The caller was a very nicely spoken man who, after pleasantries were exchanged, wanted to know why I had stopped giving to a charity I had previously supported. I agreed that yes, I had supported the charity for a very long time, and yes, I understood the good work it was doing, and yes, I absolutely knew that times were tough - in fact, that was the reason my monthly debit had stopped. My circumstances had changed, and times were tough.
That wasn't good enough for my caller. No. I would have picked up the cue, yes my circumstances have changed and yep, I'm sorry. No, they drilled down. Before I came to my senses and stopped responding to what were quite personal questions, I'd blurted out that the reason my home address was no longer the same was because I'd separated from my husband and we sold the house and I bought a house with the children and we had a big mortgage, blah de blah, and I suddenly found myself pouring out my life story because I was ashamed that I was no longer giving to the charity. And it was a kind of emotional blackmail that this charity worker was engaged in. I just about gave them an access code to my accounts so he could see. “There are still some charities you support, why those?” Honestly, I could have hung up, but all I had to give him was time, so I gave him that, and laying myself bare as a form of apology.
I was listening to Sue Barker this morning talking about the struggles StarJam is facing, and I wonder just how many of you have had these difficult conversations with the charity workers who are putting the acid on those who used to give and who are no longer giving or just cold calling. I love StarJam and the work it does. I've been there along to a number of StarJam gala events, and they are professional, and they are fun, and they are incredibly important for the young people who are performing.
One of the best interviews I've ever seen conducted was a young man who has Down Syndrome, who was impeccably dressed in black tie, who was well prepared, well researched and interviewed the entertainer, Michael Barrymore when it first come out to New Zealand. He was brilliant, asked really tough questions, the sort of questions no other interviewer would dare ask. He was brilliant. I've really enjoyed the nights I've spent at StarJam and the work they do is really, really important. But man, there are a lot of charities, all of whom are doing really worthwhile work but for many of us, circumstances have changed.
And while Sue Barker told Mike Hosking that look, there are 600,000 companies and up to 500,000 trusts, so 28,000 is not a surplus of charities. I disagree. 28,000 charities is a lot of charities and a lot of them are niche charities. So, there's a lot of cancer charities because not all cancer charities cover a particular family's need or a particular individual's need.
So, we have 28 thousand registered charities, up from 22,000 six years ago. Twice the number of Australia and three times the number of the United Kingdom per capita. And there are those within the charity sector who think that there should be a joining up of some of the smaller charities with a with a mutual interest, and that would cut costs and make them more efficient. Merging, or at least collaborating when you have a shared interest.
The charity sector has an annual total income of more than $21 billion, and it's supported by more than 217,000 volunteers and more than 145,000 full-time staff. That is a lot of people. And who is sustaining that? You and me? We're doing that because New Zealanders are not mean. It doesn't matter how small your income; you could be on a pension or a benefit or a lowly paid critical worker and you will give. And that's right up to the to the wealthy philanthropists who give a lot, but most New Zealanders give. Individual giving in 2019 was $2.4 billion.
But again, you know, these are unusual times. Families are cutting back on their own costs, their own families are going without. And charities have to accept that all the haranguing of people, forcing them to explain themselves, all the narration of sob stories, is not going to get blood out of a stone. If the money is not there, it is not there, and charities have to understand that too.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
I was listening to Sue Barker this morning talking about the struggles StarJam is facing, and I wonder just how many of you have had these difficult conversations with the charity workers who are putting the acid on those who used to give and who are no longer giving or just cold calling. I love StarJam and the work it does. I've been there along to a number of StarJam gala events, and they are professional, and they are fun, and they are incredibly important for the young people who are performing.
One of the best interviews I've ever seen conducted was a young man who has Down Syndrome, who was impeccably dressed in black tie, who was well prepared, well researched and interviewed the entertainer, Michael Barrymore when it first come out to New Zealand. He was brilliant, asked really tough questions, the sort of questions no other interviewer would dare ask. He was brilliant. I've really enjoyed the nights I've spent at StarJam and the work they do is really, really important. But man, there are a lot of charities, all of whom are doing really worthwhile work but for many of us, circumstances have changed.
And while Sue Barker told Mike Hosking that look, there are 600,000 companies and up to 500,000 trusts, so 28,000 is not a surplus of charities. I disagree. 28,000 charities is a lot of charities and a lot of them are niche charities. So, there's a lot of cancer charities because not all cancer charities cover a particular family's need or a particular individual's need.
So, we have 28 thousand registered charities, up from 22,000 six years ago. Twice the number of Australia and three times the number of the United Kingdom per capita. And there are those within the charity sector who think that there should be a joining up of some of the smaller charities with a with a mutual interest, and that would cut costs and make them more efficient. Merging, or at least collaborating when you have a shared interest.
The charity sector has an annual total income of more than $21 billion, and it's supported by more than 217,000 volunteers and more than 145,000 full-time staff. That is a lot of people. And who is sustaining that? You and me? We're doing that because New Zealanders are not mean. It doesn't matter how small your income; you could be on a pension or a benefit or a lowly paid critical worker and you will give. And that's right up to the to the wealthy philanthropists who give a lot, but most New Zealanders give. Individual giving in 2019 was $2.4 billion.
But again, you know, these are unusual times. Families are cutting back on their own costs, their own families are going without. And charities have to accept that all the haranguing of people, forcing them to explain themselves, all the narration of sob stories, is not going to get blood out of a stone. If the money is not there, it is not there, and charities have to understand that too.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Some of us would argue our taxes are our donation, especially when they haven’t paid for our healthcare, our kids’ education, or properly maintained our infrastructure.
So many charities also reinvent the wheel within their own communities, particularly those around assistance for low income, lunches in schools & cancer. As a result, many end up targeting the same pool of money & therefore, not making themselves viable long-term.
I used to donate to charities - especially the ones who knocked on our door just when we are about to have our evening dinners. Then, the charities starting asking for weekly or monthly contributions via AP! Problem is that when you want to cancel the regular contribution, you have to run through a gauntlet of questions and procedures. And they all want such regular contributions/donations these days. Too hard for me and too inconvenient - much as it obviously serves the charities very well to solicit regular contributions.
Some work is charitable as well. For example being a STEM secondary school teacher when you can earn twice the salary in a commercial firm. But there are tremendous rewards knowing you have contributed to society.
It used to be honourable to be a public servant on a modest income because you were building up society not just yourself.
I had this thoughtful article in mind today when I went shopping. How many ambush charity graspers would I face this week?
Supermarket 1, nil
Supermarket 2, nil
Supermarket 3, Red Cross. Young people, full of bonhomie, waylaying shoppers as they passed into and out from the store.
I evaded them by using the second entrance door - and felt a right heel!
The fact is however that I, like many other NZ'ers, are finding it tough going at present ... or ... I already have all the charities I can afford to support within my scope.
Charity ambush graspers have to realise that, even tho their intentions are honourable, they turn people off their various causes with the 'in your face' approach to soliciting (for, like it or not, that's what it is).
Solution? I have little or no idea!
Kerry I hope you get this. Couldn't agree more - I cannot tell you how many similar charities we support - kids this, brain that, blood etc. So yes we do have too many, most of whom keep mailing me at exorbitant postage rates when I ask them not to. I'm thinking of culling them and the ones who put their Maori interpretation first. My reading of history does not suggest charity was expressed across the motu. Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment