Tag: charity

America, New Zealand and Canada top list of world’s most generous nations

America has been named as the world’s most generous nation in the world, where its citizens give the most to charity, according to a new report.

The USA, New Zealand and Canada have the highest rate of charitable donations as a percentage gross domestic product (GDP), the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) found.

The UK had the fourth highest rate of charitable donations in a study of 24 nations and topped all other EU countries that were looked at.

CAF’s report took data from countries accounting for around 75 per cent of global GDP and 53 per cent of the world population.
Charitable giving by individuals as a percentage of GDP in America was recorded at 1.44%, in New Zealand at 0.79%, in Canada at .77% and in the UK – which came fourth globally – at 0.54%.

The report also analysed the impact of taxation and government spending and the amount given to charity and found there was “no significant correlation” except for employer social security charges, highlighting the complexity behind people’s decisions of when to give and how much.

Adam Pickering, international policy manager at CAF, said: “Across the 24 nations we studied, we found no significant link between government spending, income or corporation tax and the proportion of GDP donated by individuals.

“This suggests the relationship between the amount of taxes people pay and the amount they give to charity is not as clear cut as some may have thought.

“The factors which motivate people to give, and influence how much they give, are incredibly complex.”

Kids Company: Alan Yentob under fire from MPs for ‘catalogue of failure’ at charity

Former trustees of Kids Company have accused MPs behind a highly critical report of “naively” accepting criticisms made by people hostile to the charity.

Alan Yentob, the charity’s former chairman, will be accused of presiding over an “extraordinary catalogue of failure” and “financial mismanagement” that let down vulnerable children and ultimately led to the organisation’s collapse.
In a damming report, Parliament’s Public Administration Committee said Mr Yentob was “negligent” and “suspended (his) critical faculties”, by allowing Kids Company’s charismatic chief executive, Camila Batmanghelidjh, to spend millions of pounds with little or no oversight.

But in a robust statement, the former trustees of Kids Company including Mr Yentob accused MPs of having “naively accepted allegations made in the media and by a small number of individuals, some with vested interests in damaging Kids Company and its much-praised model of loving care and practical support” at the expense of the evidence of expert witnesses.

“It is a regrettable feature of British democracy that the committee can use the curtain of parliamentary privilege to produce what is an irresponsible report, immune from the defamation claims that would inevitably follow without this privilege,” they said.

Mr Yentob and the other trustees described the report as “inaccurate, unbalanced and irresponsible”.

The report also castigated politicians from the Prime Minister down for being “captivated” by Ms Batmanghelidjh and authorising multi-million pound grants to the charity “outside the usual decision-making process”.

This, it added, was done on the basis of “little more than their relationship with a charismatic leader, small-scale studies and anecdotes”.

The committee also concluded that Kids Company helped just a fraction of the children it claimed to be working with – in some cases counting a whole class of children as “clients” if they benefited from work with just one individual. It added that while Kids Company said it was working with 18,000 children, only 1,900 youngsters were passed onto Southwark Council when the organisation closed last August.

The charity, it said, misused funds to pay for luxury items for clients that “diverted” money from other projects.

Charities who allowed scandalous fundraising methods ‘incompetent or willfully blind’

Charity bosses who allowed scandalous fundraising methods to be used were either “incompetent or wilfully blind” and are on their last chance to “put their house in order”, a committee has warned.

In a damning assessment of the practices used by some of the biggest names to bring in cash, MPs said the “sorry episode” had damaged the reputations of charities across the board.

Trustees must now take proper control of the methods their organisation use or face statutory regulation, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) said.

MPs heard that some charities, including Great Ormond Street Hospital and Macmillan Cancer Support, made it difficult or impossible for donors to block further communication from them or other charities.

Personal information ended up with scamming companies after being sold on by some charities while vulnerable and elderly people were seen as “fair targets” by some organisations, they were told.
The committee also heard an undercover investigation by the Daily Mail found telephone fundraising contractor GoGen ignored the telephone preference service that allows customers to opt out of receiving unsolicited calls.

It also had a script to allow fundraisers to continue to press for a donation even after discovering a vulnerable individual was confused or suffered from dementia.

MPs said they had “no doubt” that most UK charities did not engage in such practices but the behaviour of some had damaged the reputation of all and made it harder for them to raise money.

The report found fundraising is “increasingly competitive” and a large charity can spend more than £20 million a year on trying to bolster its coffers.
Fundraising practices were thrust into the spotlight last year after widespread public concern over the death of 92-year-old Olive Cooke, one of Britain’s oldest and longest-serving poppy sellers.

After the pensioner took her own life, her family described how she had been receiving repeated requests from charities for donations with up to 267 letters a month as well as regular phone calls.

During the PACAC’s investigation a number of charity bosses admitted there were flaws in their governance.

Oxfam chairwoman Karen Brown told MPs “our monitoring procedures were not adequate to the task” while RSPCA chairwoman Daphne Harris said she “did not know that this had happened” after allegations that the personal data of dementia sufferer Samuel Rae had been repeatedly bought and sold by charities and companies emerged.

The ban charity lobbying is yet another change that is leading us toward a permanent Tory government

The announcement that ministers are to ban charities from using taxpayers’ money to lobby the Government or political parties was greeted with predictable howls of anguish by the charity sector. The story looked like a one-day wonder, but it may be part of a wider pattern of behaviour in which the Conservatives are quietly but ruthlessly using their Commons majority to tip the scales permanently in their favour.

Labour is crying foul, but it would do that, wouldn’t it? More serious is the criticism from Lord Kerslake, until 2014 the head of the Civil Service, who accuses the Government of having “a worrying authoritarian streak.” The crossbench peer has turned into a thorn in the side of the ministers with whom he once clashed.
Lord Kerslake accuses ministers of “double standards”, planning curbs to the Freedom of Information Act while they routinely leak information to the media. He criticises plans to deprive Labour of up to £8m a year by forcing trade union members to opt in to pay the political levy, rather than opt out. For good measure, ministers are cutting state aid to opposition parties by 19 per cent, depriving Labour of another £1m a year.

Kerslake opposes proposals to clip the power of the House of Lords to veto secondary legislation, following its decision to block George Osborne’s £4.4bn of cuts to tax credits last autumn. “These smack to me of a government that’s uncomfortable with challenge,” he says.

And he warns that the Tories’ plans “threaten the future of social housing”, as local authorities must sell off council houses to fund the right to buy for housing association tenants. The Government does seem intent on creating a new generation of home owners (and Tory voters?). The Tories are open to further charges of rigging the system in their favour. Changes to constituency boundaries, blocked by the Lib Dems in the Coalition Government, will give the Tories a 20-seat advantage at the 2020 general election. The switch from household to individual voter registration, expected to reduce the number of non-Tory voters on the electoral roll, will probably give the Tories another handful of seats.
Of course, David Cameron can point to the mandate he won last year, and his aides insist that many of the “entirely defensible” changes were flagged up in the Tory manifesto. Up to a point: it promised to seek agreement on a “comprehensive package of party funding reform”, but the Government has produced a single change, which just happens to hit Labour hard. Labour may look weak now, and the prospect of a Labour government may seem remote, but by re-engineering the system to their advantage, the Tories may invite a revenge attack by a future administration of another hue.

Don’t all governments do it? True, Labour’s hands are not clean on previous boundary changes. Margaret Thatcher certainly used her power to tilt the scales through measures such as allowing council tenants to buy their homes. But although Tony Blair won three big majorities, New Labour was nervous about upsetting the coalition of working- and middle-class voters that brought it to power. The Tories accused Gordon Brown of creating a “client state” of public sector workers and benefit and tax credit claimants.

The Art & Practice of Global Philanthropy Workshop

Navigating the field of global philanthropy can be challenging, especially when you are an individual donor or working for a small foundation. Barriers such as identifying partners, setting clear expectations, performing due diligence and reporting, transferring funds, geography, lack of on-the-ground relationships, unstable legal and governmental structures, and the U.S. regulatory environment can stymie even the most sophisticated donor. Despite this complexity, international giving from US-based foundations, corporations and individuals is on the rise, and it is having a significant impact in reducing poverty, securing human rights, empowering communities and providing humanitarian relief. This growth requires donors to rapidly develop new skills and knowledge in order to engage in global work in a relevant, well-informed and culturally sensitive way.

Please join Philanthropy Northwest, Pangea Giving and the Northwest Global Donors Exchange for a full-day, interactive workshop that will examine key issues and considerations related to global giving. Participants will learn from philanthropic and nonprofit leaders alike and will come away with new connections with peers and a deeper understanding of the:

Evolving landscape of international giving with the context of overall philanthropic giving;
Alignment of mission, personal motivations and the intended impact of your giving;
Technical and legal differences between various pathways to give abroad; and
Strategies for identifying and vetting potential grantees.

FACILITATORS:

John Harvey holds more than 20 years’ professional experience in global philanthropy and is an acknowledged and respected leader in its advancement. As Founding Principal of Global Philanthropy Services, LLC, John offers strategic, programmatic, and talent management support to foundations and philanthropic support organizations globally. From 2011 to 2013, John served as Managing Director for Global Philanthropy at the Council on Foundations. Prior, John served for 10 years as founding Executive Director of Grantmakers Without Borders (now called EDGE Funders Alliance), a funder affinity group whose members fund social change programs globally.
When:
Thu, April 7, 2016, 9:00am to 3:30pm
PDT
Where:
Seattle, WA
Location:
2101 Fourth Avenue Suite 650 Seattle, WA 98121

Venice Summer Institute 2016: The economics of philanthropy

In many societies, a large fraction of the population is involved in philanthropic activities like charitable giving or volunteering, as recipients or providers. Accompanying this are significant levels of public support for such activities. Yet in spite of this, the evidence base is inadequate. For example, there is no conclusive evidence about what motivates charitable giving and engagement in philanthropic activities. Various explanations have been proposed, ranging from pure altruism and ‘warm glow’ to social pressure and signalling, but a deeper understanding of what drives people’s motives is essential to evaluate the welfare effects of philanthropic activities and, therefore, to design appropriate policies.

Likewise, for profit corporations engage more and more in philanthropy, but we know little of the drivers behind this activity. Is it a genuine concern towards stakeholders and the long-term reputation of the company? Is it an attempt to gain the favour of customers, regulators or employees and, thus, potentially consistent with profit maximization? Or is it a corporate governance issue, with executives buying photo opportunities with shareholders’ money?

Finally, the trend towards increased inequality in many developed countries has heightened tensions between the philanthropic pursuits of large and small donors. This has not only prompted a debate about whether tax relief provisions for charitable donations unduly favour higher-income donors – progressive taxation means that large donors take a more than proportional share of the public money spent on funding tax incentives for charitable contributions – but also a debate about the costs and benefits of diversity in the charitable sector and whether such diversity should be limited by imposing more restrictive criteria on charities and donations in determining their eligibility for preferential treatment under the law.

Researchers investigating the economics of philanthropy as the topics suggested in the above general framework are invited to submit their papers for presentation at the conference.
address
San Servolo
Venice
Good for:
Causes
You
Cost of event tickets:
Free
Website:
https://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/events/Archive/conferences/2016/07/2016-07-1…