to prove that organisations are truly effective. The new nirvana. Well impact is important; realistic, affordable measurement is good – but maybe the growth in the need to “prove everything” is embedded in the real moral question – why have we become distrusting as a society and why we don’t want to trust and believe in those that work in and run these organisations? They may not be at the peak of efficiency or be able to prove every penny is well spent, but the moral question is why don’t we want to trust those that are working to improve human capital, indeed surely the morality in the true outcome? Is it the example set by much of big business and government that has taught us that it is better not to trust?
Finally, an issue that fascinates me, a moral question that I was not directly asked to answer, but one that I struggle with. Where does charity sit in our personal value chains? Why is this type of spending often in the truly discretionary spending part of our outgoings? Why do we believe it is not valuable? Why is it when better off people are faced with concerns about income they more often cut out charitable giving? Do the same people cut back on holidays, cars, clothes, eating out? Generally it is often the less wealthy that continue to give when times are tough. Maybe its that distance thing again?
To counter this I have personally switched from using the terms such as giving and donation. Rather, I talk of investing. Investing in human capital. When fund raising, this term allows me to look someone in the eye and offer them an opportunity, rather than asking them to be generous. Philanthropists will sometimes accuse me of using spin. My answer to this group is to ask them about their school fees, or indeed university fees. Or any other amount of money you spend on your nearest and dearest. Isn’t this just an investment in human capital? It is so easy to spend on developing human capital we are related to. Maybe we are just back to that distance thing again?
So, the morality of charity is tough. I believe that the relationship that we, the general population, have with this sector is a little immoral. These days we find it increasingly difficult to trust generally. The vast majority of people that work and volunteer in the sector are driven to make society a better place. Not every person or organisation is brilliant and I don’t believe that matters to the extent that many do especially when you consider the bigger picture.
In my mind the sector is generally a force for good and deserves to be trusted to deliver and to improve. Trust is a powerful instrument of change and should be employed liberally and often. We also need to consider where the general improvement in human capital sits in our personal value chain. Perhaps we should think about moving it a bit further up and maybe considering changing our language from giving to investment, if that helps. Finally, if we truly understand supporting, investing in and caring for those closest to us, we could give more thought to the irrelevance of distance in our relationship with charity and those that truly need our support.
