You’ll have noticed the very public row between the SSPCA and the RSPCA over the latter’s alleged appropriation of donations from people residing in Scotland and the lack of awareness that they do not work here.
In terms of fairness, and at times in the charitable sector all is fair in money and fundraising, I think the SSPCA have a valid point when they complain that the RSPCA fail to make it abundantly clear that they do not rescue animals in Scotland, therefore any money raised in Scotland is not spent here. This takes away funds which donors might have expected to go towards helping abused Scottish animals.
I have some, if not conflicting thoughts about this, then a degree of disquiet. I suffer from a knee-jerk reaction of amazed distaste when I hear of people leaving enormous legacies to animal charities. In my view there are other more pressing causes which do not parade cuddly mutts/bunnies/goldfish to wring the heartstrings of the soppy, therefore otherwise deserving causes fail to attract the money they need to provide services which are not popular or are completely misunderstood. For example, lots of agencies seeking to help adult women are hideously underfunded, but crucially, the ethical ones do not try to raise money by trotting out ‘victims’. They know that this is demeaning to women who have suffered whatever problem their service is needed for and is ultimately counter-productive, as there is a perception that over-use of ‘victims’ leads to potential donor-fatigue.
Some well known children’s charities have spent years and an advertising budget possibly well in excess of the total available to ethical women’s charities in portraying helpless children at the mercy of known adults. Sadly there can be an unhelpful patriarchal message in there which encourages mother-blaming. That is contrary to a sound feminist analysis of the nuclear family and the coping strategies employed by many struggling mothers.
And that brings me to another aspect of my disquiet which is that given these large charities are using similar advertising strategies to the RSPCA, and there is frequently a separate but similar Scottish version, are they also poaching funds that people in Scotland are assuming are going to help Scottish children?
Some of the articles reporting on the SSPCA/RSPCA issue are trying to recommend that these Scottish agencies join their English/Welsh counterparts in an exercise to maximise their efforts. This as usual displays ignorance of the separate English/Welsh legal system and the completely different social/welfare structures in those two nations from the Scottish systems.
So, parts of my political world-view are negotiating some kind of reaction to this with other parts of my political world-view. I think this is a peculiar personal form of intersectionality. Damn, nothing is straightforward, is it?
Typically, the Guardian finds the most bizarre commentator to do a comment is free piece on this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/animalwelfare-animals
The comments below this article are priceless! But they demonstrate another issue which is that many people have no concept of how charitable agencies operate and complain about misuse of donations. Sigh, such dimwittedness and possibly from the same mindset that would be all for unrestrained capitalism.
Disclaimer:
I don’t advocate neglecting abused animals and I personally frown upon kitten-drowning, eating flesh and all such nastiness, I merely prefer to direct my charitable impulses elsewhere.
4 comments:
I think the SSPCA was a bit heavy- handed, especially as it seems they spent £100 grand on their ad (though all publicity is good publicity).
The RSPCA were not deliberately advertising in Scotland, just using ad placing companies which are uk-wide. A quick phone call and perhaps some emails might have sorted it out. The money could then have been spent more usefully.
An unnecessary row, showing a nasty side best kept out of public view.
I agree with your views about giving to charities. I think far too much is given to cancer charities - but how can you oppose it. My office just made a children's cancer charity its designated charity (by majority staff vote). I think all the contenders were cancer charities. If I said we should have gone for a less well-sponsored charity, people would think I was some kind of monster (how can you oppose a kiddies' cancer charity and not look monstrous?).
I have to disagree with the view that the SSPCA were heavy handed or that spending a mere £100,000 on a campaign to raise awareness about this was money badly spent.
According to the article in The Herald the SSPCA has had a great response and the estimated £1.25m that has been diverted to the RSPCA actually going to the SSPCA in future is money very well spent.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2487059.0.RSPCA_admits_taking_1_25m_of_Scots_cash.php
But my other point in my post was that often people fail to appreciate how charities must operate and think because money is donated it all has to be spent on 'helping' people/animals/repatriating stray Martians. Charities have to be able to advertise and (if they are large enough)to employ staff at reasonable salary scales and to attract supporters. This all takes money and that money has to come from somewhere. The charities see it as investment to generate more income.
I understand your issues with company choices of charities and that not everyone is going to agree with the decisions. It's difficult to see how to advocate at least occasionally picking a less popular charity without being judged in some way, perhaps not as extreme as a 'monster'.
the politics of charity is a minefield (sic) ! its probably too late for me to wade in... but the whole issue about the cuddliness of the recipients, why charities are doing work when the recipients should be getting things BY RIGHTS, this is especially true of disability charities. If/when I become disabled by old age I do not want my life dependent on Charity.
Oh absolutely, I agree with you. So many things that are provided by charity are services which should be a right in any civilised society.
I am always horrified when I see fund raising for children's specialised wheelchairs for example. But I also acknowledge that fundraising and other activities can bring communities together and in some ways empower people by working together. So I wouldn't want to stifle these sorts of efforts, but would prefer to see them directed to giving to charities which would not otherwise be funded by aforementioned civilised states ... err, can't think of an example right now!
Post a Comment