There was always a mite box in the house when I was growing up and the contents were collected with some regularity. When involved in fundraising efforts for a new church building, we used the widow’s mite parable, and a slogan of “Not equal gifts, but equal sacrifice”. This tugging at the heart strings proved highly successful, particularly with people with the same introduction to charity early in life. Charity is considered an act of love and anonymous charity is its highest form. One does not question such noble causes. Have things changed in the way I approach charity? Certainly, though not along the lines one might think.
Earlier this week, a Parliamentary Committee started a hearing on the WE charity. I have followed the news since it started in the spring of 2020 and cannot clearly understand how it is deemed a scandal, even though I may question some of the methods and practices. Rather than focusing on the WE Charity, it would be far more revealing to have hearings around the business of charity. If there is truly to be “transparency”, we need to understand the economics, the usage of funds, details of what constitutes administration costs, and the profit-making businesses surrounding the core.
In the interest of full disclosure, I can say that my charitable donations are very restricted. The Red Cross is the only charity to which I contribute with any regularity. The church used to be a major part of my giving but having “fallen from grace” it no longer is a recipient. I contribute nominal amounts to certain door-to-door appeals, more because of the dedicated people who perform this task. Overall though, I contribute substantially less than I had in the past. The tax deduction may be attractive, but that is equivalent to forcing public funds to pay out as much as I do.
Why the negative attitude on charities? My earliest questioning of charities was finding out the salary of the head of United Way, not the universal one, just United Way Calgary. It was in the early nineties that I found the salary was $450,000, certainly on the high side of the spectrum of any industry. In any given year, it was an executive on sabbatical. The argument was that you need the keen business acumen for a sizable venture. That may not be unreasonable though I just couldn’t get my head around that number and the likely salaries at the next level within United Way. From that point on, I never contributed to the charity again. The salary issue is not true today as the current head is paid around $250,000 annually. Secondly, the $450,000 number may have been false at the time, so the criticism may be unwarranted.
The next was coverage of the Canadian Hemophilia Society. The company doing the telephone solicitations received 85% of the proceeds. Their fearless leader explained that it was only the original campaign that paid out the high percentage. Once they built awareness, people would automatically donate funds on a regular basis. Having been involved in campaigns, I know this is just not true. One must have continuous reminders and that costs money.
Cancer charities and ribbon campaigns are a rage across North America. Cancer groups are certainly not united and not coordinated. I have lost track of the ribbon colour and the cause it represents. I do know that corporate “giving” is part of a well-crafted public relations plan. Mark Zuckerberg’s first major donation was announced at precisely a time when he was under pressure from several directions and the cleansing through philanthropy seemed to work quite well.
I am NOT against charities and will be the first to admit that lots of good work around the world is supported by these massive efforts. I would however like to understand a little more about the workings of the charities. If Parliament extend the WE mandate into a broader based inquiry into charities in general, it would better serve the country. The political motivation would be lessened and I may be more open to solicitations. If it is restricted to just the WE charity it would just be part of ongoing political campaigns of negative ads regardless of truth or falsehood. In many cases it may not be the charity itself, but the surrounding businesses that may expose interesting perspectives. If an open inquiry were held, it may serve the industry well from jaded views such as mine.
I will however leave you with a thought. The priceless contribution you could make is your time. I have seen people who tirelessly volunteer for the Mustard Seed or in Edmonton at “Kids in the Hall”. Various religious groups have armies of volunteers who feed the hungry, and offer solace to people in dire need of that personal touch. When you give of your time, your contribution is far greater. The answer to many of our maladies is providing self-respect to the recipient whether they see it immediately or not. The most surprising thing is that forced outside your comfort zone, you may learn a lot about yourself. Sometimes what you learn may lay bare some of your self delusions and from personal experience, it can be very uncomfortable.
