Charity Muggers

Like many people, I’m sick of the sheer number of charity collectors, trying to hit me up between the station and work almost every day.

I do donate to charity, but by cheque. It irritates me to be constantly asked for money by myriad charities, some of whom I believe are poor allocations of resources, by collectors who are usually being paid themselves.

Many people feel beholden to give a charity collector a little bit of money when approached because it’s well, charity and therefore all in a good cause, isn’t it? Not necessarily.

The charity may be a highly politicised organization in which the agenda of those running it differ significantly from your own. Or you may believe the goals of the charity are secondary to those of others in the field and consequently it draws resources away from your preferred charities.

A third problem is that the charity may have become too corporate; almost an industry in itself, with too many full time staff protecting their vested interests.

If you don’t think for a few seconds before dropping the money in the tin, how do you know how much of your money, if any, is going where you intend it?

Do you know whether or not the charity collector is being paid? Most of them are. It’s not merely a coincidence that such a large percentage of the charity muggers in Sydney or Melbourne have British accents. They aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their heart: they are backpackers or similar, trying to fund their extended trip to Australia.

If I think a charity worthwhile, I will donate to them, but it’s not my job to help finance some Pommy backpacker’s holiday.

I’ve noticed the paid collectors (I’m assuming this by their age and accent) are more likely to make an amateur attempt at a guilt inducing remark if you don’t donate (to their wages).

One little smart arse had the hide to say “Don’t want to help sick kids?” when I refused to give her any money. Yes, you’re right love, that’s the reason. Not because I think the Starlight Foundation is a disgraceful waste of funds.

What a brilliant idea: spend the money on sending a dying child to meet Madonna instead of trying to cure their cancer. A symbol of the debilitating modern, Western disease: the triumph of sentimentality over substance.

I saw them in the city recently. It was a major production: a stage, performers, banners, lots of staff. I’m pretty sure most were paid employees. This would seem to be borne out by the statement on their site that they “employ 187 talented people, in addition to our dedicated volunteers”.

I’m not saying the Starlight Foundation does nothing of value per se. What I am saying is that with 187 paid staff and a considerable amount of money spent on events, plus their goal of giving children a one off experience, this is not a good use of funds compared to donations to cancer research or similar. I suggest a better goal for chronically ill children is to prolong their lives (within reason) in the hope a cure is found.

The amount people allocate to charity is a finite resource. I'm not claiming it is static, but it is bounded. If people are asked for donations from 10 charities, they will probably donate more in total than if asked by 5, but their average donation will almost certainly decrease the more they are asked. This is a particular problem for the charities at the end of the sequence, since people will often start out with larger donations, then tend to decrease them the more they are asked.

Additionally, people often don't really know what each particular charity does. If all they know is that "it's for sick kids", they are more likely to feel they've already given enough to sick kids this year and a charity with more worthy goals may miss out.

On this basis, one may argue that the overall effect of the Starlight Foundation is negative, since its regular fund raising activities are likely to lead to lower donations to other charities, such as cancer research, offsetting whatever good it produces.

The other problem I have with the Starlight Foundation is that it seems to me to be as much a business as a charity. It’s very “PR” oriented, from the not-too-bright celebrities needing a cause to bolster their image to the STARS “corporate values” acronym, exactly the kind of shallow, fake feeling guff staff at large corporations like banks have to endure.

The secretary walking around your office seemingly a little too often collecting for them acts like you’re the biggest heel on the planet if you refuse to donate on the grounds your money is better spent elsewhere. “Ohh, sick kids, mate … come on, you’ve got to be in it.”

Well, if it’s for sick kids, I guess I’d better pay my $5 cringe tax like everyone else and not concern myself with how the money is actually spent.

Charity models like this encourage vested interests. People can see this and the impression projects onto the whole sector.

The only time I’ll give money to collectors on the street is to Legacy or to the Salvos or Smith Family if they are collecting in the pub. I know some of my donation to the Salvos or Smith Family goes to admin and I know the Salvos are god-botherers, nevertheless I respect their work and by and large, I can see tangible results.

A charity like Legacy is different, because the collectors are soldiers. I always give money to Legacy because I have close relatives who fought for Australia and I respect people who are prepared to. If I died on a battlefield, I’d want to know my family would be looked after.

Otherwise, I ignore the street collectors, even if it’s a charity I support. I prefer to give my money directly to the charity via direct deposit or cheque, not to pay the wages of some smarmy brat or backpacker.

Additionally, find out what the charity really does before you give them money and don't just give to everybody who asks. If you develop charity fatigue and just happen not to be in a good mood one day, that could lead to you giving $2 or $5 instead of your usual $10, for example ... and the charity who lucked out might just be one you'd preferentially support if you sat down and made a list.