He has become involved with a charity down there that is organizing donations (cash, toys, etc...) for Iraqi children. They have come up against a hurdle that I imagine faces many charities and NPO's. Many in the organization are reluctant to accept credit card donations given the spiraling consumer debt in the U.S., much of which can be directly attributed to credit cards. On the one hand as a socially conscious organization, they don't want to contribute to this problem, but on the other they understand the competition involved in getting dollars, of which convenience plays a large part.

Another example could be: Does the Canadian Cancer Society have the responsibility to employ a recycling program if they know that doing so will remove $1000 from their bottomline each month, thereby hampering their ability to carry out their mandate?

I guess the overarching question is, At what point should charities and / or NPO's allow their mandate to supercede any other social responsibilites?

a) those things they directly do, and
b) those things for which only they can reasonably take responsible action

So yes, they should recycle. They're directly creating the waste, and nobody else can (or should) do it for them.

For example, I believe that credit card companies charge a fee to the retailer or, in this case, the fund raiser. If that's higher, for example than the cost of people sending personal checks, then people ought to be made aware that less of their donation goes to the target than what would other wise-- or visa versa. I suspect in my example that the personal check route would involve more overhead. I guess it would depend on how much work is done by paid workers as opposed to volunteers.

Prime examples: food banks. The first food bank in Canada, the Edmonton Gleaners Association was started in the early 80's to ensure that supermarket food past its "sell by" date did not go to waste. Stores donated the food to missions to help the homeless. Increasingly, as welfare rates did not cover the cost of food and rent, the food bank started to assist families and individuals. Throughout the eighties, food banks were the fastest growing industry in Canada, with one in almost every city and town, and eventually, a national association of food banks.

In the late 80's the Halifax food bank served the provincial government notice that since the government was responsible for supporting people with no other source of income, they would close in five years. As far as I know, they are still operating.

With the assurance that people would be fed no matter what, Ralph Klein felt free in 1993 to cut welfare rates by 20%. A number of other provinces followed suit (and I believe that B.C. is planning drastic cuts as well).

Where do we go from here? Volunteers at the food banks are busy. Nearly 20,000 people a month use the Edmonton food bank. Do we hold poor people for ransom because the government is not living up to its mandate?

There are many charities that only exist because poor people cannot afford basic necessities. Here, we have the Food Bank, Coats for Kids, Tools for Schools, Sport Central, and many others. Middle and higher income people are bombarded with request for donations, all for worthy causes. In my mind, if they donate at all, they have forgotten that they already pay for all this through taxes. In effect, they pay twice for the same services.

I can see donating to charities that make people's lives easier, such as those that buy wheelchairs or scooters or vans to provide more independence to the disabled. I can see donating to send a terminally ill child and her/his family on a trip-of-a-lifetime. I can see donating to build or to beautify a park in memory of veterans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southside Red:
I have often wondered myself about charities - not whether they should accept credit card payments or recycle, but whether they should exist at all.

---

I attended a City Council meeting and listened to them discuss a zoning discussion. They were putting more car on provincial overpass that was already suffering from overload. The answer offered was that they won't fix the problem until it is so big it stair them in the face. I don't think that we can do that with caring for people. In Richmond we just opened a second food bank. Until now the people in that area just suffered. The Provincial government has eliminated legal services for the poor, we are working to find other sources of money.

The gov't somehow manages to waste a tremendous amount of money to get a bare trickle to the front line. And there's very little accountability, they can do a lot of 'shuffling' to make it hard to tell how those dollars are spent. I would see people pay lower taxes and donate to charity. It's easier to fix a smaller org like that. I've never really believed the gov't should be the primary caregiver for the needy. What the hell does the gov't know about people? hehehe

As for credit cards, for your concerns to be relevent you'd have to argue that by NOT accepting credit cards, the individual who apperently cannot control their spending habits is NOT going to max out the card on something else. To strenghten that, the cash you take from them instead would have gone to the credit card bills anyway - so one way or another you're not helping their debt situation.

So - feed the hungry, or a new 'ronco slice-o-matic', the cards going to get it anyway. It's a seperate issue and it's just not part of the same problem.

[ 16 July 2003: Message edited by: Foxer ]

I think that we need to remember why governments started the welfare system in the first place - because charities were unable to provide for everyone who needed help. They are unable to do so now.

And sorry, Foxer, but charities are not necessarily more efficient. Most of their workers are volunteers, so their labor costs are negligible. The buildings are usually donated, as are all the supplies they distribute. Having the government provide the services is more expensive, yes, definitely. But since the system and staff are already in place, any increase in rates would, in theory, go directly to poor people.

I don't believe we should close food banks immediately. What I do believe is that all of us, working or not, should lobby the government to provide an amount adequate to cover the real cost of living, for those unable to work or for those raising children below school age. We should not accept feeling as though we have torather than choose todonate in addition to paying taxes.

Just as an aside, a couple of years ago, Alberta's provincial government decided to cut back on the number of people who collected AISH (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped) pensions. Social workers were told to quietly contact each of their clients, to find out if there was any kind of work they could do, then discontinue the AISH pensions and subsidize them at the same rates welfare recipients get (a difference of about $300 a month for a single person). This stopped immediately when the front page headline in the Edmonton Journal read "Blind Paraplegic told to find work". Readers were rightly horrified.

We can, through letters to politicians, through votes, and through legal action if necessary, force governments to accept responsibility. All we need is the will. But we need to do it together. Poor people are afraid that if they speak out, the little money they get will be discontinued. They don't want to criticize food banks, because the volunteers there work hard and really do try to help.

The only people it's not the fault of are those who are trying to find a way out of the poverty trap.

The majority of food banks are trying to help 8 times the number of people they did just a few years ago. Donations are not high enough to cover this number of people. Still the government insists that putting someone under unreasonable hardship will urge them to get work. They cut incomes so there is no place to live, no food to eat, no money for transportation to job search, no way for a potential employer to contact the person (telephones are not considered a necessity and have to be paid for out of food money), no decent clothing to wear to an interview if they get one. Is it any wonder people give up trying?

Most charities no longer get government subsidies or support so they can't afford to take up the slack. Charities cannot fully support people whose options have been cut off by the government. As was pointed out on another thread, a certain amount of poverty is necessary for the economy. The government uses stacked statistics to convince people that the poverty level is not as high as it is. The statistics are based on REPORTABLE situations, such as a reduction in people on welfare rolls, reduction in people on EI, etc. None of these estimates can include homeless people or those suffering from partial support from government programs or working with inadequate incomes. These people are invisible to the government.

quote:

---

There was a backbench MP, a few years back, who tried to get a bill through requiring charities to declare their financial records. Apparently, many charities have directors who get terrific perks: lavish salaries, cars, golf club memberships, etc.

---

I think it was probably in response to such suggestions/allegations that a lot of NPOs started making their books public as a matter of practice. There was an article in the Star (maybe even a series over a couple of weeks) about large NPOs and their budgets. The one I was working for offered up the percentage of funds spent on the various programs and administration, as well as the salaries of the CEO and the VPs, publishing the info on their website, and volunteering it to the paper.

quote:

---

The basic living assistance provided by charities would not be assumed by government at anything close to the level provided by the charities. Anyone saying we should abandon charities and force government to change is saying we should use the recipients of the charity as political pawns.

---

Pogo, I'm not sure what you mean when you say the basic living assistance provided by charities, etc.

Charities do not provided basic living assistance. They do provide emergency food, clothing and sometimes short-term shelter. Recipients only receive what the charities are able to give, not what they require to live.