Any charity engaged in a fundraising campaign is advised to undertake a critical review of its case for support periodically.
For Red Kite Learning, the need for review is upon us, by virtue of our nomination for entry to Deutsche Bank’s Charity of the Year 2012 competition. If our application is short-listed, we will have to step-up and fine-tune our campaign in order to compete against other very worthy causes for votes from more than 8,000 Deutsche Bank employees. The stakes are high and there will be only two winners out of some seventy charities nominated for consideration.
One of the first questions that springs to mind is how our ‘cause’ might compare against the others in terms of its natural appeal, as worthy and deserving of support. While some causes might be more popular than others as defined by their market share of donors, the criteria for choosing one cause over another are less than simple.
There is a widespread belief that charities exist primarily to help needy people and that the desire to meet needs is a key criterion in the selection of charitable beneficiaries. However, research suggests that people do not give to the most urgent needs, but rather they support causes that mean something to them.
Non needs based criteria will include factors such as tastes, preferences and passions acquired as a result of an individual’s social experiences; personal and professional backgrounds which influence choice; perceptions of charity competence including the efficiency with which they are believed to use their money; and desire to have a personal impact that is not ‘drowned out’ by other donors. On this basis, the criteria for support may be as much ‘taste-based’ as ‘needs-based’.
Seeing oneself from the perspective of your target supporter group is not easy. Particularly as any group, however narrowly defined, is rarely homogenous and predictable, be it investment bankers or another collection of individuals.
The range of opportunities on offer creates a difficult situation for those who wish to use their vote or wealth to support charitable work. Moreover, decision making is often subject to a range of limitations such the ability to gather and interpret information, cognitively process the merits of alternative recipients and dedicate time to this decision making process.
In face of such limitations, part of the challenge is to deconstruct unhelpful classifications and create positive ‘mental-maps’ that support rational choice. This might involve some empirical ‘rules of thumb’, to help filter potential charitable recipients. Evidence of impact and social return on investment can provide useful value metrics for comparison.
Pre assigning certain causes as intrinsically ‘worthy’ or ‘unworthy’ of support is not a rational approach. While hierarchies of helplessness clearly influence giving decisions, translating judgements into concrete decisions that favour certain causes and not others presents a moral minefield.
If people find it difficult to choose between the many organisations competing for their support, a good brand and campaign might support understanding of what an organisation does, what it stands for, and the extent to which it aligns with personal values.
Recent discussions with corporate social responsibility staff suggest that the virtue of providing for the poor or disadvantaged is diminished if action isn’t being taken to tackle the root causes of poverty or disadvantage. Sustainable social impact is increasingly characterised in terms of hand-up rather than a hand-out.
Let us know what you think matters and by what criteria you choose one charity over another.
