Beyond Charity Part III: Impact of Giving on Recipient

Having Given, did you later wonder 'what must have been the impact of the giving on the recipient?'

Any change under the surface?

This question actually poses two queries "When you gave, what did you want to achieve?" and "has it been achieved"?

Finding the answer to the first part of the question is relatively easy.....since it is essentially about 'you' and 'your' objective in giving. The second part of the question is comparitively more complex.....since it requires gauging the level and forms of change in 'someone else's' situation:

• Change in the recipient's (person or cause) current and future condition.
• Effect on the recipient's personal perception of self worth, dignity and capacity to maintain the changed condition.

How we give and the results achieved are closely interconnected.

The manner of service delivery can either foster dependence or self-reliance. Post the 2001 earthquake in India, it was reported that men in certain affected areas had gotten so used to aid delivery, that they spend more time waiting to collect the aid then tilling their land. Till one day the trucks stopped coming and there was no crop to harvest.

The gap between the objectives of the giver and the needs of the recipient can create an imbalance. For example, after the initial phase of providing relief to the disaster affected people, begins the process of rehabilitation. It takes much longer and needs more capital for rebuilding what was destroyed and creating new structures. But it is easier to find donors for supporting relief than rehabilitation. Similarly it is easier to raise money for earthquakes than it is for droughts. The signs of destruction of an earthquake are immediately visible and concentrated in an area. While droughts slowly drain away life from the land, people and animals. Its impact stays for a long time, but the signs appear gradually. As a result the emotional reaction to earthquake victims is stronger than that for the drought affected.

The act of giving is not the end but rather the means to an end. In that case before deciding how and what to give, would'nt it be prudent to consider the situation of the recipient and the value that can be created by the different forms of giving? Functionaries of the social sector have with experience learned that there is no singular or quick solution to social problems and sustainable difference is achieved when we build the capacities of the community to deal with issues and be self-reliant. We have realized that sympathy may provide temporary relief but empathy leads to long-term changes. Businesses have to their pleasant surprise found that contrary to their belief, the 'poor' are a very large consumer market capable of paying for their services. And the lack of formal education does not deter the 'illiterate' from using hi-tech gadgets like PDA's and smart cards. With these realizations there has been a paradigm shift in approaches to development, role of organizations and the community.

This broad shift in thought process is largely a result of - the failure of conventional top-down approaches to sustainably solve social issues; gradual recognition of people's ability to solve their own problems quite effectively; evolving sensitization to respect their right to make choices and be treated with dignity.

How do you view those that you are trying to help?

"When you look at the world what do you see? Victim...or Hero; Oppressed... or..Courageous; Starving child...or..Future Leader; Dependent...or..Capable; Criminal...or..Activist; Downtrodden...or..Determined? Change the Way You See Them. They Can Change Their World. You Must be the Change You Wish to See in The World (Gandhi). Be the Change." Be The Change Video, Mercy Corps.

Though at the broad policy level this shift is quite apparent, but in practice the recipients are still viewed as helpless and needing charity. C.K Prahalad begins his book `The Fortune at the bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits' by challenging the stereotype image held by the corporate sector of the global 4 billion people in the low income segment. He believes that "if we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognizing them as resilient and creative entrepreneurs and value conscious consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up." ITC E-Choupal, PRODEM FFP, Cemex and Casas Bahia are a few examples from the range of successful business enterprises that provide goods and services customized to the needs of low-income earners. These ventures demonstrate the immense potential to generate profits while 'creating opportunities for the poor by offering them choices and encouraging self-esteem'. And their achievements show a whole new dimension of corporate social responsibility.

How do perceptions influence organization's programmes and our giving patterns?

The most obvious examples of linkages between perception and giving styles can be found in fundraising material and techniques. Charitable organizations primarily focus on appealing to people's charitable side. Hence images in advertisements, brochures and annual reports portray stark pictures of misery and helplessness. Disturbed by such sweeping stereotyping, John Wilson and Dan Taylor in their article 'Financing Development Practice: How can we start to make the difference that makes a difference?' pointed out that "Poverty may be real but representations of the poor distort reality and are often false, portraying poor people as helpless victims of circumstances devoid of any dignity. For example, it lends itself to generalisations about an entire continent - of considerable diversity in both its environment and its people - characterising it as a single, uniform problem. The starving masses of Africa depicted with dramatic effect on our television sets in the North apply only to specific places, at specific times. Yet Africa as the continental 'basket-case', incapacitated by poverty and in need of charity, continues as the underlying theme."

The mission of a developmental organization is served when it captures the interest of the donors for its cause and provides a range of possible innovative solutions and options for their strategic involvement. As John Wilson and Dan Taylor also state in their article "the public must be redirected towards the positive message of what development - that process by which communities are empowered to take control over their lives - can achieve, rather than the negative message of destitution". Further, since development is a long term process, the organizations emphasis has to be on using fundraising methods that grows the interest and involvement of the donor for a long long time.

How we give and to which kind of organization we give determines the impact on the recipient.

The nature of impact of a charitable and a developmental organization varies by virtue of the difference in approach to their stakeholders (donors and recepients). Simultaneously the act of giving sets the ball rolling which passes through various stages, comes to the recepient and still moves on to indirectly impact the community and society. Considering the potentially wide scope of effect, it would be important to explore the various dimensions of our giving and evaluate them with our personal and organizational values and objectives. Olympic gold medalist Johann Olav Koss went to Eritrea with a plane full of soccer balls, a week after President Afewerki had made an international appeal for food aid to his country ravaged by war and hunger. Reacting to this unexpected and unusual contribution to Eritrea's children, the President said to Johann,

"This is the most beautiful gift we have ever received. Finally we are being seen as human beings. We are more than mouths to feed, more than people dying who must be kept alive. We are people. We, too, have dreams and we hope for a better future".

Interesting Online Reading on the Aid impact

How can we start to make the difference that makes a difference?

Rights Based Approaches

Ethics of Disaster Relief

We need more than Aid to break the poverty cycle

Who comes to the table? Stakeholder interactions in Philanthropy

A man with Balls

The Class Divide

Viewing the World - A study of British Television coverage of developing countries

Beyond Charity Part II : By Social Sector Organizations

Social Sector Organizations
What is your role?

Imagine there are three new organizations on a platform. The announcer introduces them to the audience as “Today we have amongst us organizations that are striving to make the world a better place. X is a charitable organization, Y is a humanitarian organization and Z is the developmental organization”. What impression would the introduction have created on the audience about the work of each of these organizations?

There is a value statement in each of these words – charity in charitable, humanity in humanitarian and development in developmental. The implication of this value association then differentiates the three categories of organizations:

A charitable organization focuses on those who are suffering and in pain. It provides goods and services that can for the moment stop or reduce the suffering. E.g. Food distribution to the hungry, blanket distribution to the homeless, money to the poor beggar etc.

A humanitarian organization’s focus is on human welfare through a two-fold approach - alleviation of suffering and advancement of social reforms. It extends relief in the form of goods and services to people in difficult circumstances based on humanitarian principles. For example, International Committee of Red Cross “exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by the Movement in situations of conflict. It also endeavors to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.”

A developmental organization is concerned about growth. Its objective is to facilitate a positive, long-term and sustainable change by addressing the root cause of the social problem. Oxfam, Care and Greenpeace are some international developmental organizations. Oxfam Internationals mission states that it is “dedicated to fighting poverty and related injustice around the world.”

The core objective of all three organizations is broadly the same – make the world a better place. But how they go about doing it (their mission, goals and methods) is different.

‘Humanitarian’ is very close, but not synonymous, to ‘charitable’. The latter is derived from the ideal that it is a virtue to give fish to someone who is unfortunately hungry while the former is based on the belief that it is human responsibility to take care of those who are currently hungry due to circumstances. As this play of words implies, the motivation behind the two forms of giving and how the recipients are viewed is different. While charitable and humanitarian organization’s provide the fish to the hungry, a developmental organization helps people learn how to fish inorder to not go hungry. In special circumstances, a developmental organization may undertake humanitarian work, for example during a natural disaster. And a humanitarian organization may initiate a developmental process in the course of their work.

All three types of organizations play an important but different role. Take for example organizations working on a health related cause such as cancer. The mission of a charitable organization would be to provide financial aid or medicines to a needy cancer patient. A humanitarian organizations mandate would be to establish a mechanism for contributing towards the cost of medical treatment of patients from low-income groups and provide counseling and other necessary emotional support to the patient and his or her family members during the illness. A developmental organization would support research into causes of cancer and new treatments or focus on prevention and early detection through public awareness programmes on cancer. All three types of organizations play a different role in the fight against cancer.

The words 'charitable, humanitarian and developmental' communicate the organization’s beliefs and attitudes to the public, donors, employees, vendors and partners. It also reflects how the organization perceives its role and character, determines the way it functions, the kind of people it employs, the fundraising methods it adopts, the accountability criteria it sets and how it plans its future. The following table reflects some of the distinctions in approach and functioning of the organization.

	Charitable	Philanthropic	Developmental
Underlying Motivation is	Human virtue	Human responsibility	Human advancement/ growth
Guiding Objective is	Relief oriented	Relief oriented	Development oriented
Focus/Stress is on	Service/product delivery	Service/product delivery	Change facilitation
Impact of activities/programs	Short term	Short to medium term	Long-term
Fundraising methods designed to tap	Charity	Philanthropy & Charity	Philanthropy & Social Investment

Experts feedback and insights on the post

Interesting Online Reading on social sector organizations

Types of International Organizations

Categorising NGO´s

Background of NGO´s

A critical outlook on NGO´s and Development

Using Mission, Vision and Values

Beyond Charity Part I : By Givers/Donors

‘Every action has an equal and opposite reaction’ says Newton’s third law of motion. But when we give our resources (time, money or product) to a cause, our attempt is to ensure that the result (reaction) is

(a) not opposite to our actions or objectives and

(b) atleast equal, if not more, than our expectation!

Our expectations are directly linked to how we choose to give to the cause and vision of what should be achieved. Similarly an organization's expectations are reflected in its mission, nature of work and operational style. This reminds me of a story about three men carrying bricks and the power of their visions.

“As I walked along a path, I met a man carrying some bricks. "What are you doing?" I asked. "Oh, we have made these bricks," he replied, "and they will be square and smooth and strong." I met a second man carrying some bricks. "What are you doing?" I asked. "Oh, our community is building a very fine structure," he replied. "It will be spacious and beautiful and strong." I met a third man carrying bricks. "What are you doing?" I again asked. "Oh, our community will have the finest school in the land," he replied. "We will produce the best educated students in the area."

What is your vision? Does your terminology clearly reflect your vision? Is your chosen method of giving capable of achieving the vision?

The following three spotlights explore these questions from the perspectives of the three parties involved in the 'giving' process - the Givers/Donors and their types of giving; organizations and their different roles; recipients/cause and the impact of giving on them.

Givers/Donors

Is the money or resources that you 'give' an investment or an expense?
Charity has been the traditional model of giving. But there is a growing rank of philanthropists, social entrepreneurs, investors and venture capitalists who are through innovative ways enabling social change. They have demonstrated how giving can be strategically converted into an investment.

‘Philanthropy’ is an act to promote human well being and advancement by (i) preventing the causes of suffering or deprivation and (ii) supporting identified avenues of social and economic growth. Generally, philanthropists consistently support humanitarian or developmental causes in which they have a personal interest, affiliation or belief. For example cancer patients and their family members are more inclined to support cancer related research, a nature lover is more interested in giving for wild-life conservation and an art connoisseur is keen to nurture budding talent.

Some philanthropists have strategically used their wealth to fund social change beyond their own lifetime and across many future generations. Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Alfred Nobel are a few such well-known philanthropists of the past, whose legacy continues till today.

In contrast, charity is a more sporadic form of giving to charitable or humanitarian causes that touch your heart at that moment. Like seing pictures of devastation on the television or being approached by an enthusiastic young child with a donation box. And sometimes we end up giving in response to the passion of the young child without even knowing the problem or the cause!

A social entrepreneur recognizes a social problem and takes the initiative to solve it by using creative and market oriented methods. By applying entrepreneurial principles to social change, Muhammad Yunus founded the successful Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, Florence Nightingale established the first school for nurses and Dr.Verghese Kurien revolutionized the Indian diary industry through the AMUL Dairy Project.

Investing in catalysts of sustainable development is social investment. It provides resources to non-profit organizations and social enterprises for launching new programmes, building capacities to increase performance or even expand operations. The investment could be in the form of strategic grants, (micro-) lending, loan guarantees, equity investments, social venture capital etc. For instance, Citibank in collaboration with YMCA of Singapore launched the Youth for Causes Programme to provide seed funding to youth for developing and implementing creative ideas that benefit the community. Aavishkaar International was set up by a group of Indians in Singapore to provide venture capital to rural innovators and small entrepreneurs in India.

Socially and environmentally responsible investing has a dual purpose – monetary gain for the investor and the assurance that the company generated the profit while following positive social and environmental practices. It integrates financial judgment with personal values to evaluate the social and economic impact of the investment. For example, the United Global UNIFEM Singapore Fund invested in companies with favorable investment potential and a demonstrated responsibility in their policies towards women. As the Social Investment forum’s website says, “You can put your money to work to build a better tomorrow while earning competitive returns today.”

Each method of giving requires different levels of involvement. Since charity is primarily a sporadic form of giving, it normally involves a smaller quantum of money. In an age of credit cards and cheque books, very rarely do we (people) carry large sums of money in our wallets. Hence when asked for donation on the street, it is the small change that gets given. Considering the smaller amount of money involved, the giver is not normally concerned with finding out more about the cause or; asking for a receipt or; specifying how the money is to be used or; in seeking information on the organizations monitoring and evaluation policy or; checking its annual reports. Philanthropy requires more attention by the giver to choosing the cause, the organization and in expecting accountability for the usage of the given resources. Social investment demands high involvement both before and after the investment has been made. This includes a detailed selection procedure, regular updates from the recipient organization and the impact evaluation. In socially responsible investing, the focus is on identifying companies with desired policies. Post the investment, attention is towards monitoring the market performance of the company and the annual review of its policies. For a social entrepreneur, constantly monitoring performance and plotting results is an integral component of their functioning.

How we finally give, is a matter of personal choice and situation. Some of us would rather give spontaneously as and when the need arises, other might want to plan their giving to particular cause or organization. The chosen method and form of giving reflects our vision of what that money or resources need to accomplish.

Everyday in our personal lives we prioritize our spending and strive to get the maximum return for every dollar spent and minimize chances of loss. Giving to a social cause (deciding on how, whom and when to give your money or time) should also follow the same principle.

Interesting reading links on giving methods:

Give......but Wisely

Among the seven profiles of donors, what type are you?

A Donor Bill of Rights

Tools for Good: Vehicles for Philanthropy and Charitable Giving

The value in words

To start off, lets turn the spotlight on to a very fundamental building-block – our jargons and terminology. How do words that we use so often affect us?

You may wonder why is there a need to dissect words that have been a part of the common and legal parlance for generations. I believe that it is important to evaluate their appropriateness since the words we choose to use communicate our beliefs and attitudes. They also tend to create the reality they describe.

Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educationalist, said, “Within a word we find two dimensions —reflection and action. If one is sacrificed even in part, the other immediately suffers. To speak a true word is to transform the world."

For example consider the difference between ‘sympathy’ and ‘empathy’; ‘handicapped’ and ‘differently-abled’; ‘prison’ and ‘correctional facility’; ‘vagrant’ and ‘homeless’; ‘donation’ and ‘investment’. Both the words reflect two subtly different views and approaches towards the same thing or person. One way to decide whether a word truly defines a thought is by the immediate images that flash into our and others mind upon hearing it. So what images flash about ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’? They are the first two words under the spotlight.

Good Heart of ‘Charity and ‘Charitable’

At a party once, someone we had just been introduced to asked me where I worked. To my surprise, my husband intercepted “She is with the good heart sector”. He proceeded to clarify to us “She is a fundraiser and is invariably always asking good hearted people to do-good by giving for her good cause.” And then he asked if our acquaintance was goodhearted, for I was sure to approach him sometime. With an uncertain laugh, the gentleman deflected further probing and remarked to me “you must definitely be a good hearted person to work for a charity – such a good and noble cause”.

My husband’s teasing comments were not completely wrong. The image of the social sector has been closely associated with strong human emotions, whether it be suffering, compassion or religious beliefs. This emotion-laden image has its roots in the origin of non-profit movement. Individual’s initiative to help those who were suffering and bereft was an outcome of a charitable heart or a progressive outlook and hence viewed as charity or social service. When these initiatives became more organized into institutions, they were accepted as an extension of the charity and social service ideals.

Inspite of significant changes in the nature, scope and functioning of non-profit organizations, this image continues to persist. Our terminology has also perpetuated the ‘good hearted’ angle. The terms ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ are the most obvious examples. Last year, while complexities of governance and accountability were being hotly debated in Singapore, a question kept troubling me – Why is the social sector limiting itself to ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’? Are they actually the predominant form of giving and social action in Singapore?

I realise that there is no singular interpretation for ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ and they are used as ‘elastic’ terms. Their definitions are expanded and adapted to suit situations and ideologies. To clarify this point, lets look at an established definition of the terms, their key connotations and how we are currently using them.

Dictionaries define ‘charity’ as the alleviation of suffering and deprivation through giving aid to the needy (people in emotional, economic or physical distress). Pity, benevolence, alms, altruism and generosity are words that are often associated with it. And those who give charity are ‘charitable’, it could be an individual or organization. Drawing from this interpretation, ‘charity’ is the transaction between a giver and a beneficiary, i.e. the poor, helpless, sick, starving or homeless receiving aid from a sympathetic giver.

Have you ever wondered at the phrase ‘I don’t need your charity’?

The lopsided power equation between the charitable and the beneficiary has a lot to do with it! Another key dimension of charity is its ability to provide immediate relief to the recipient. But normally its impact is short lived since once the charity stops, the problem resurfaces. Showing charity to a beggar, might provide him with a meal today but he will be back in the streets tomorrow, begging again.

So do you believe that organizations in Singapore (and other countries) are only doing ‘charitable’ work? Or are they also involved in preventive and developmental efforts? Are individuals and companies giving only ‘charity’? Or are they also supporting long-term causes like environment; setting up foundations to support research; employing the differently-abled because of their potential and not just because they feel sorry for them? Either none of these things are happening in Singapore or we have included them under the broad and elastic umbrella of ‘charity and ‘charitable’.

This brings us to the question of how relevant are ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ approaches today? In other words, will giving charity solve social problems like poverty? Will a charitable approach be able to cure and prevent the spread of diseases like AIDS? Are ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ the right words for what we are trying to achieve?

While evaluating this, please consider the following aspects:
1. The number of non-profit organizations has increased substantially and so has their economic contribution. According to the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, collectively the civil society sector (non-profit organizations including religious congregations) of the 35 countries covered by the research represented a US$1.3 trillion industry with 21.8 million paid workers and 190 million volunteers. Do we recognize the potential of this emerging economic force?
2. The role of the non-profit organizations has expanded beyond the traditional social welfare delivery to specialized functions in social and economic development. Today, organizations are actively addressing issues ranging from natural disasters, diseases, poverty, illiteracy, women’s empowerment, clean toilets, environmental degradation, dwindling wildlife, preserving culture and preventing crime. Is it fair to simplify their advancements as charitable?
3. The technical nature of the work requires skilled professionals from varying disciplines with an ability to work in challenging conditions and deliver results. Good intentions and a good heart are no longer sufficient for successfully tackling the problems. Are charitable organizations equipped to compete with the corporate sector for high caliber professionals?
4. ‘Giving’ is no longer only about doing-good for others. Social problems are directly or indirectly impacting our lives. People’s participation has become crucial in curtailing and solving these problems that threaten the state of their health, safety, economic conditions, culture, infrastructure, children’s future and family well-being. Even companies cannot prosper in a dysfunctional environment and neither can they grow without strategically nurturing the capacities of communities from where their future employees and potential consumers will originate. Strategic ‘giving’ has resulted in innovative methods such as social entrepreneurship, socially responsible investment funds and social venture capital. Do these fall into the purview of charity?
5. Fundraisers have found that donors tend to support more when they have knowledge and personal interest in an issue. Emotional giving or charity is sporadic and in response to catalysts like heart wrenching pictures of an earthquake or a sick person. The moment is bound to pass. But a belief in the need for a particular cause leads to regular and long-term support. Should organizations then promote charity or encourage planned and strategic giving?

When the needs and giving patterns have evolved, why hasn’t our terminology also grown to include these changes? By saying we are doing charity, aren’t we sub-consciously limiting our options? When organizations call themselves charitable, aren’t they limiting their vision? Has the time come to replace the branding of the ‘good heart’ sector with recognition as ‘specialists delivering social results’? The law in most countries also endorses the terms ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’. But then these laws were drawn up many generations back. In UK, the current law is based on the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601. Incremental changes have been made over time but most words remain the same.

I leave you to ponder these questions. My objective was to provoke you into critically examining the implications of these terms and decide if they needed to be replaced. If you are wondering what other terms that can be used……..it is a question that will need your comments, ideas and another spotlight.