This and other statements of Dan Pallotta, author of the 'Uncharitable: How Restraints of Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential' generated a bit of a stir at the Institute of Fundraising National Convention. Dan was basically pointing out few huge contradictions in the way we look at the idea of helping in the institutionalized way. Look at this slide:
This is the amount of investment made on two organizations working in areas related to children (one saving them, second providing entertainment). The idea here is to shift our thinking from that where aid and support of 3rd sector is perceived to be 'expensive' if the invested funds are too high, to one where the success of the organization is measured in lives saved and amount of money made of any type of investment. Applying the rules of commercial marketing it becomes apparent that 3rd sector parties are in worst position already at start!
Pallotta's book grabbed my attention and I keep on thinking about this one sentence (referring to the founding ideas behind the American philanthropy): 'Love of one's fellow man was to be motivated by hatred of oneself'.
Here, on TH!NK3 platform we are looking at the ideas around development and developing countries and I strongly believe those do take priority in terms of needs. However while living in the UK and working in the British 3rd sector I cannot help but look at aid from completely different angle - not on how much money is needed, but how much money could be but is not made here, in the already 'developed', very charitable country.
I agree with Pallotta that it would be great to shift our thinking towards higher goals and higher sums of money we could spend on various activities for the cause providing the public understands (and is provided with all possible information about investments and results to assure transparency of the process) that the more we invest, the more lives we can save.
It's a sensitive issue though, as more investment (i.e. expenditure) can lead to various types of misconduct (see this example here). According to Pallotta, the current mechanisms of control in this area are too strict and ineffective. So what would be the perfect combination of change in the way we look and trust 3rd sector organizations and in the way we ensure the organizations are using donor moeny wisely?
When I think about Disney I get:
1. Quality time with kids
2. Fun
3. A way to escape daily life
4. An opportunity to live my fantasies.
That is why we are willing to spend money there. Which Disney re-invests to create even more. Yes, it is expensive but worth it (at least for the kids).
When I think about the 3rd sector I get:
1. dished up a problem
2. confronted with the bad side of humanity
3. the raw reality.
That is why we are willing to spend less money there and perceive the price for it expensive.
Now the question is:
How can we make sure that we receive the positives from Disney while giving for Save the Child? Not an easy one.
When we compare what we spend on developing world problems with our own frivolities, we always come off looking like idiots. I’m a BIG Disney fan and agree with Johan that it contributes a lot to our world. But comparing aid spending with military spending or pornography would be worthwhile.
Interesting piece.
Well, i don’t know the reality in UK, but in Poland for me the key issue should be put on the deep discussion in media about how NGOs are spending public money or money from public collections to have some kind of mechanize that NGOs feel they are controled and responsible so I’m giving money so I should be interested how they are spent. I think that in Poland there is no control in this way…