There has been an intense debate in the media over
the last week about the collapse of the Kids Company charity. While this is interesting
in its detail as to whether or not it was financially mismanaged, I think the
more important question that it raises what is charity?
It used to be simple; a charity used contributions
from individuals often through collecting tins to spend on specific causes. So
for instance OXFAM was originally established to mitigate famines throughout
the third world. When there were crises in a particular area then there was a
specific appeal to help in that area. Banardos was a charity to run children’s
homes.
Nowadays everything has become far more complex.
Charities are now contracted to provide services that were traditionally performed
by central or local government. I read this week how the government had given
over £3 million to Banardos to provide children’s monitoring services in the
troubled town of Rotherham. Effectively charities are sub-contracting their
expertise to government. I think that this can be a win/win situation however
it becomes a problem when charities loose sight of the giving element of
charity and become completely dependent on government money. It is now not a
two way process. This as Kids Company found out can be disastrous when the
government turns of the tap.
Now we can just about understand that extension of
the concept of charity. But then let us consider the case of the North
Yorkshire Moors Railway - this is a charity. Yes people do give money and time
to keep a heritage railway running. But it is also a large commercial concern
providing employment and transport across the North Yorkshire Moors. A charity?
We then get to the more interesting case of private schools;
almost all of these have charitable status that is usually based on the dubious
premise that they give a limited number of scholarships. These schools that
already have considerable privileges thus gain financial advantages over their
state school counterparts particularly in the way that they are treated for
Value Added Tax. Charities?
So the practical application of charity in our
society is very diverse, and in some cases it would appear that the status is
abused at least it is stretched to the limit. Government is also increasingly
using charities as a backstop for services that they do not wish to perform.
Ultimately charity is a very personal thing, it is doing something for somebody
or something else for which nothing is required in return. Remember charity
begins at home!
Very interesting examples, Nigel. Extending charity as an arm of government certainly seems to bring economic and practical challenges, as well as equity issues. My current line of thought (which I will work on before we see you in September!) centers on human dignity. I wonder if judgments about what should be government responsibility and what private charity can best be made if the question of human dignity is considered. To me, programs like the local Food Shelf, currently supported by private donations (in Burlington often run out of church basements) and where low income families can go for supplies about once a month, undermine a sense of agency, power and control over one's life. Why not take those charitable donations, but in the form of more taxes on those who can afford it (and certainly many can, from the very rich to those very people giving to the food shelf) and pay a higher wage that allows people to buy food using their earned salary, or childcare for free so they can work, or....? Systems or programs that don't undermine human dignity might be best funded by charitable donations, outing clubs, bike ferries, underwriting theater groups, that sort of thing.
ReplyDelete