Giving to charity: nature or nurture?

05 April 2005

People give to charity because they are asked in the right way, at the right time: its a matter of organisation. No, they give because its a human impulse to do so.

Both views were propounded at a meeting in London last week, as a panel discussed the politics of charity.

The structural analysis approach was put forward by Beth Breeze, deputy

because the process of making donations was made easy

director of the Institute for Philanthropy. Even the recent tsunami appeal, she said, was a success not because of the nature of the disaster but largely because it was launched quickly, repeated frequently, and because the process of making donations was made easy.

Essentially, it was a structural success, she said firmly. There is no giving gene.

She pointed out that although cancer, birds and animals might be popular

it was simply that US educational institutions had learnt how to fundraise

causes in Britain, in other countries different charities did well such as universities in the United States, where international causes are not on the spectrum. This showed that particular causes were not innately attractive: it was simply that US educational institutions had learnt how to fundraise.

But James Kliffen, head of fundraising for Medecins Sans Frontieres, thought giving was a basic human drive, the same impulse as the need to help.

He presented some basic dos and donts:

DO show people suffering and in need, aid organisations helping and how money would help: all boosted giving;
DONT show pictures of politicians and soldiers you dont get so much

Other factors came into play in the case of the tsunami, he said, such as British links with affected countries, and the fact that many of the reporters covering the devastation were not the regular correspondents and reacted emotionally to what they saw.

Kliffen wondered whether charities have become too clever at fundraising and at marketing ourselves; they had moved away from the basic giving impulse to talk of bringing about global change, which made people doubt the effectiveness of making small donations.

Quoting Josef Stalin, One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, he commented If we concentrate on the individual rather than the million, well do alright.

Getting the approach right is important, because the money available is large.

only the military ranked higher in trustworthiness in opinion polls

Chris Stalker, head of campaigns and communications for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said the 153,000 charities in England and Wales had a total expenditure of £20.4 billion and accounted for 2 per cent of the UK workforce. And only the military ranked higher in trustworthiness in opinion polls.

Ultimately, he said, the publics response was visceral, and they gave to causes not charities.

For the tsunami, it had been estimated that 86 per cent of young people donated, of whom a quarter were first-time givers.

The discussion took place at the Institute of Contemporary Arts.
----------
Links:

Institute for Philanthropy
Medecins Sans Frontieres
NCVO

OneWorld UK Events