Charity begins … at home?
The article: Donations to charity fall 20% in a year
I came across a rather disappointing article in the Guardian the other day: Donations to charity fall 20% in a year. Understandable … but disappointing all the same.
A survey conducted for two organizations uniting charities in the UK, (the Charities Aid Foundation and the National Council for Voluntary Organizations), has found that donations made to charity in the last year fell by 1.7 billion pounds, (from 11 billion to 9.7), but in real terms this equates to a reduction by one fifth.
It was not only the amount of money donated – but the number of people donating also fell, (only slightly … from 58% of the people surveyed to 55% each month … but a fall all the same). The average amount donated (the median – so it was literally, slap bang in the middle with just as many larger donations as smaller ones), was ten pounds. That was down slightly on last years figure of eleven pounds, which was also from the previous year’s twelve pounds.
Charities working in the field of medical research and health care attracted the largest level of support, but interestingly, religious charities actually saw a rise in the average donation – by 25%.
The conclusions seemed to be that everyone is going through difficult times. In 2011, people in Britain earned an average monthly salary is just over 2100 pounds, (that’s just over 102000 Kyrgyz Som – which, incidentally, is ten times the average wage according to the State Statistical Committee – or just under 1700 US dollars or 1500 Euro). Although that represented an increase on the previous year, people saw a 3% fall in income in real times and so, as the report put it, “everyone is going through difficult times and … cash is tight for everyone and people are finding it harder and harder to find money to give to charity”.
It seems to me that we can probably count as an example of a “self evident truth” … but knowing and understanding that doesn’t help the charities who rely on donations for delivering front line services, often to the most vulnerable members of society who have already encountering the effects of other public sector cuts as the government attempts to balance it budget and makes ends meet.
Of course the charities are finding this worrying and it is adding a squeeze on their activities – a squeeze created by a combination of less income being provided by fewer and smaller donations, greater needs and rising costs in trying to meet those needs. The charities are obviously looking for ways to raise additional funds … such as Gift Aid and covenanting so that they can predict their income levels and plan accordingly.
As it happens, the level of donations struck me as quite high … even if people experienced a fall in their incomes, they have still maintained a fairly good record of charitable donations.
Mind you … the report brought lots of questions flooding into my mind … I had to wonder, for example, what actually constituted a donation for the purposes of the survey?
A lottery ticket, for example, helps to raise funds for a variety of charities, but I don’t think I would classify that as a donation – although I can see the logic that says that the portion going to charitable causes, (once the prize money and administrative costs of organizing the lottery have been deducted), could be included.
I presume the donation has to go somewhere, and that would probably be an organization – so that a “donation” to an individual such as a street beggar or busker or “gift” to a “needy” person wouldn’t count.
That led me to wonder about what actually constituted a “charity”.
Take, for example, those “religious” charities … it seems to me that perhaps there should be some distinction between devotional purposes, (such as donating funds to the upkeep and maintenance of the local parish church – the Roof Repair Fund or the Organ Fund; or the operation of a missionary organization – such as those television missions that seem to be so popular in the States), and more social orientated projects, (such as the operation of a children’s home and adoption agency or a hospice).
In Britain we used to have four main categories of charity, and charitable purposes or activities – for: poverty relief; educational purposes; religious purposes and the “catch all” – other purposes which are considered to be beneficial to the community. Since the Charities Act of 2006, the list of what is considered a charitable purpose has been further codified as being for:
- the prevention or relief of poverty
- the advancement of education
- the advancement of religion
- the advancement of health or the saving of lives
- the advancement of citizenship or community development
- the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
- the advancement of amateur sport
- the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
- the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
- the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
- the advancement of animal welfare
- the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services and
- other purposes currently recognised as charitable and, (the typical “catch all” provision), any new charitable purposes which are similar to another charitable purpose.
(As an aside, the twelfth struck me as a little interesting … as these services really lie within the public domain as one of the prime responsibilities of the state. On the other hand, it refers to the promotion of efficiency … so would include charitable organizations like the Friends of this or that hostpital.)
As I said, the level of donations reported in the article struck me as quite high … even if people experienced a fall in their incomes, they have still maintained a fairly good record of charitable donations … would that it were so here in Kyrgyzstan where we do have our fair share of charities – Blagotvoritelniye Fundov – non-commercial organizations , (that aren’t involved in the production or sale of dutiable goods – for example, alcohol or tobacco, operating bookmaking services and/or lotteries, and do not support political parties or candidates in elections) that are established to carry out “charitable activities”.
Charity is defined as voluntary activity intended to deliver goods and services and the performance of works on a disinterested basis, whether free of charge or on favourable terms or for the payment of just the costs incurred in producing the activity.
As in the UK, there is a list of what is considered to be a charitable purpose, which includes:
- Social support and protection of citizens, including the improvement in the financial position of the needy and the social rehabilitation of the unemployed, invalids and other persons which owing to physical and (or) intellectual features, other circumstances are not capable to realise the rights and legitimate interests independently;
- Rendering assistance to those injured by acts of nature, ecological, industrial or other accidents, social, national, religious conflicts and to the forced migrations;
- Assistance to strengthening of the world, friendship and the consent between peoples, the prevention of social, national and religious conflicts;
- Assistance in activities in education, the sciences, culture, arts and spiritual development of the person;
- Assistance to protection of motherhood and childhood;
- Assistance in preventive health and protection of the health of citizens, and also the propagation of a healthy way of life, improvement of the moral and psychological condition of citizens;
- Assistance in physical training and mass sports;
- Protection of the environment and the protection of animals;
- Protection and the maintenance of buildings, objects and the territories having historical, cult, cultural or nature protection value, and burial place places.
There are some rules designed to encourage individuals and companies to donate to and/or sponsor charitable activities and organizations. In addition to the obvious advertising value of being associated with an event and having your name and logo placed before the public as a supporter of the activity, it is possible to write off some or all of the expense against profit tax. There is a limit – after all the government do want to receive some tax revenues and want to avoid the possibility of tax avoidance schemes such as we have been seeing in the West, (even in Britain!) – and that is up to 10% of the taxable income … and provided that they do not receive any direct benefit from the activity they are supporting.
That strikes me as a more positive approach than imposing a requirement that companies do something. Over the years I have come across several examples of this, such as to sponsor or adopt an old age pensioner, an invalid or a “needy family” … or to contribute to the erection of a monument – even to help build a railway line. Fortunately, they have been examples of some official “thinking aloud” saying something akin to “wouldn’t it be nice if …” but that often seems to be interpreted in a much more concrete fashion.
I am told that this a hangover from earlier times – possibly dating back to the Soviet way of doing things … but also possibly derived from the hierarchical tribal society of the nomadic Kyrgyz – with feudal obligations similar to the idea of Tithes.
Back in the West, tithes represented a compulsory payment of a tenth of the income either as cash or goods, which were paid to an authority – either the governmental or religious … a form of tax. Over the years, however, as the concept of taxes has become more developed, the tithes have tended to become in our modern consciousness a voluntary contribution.
A related concept was that of alms – giving material to someone else as an act of religious virtue … it wasn’t compulsory – but it was encouraged – if not expected – as a religious duty.
When it comes to supporting the less well off citizens in society, I am not opposed to such “adoptions” … for example, I am a supporter of the charity fund Babushka Adoption … but that is because I choose to be … not because I am compelled to be. ”It is far better to be a volunteer than a conscript”. A “conscript” is more likely to be a reluctant supporter just “going through the motions” in order to “tick the box” … whereas a “volunteer” will be a “willing worker”, more likely to give “above and beyond” because they have a real empathy with the cause.
I am less sympathetic when it comes to some of the proposals – I am not sure for example why we were once asked to help build a railroad … and another “requirement” that I am not keen on is having to fulfil employment quotas.
I am also never keen to have my name or our logo broadcast as a supporter of this or that activity. It makes life difficult as more and more people come asking for help and support. Often they represent really good and worthwhile causes, but there is a limit as to how many and to what extent we can support charitable causes – either as individuals or as a company.
To make matters worse, we have recently met a growing number of requests where we are told that there are fewer and fewer supporting charitable causes … it is getting harder and harder to raise funds, and to carry out different activities. Unfortunately we are seeing more and more disappointed and depressed faces as the organisers of this or that activity receive yet another reply prefaced with … “I am sorry, but …”.
It would be nice to think that the record of charitable donations here in Kyrgyzstan was to prove to be a resilient as that it has, apparently, proved to be in the UK … however, I suspect that it is another case of “I am sorry, but …”
Bishkek