Many people will now be aware of at least some of the issues surrounding the long and ongoing occupation of Tibet by the Chineses from the events shown on TV earlier this summer. Not so many will fully appreciate the level of repression that Tibetans have been subjected to during the past 49 years or just how many of the country’s citizens have been mistreated and imprisoned without just cause. The Olympics has raised Tibet’s profile, but I fear it is an opportunity missed. The country needs releasing from the misery of its current, stiffling occupation, and even if full independence may be out of reach, now is surely the time for world’s leaders to apply some pressure on the Chinese Government for a resolution of the problem.

Should China have been allowed to host the 2008 Olympics? My view is that they should not. Their record on human rights is nothing like good enough to merit the award of the games. Moreover, they are a malign influence behind a number of the world’s nastier conflicts. As we celebrate Britain’s medal success, I would ask you to consider supporting this important cause. Have a look at the website www.freetibet.org and find out more about the struggle. Perhaps you might be tempted to add your voice to those chipping away at one of the world’s great injustices.        

I know that the (almost invariably) young people who are working for the charity are paid, although I have no idea how their remuneration operates. It seems like a pretty tough way of making some money, because you are demanding a significant level of commitment from those you are asking to sign up. It is a bit more than putting a few pounds into a tin, and most of us might want to think about it more carefully before saying we would donate a regular sum. Or perhaps that spur of the moment decision is really the way to do it. Do charities rely on people making impulse decisions and then becoming comfortable with the idea that there are making regular contributions?  

As for those employed by the charity, they obviously become the public face of that charity, which makes it very important that they present the right image to those that they meet. I assume that they are recruited by agencies who must have some kind of a vetting system. All-in-all it seems quite high risk for the charity, although the number of charities using it suggests that it must work. I haven’t been approached for some time now, so perhaps I do not fit the ‘profile’ – if you are using young people to do the approaches it is the young they are going to speak to? Perhaps then I am back to my earlier point – stopping individuals on the street reaches parts of the population that other fundraising methods might not.  

I had intended to write something on Free Tibet, but I have probably missed that boat for the time being. However, the Olympics are only a few months away, so I might return to the topic then. I am not sure if it is my imagination, but I seem to have received fewer charity request in the post over the last few months than previously. Sadly, there has been the usual steady flow of unsolicited ‘free gifts’, and Help the Aged sent me a questionnaire, which as I have in previous blogs is a particular turn off. One communication that is always welcome, however, was from the Salvation Army including a copy of their newsletter ‘Belief in Action’. 

I am aware that some people feel uneasy about giving to charities such as the Salvation Army because of their overtly Christian message and their associated stance on certain moral issues. My own interest in their work started because they were a favourite charity of my mother’s; moreover, the work of the Salvation Army with the homeless, reuniting families and supporting Service families are all things that resonate with me. I have no particularly strong religious views, but it is hard to escape the fact that a great deal of charitable activity is driven by religious motives. The world would be a poorer place without the charitable efforts of many of these organisations, so I long ago decided that I was happy to give and let the charity sort out the fine details of exactly how the money got to those who needed it.

The Belief in Action Newsletter is the kind of charity communication that I like. Clear, interesting and sharply focused on the work that the Salvation Army is doing, including a few topical articles. There is also a statement of the kind of help that a specific donation can provide, starting with the relatively modest sum of £9. The website is certainly worth a visit, not just to find out more about articles in the newsletter, but also because of the discussion area. Of the current topics, the ones on wearing of uniform in public, integrity and moral decline are of particular interest to me – you might even feel motivated to contribute. The UK version is a good website, but the Canadian version is even better. It definitely wins on layout, is less openly religious in its tone, and provides an exceptional insight in to the work of the charity. Any charity looking for a model for their own website could do a lot worse than look there first.

I am one of those givers who files appeal letters over a few weeks (minus those who have hacked me off by including the things mentioned above). Then in a burst of Sunday morning activity, I write cheques to those charities who currently attract my interest. Actually, it may be those that I have not given to for a little while. Am I going to do that with e-mails? When I go through my charity file am I going to include those charities that are lurking in my inbox? Possibly, but I already have 2 in there waiting for a response (or not!) 

The good thing is that the on-line Breadline Africa appeals tick all the same boxes that they have always done by post. A clearly targeted request for money to aid a small scale self-help project, requesting a specific, but easily affordable, amount of money. I think that strategy is a winner, and I am pleased that Breadline Africa has not gone away from it. Do I still want to give to this charity. Yes, I do. Will I give them less over the year because they have changed there method. I do not know yet, I just suspect that I might.

In this electronic age, most of us have already given on-line. However, that is usually in response to a specific appeal such as an appeal following a disaster. It has to be the way ahead, but it does change the relationship between charity and giver. Letters get binned, but the delete button is even easier. Perhaps I am just an undisciplined giver who needs to bring his giving into the 21st century? However, if all those things that annoy me in postal appeals disappear how much more difficult is it going to be to decide who I am going to give to? 

Now anyone who has ever sent a cheque to a charity knows that it will generate more unsolicited mail from other charities. Clearly charities know that if you support one good cause, you might be sympathetic to others. We also know that it sometimes works. What I am starting to ask myself is - is this right? Commercial organisations increasingly have a little box that you need to check or leave unchecked if you do/do not wish to receive carefully selected offers from other firms etc. Should charities consider doing the same? Are some charities guilty of lower standards than commercial organisations over this sharing of information? Something else that concerns me slightly is the fact that sharing my address might leave me open to fraud. I am increasingly cautious about who has my details, and I adopt a strict regime of shredding anything that might associate me, my address and any link to an organisation that could be used by fraudsters.  

I do not know the answers to my questions, but I do believe that they are valid. Do charities have to adhere to some code of practice in regard to sharing personal information from donors, or is it a free for all? I would be interested to know how individual charities regard this issue, or if they have given it any thought. 

In case you have not seen it, and I know that londoners’ blog has already brought it to the attention of readers of this site; the letter is in the form of a 10 inch dinner plate with a picture of a very tasty looking Christmas Dinner on it. Now that just might delay its path to the recycling bin! Like londoner, I have been a supporter of Crisis for some time. They are the charity that I most associate with doing something to help homeless people who are on the streets at Christmas. Unfortunately, I felt that for some years they were not as good as they could have been at connecting with their supporters and getting their message across. They have improved significantly in recent years, but this is quite unexpected. Not another buff or or white envelope containing a dull letter, address stickers or raffle tickets. This catches the eye, and really encourages you to go inside, learn more and (with any luck) give a little. It has probably been quite expensive, but I really hope that it works. Charities need innovation. A worthy aim and a good message are important, but asking for money in a good cause doesn’t need to be mundane.      

Last weekend Michael Buerk was promoting the Remember a Charity Campaign to encourage people to think about including a charity bequest in their Will. This campaign ran twice on TV in 2006, with apparently no small measure of success. After the second run it was estimated that amongst the target audience (adults aged 45+) almost half said they were likely to consider a gift in their Will to charity. So cause for congratulations all round – well not quite. The catch is that half of all Britons have not made a will. So people seem to like the idea, but getting them to do it is much more difficult. (Perhaps that is just like every other facet of charitable giving.)

All of us who give regularly to charity have had one or more of our favourites write to us an ask if we have consider leaving them a bequest. They are generally sensitively done, because this is a sensitive subject. However, I believe that charities have 2 big problems in this area. Firstly those who have a will already do not review it very often (if at all), and we are reluctant to change our wills because of incurring solicitors fees. So maybe it is time to work on the legal profession to provide low cost will writing or will amendments for adding charitable donations. Secondly, how do charities tap into the 50% of people who do not have a will? Some of them will get around to having one drawn up eventually, but others will not. Perhaps the Remember a Charity Campaign might like to look at another round of advertisements to promote will writing thus promoting action and not just intent. With the Treasury’s recent announcement on Inheritance Tax the time may just be right. Your heirs can now keep more of your money so why not let your favourite charity share that good fortune when the time comes?          

So what is CIWF? Essentially it is a pressure group that lobbies politicians and businesses such as supermarkets to improve the lot of farm animals. It encourages consumers to make conscious, positive choices that will make a difference to the well being of farm animals worldwide. Becoming a supporter provides a quarterly copy of the Farm Animal Voice Magazine, a well produced and informative publication with articles on food production, farming developments and animal welfare issues. Postal updates focus on specific issues such as the factory farming of cows and the need to remain vigilant over battery hens used for egg production. Requests for money are linked to specific campaigns which allows you to support those initiatives that particularly strike a chord.  

I suppose that I became a supporter of CIWF because it offered me an opportunity to strike back against the all powerful supermarket lobby, and to hold backsliding politicians to account. Clear, well produced publicity materials are essential, as are issues that I can relate to. However, perhaps the lesson for all charities and their supporters is that sometimes, a message resonates with you in just the right way. The charity is saying what you want to hear or supporting some cause that you find especially dear. Can charities plan a campaign to exploit that supporter search for a cause? Well, probably not because you need a little luck to hit the right target at just the right time. 

So what is this charity about? The Camphill Family came to my attention some years ago when I learned of their Botton Village Community. Initially, I supported it with periodic donations, although I feel that it is so worthwhile that I now give on a regular basis. The charity supports sustainable communities where able bodied people share their lives with individuals who have learning difficulties or other mental health problems. It aims to provide rich and fulfilling lives for community members, with everyone able to make their own contribution and develop their potential. It is a simple but powerful philosophy, and it is translated into actions that bring huge benefits to the individuals in the community. This is both the able bodied community members (who I have deep admiration for) and those who have special needs. It is underpinned by tolerance, mutual respect, sharing and acceptance of people for what they are. Society as a whole could learn a lot from the Camphill communities.  

OK, so I like the message, but why do I think that they get their communication right? Well, they write to me 4 times per year – I can cope with that. The Camphill Family Life newsletter is 4 pages with photographs, updates on current projects and articles on individuals and their lives in the communities. Just as importantly, there is an accompanying sheet asking me how I want to continue being involved. Do I want 4 newsletters per year or only one, or none at all? It also includes options for catalogues, including Camphill in your will – even an option to get the newsletter by e-mail. You do not get a lot of unsolicited material through the post. Not too many charities seem to have that philosophy. However, I do like to receive their card at Christmas! 

So well done to the Camphill Family. I think your work is great, but I also believe that your communications policy is a model that other charities could really profit by. So keep up the great work. 

PETA’s questionnaire was accompanied by 4 sides of type giving the ‘facts’ about vivisection. The content was rather sensational, mildly self-congratulatory, slightly patronising and frankly dull. I would not have have read beyond the first few lines but for researching this blog. The written content did not cause me to share PETA’s outrage or move me to contribute – especially as they wanted a response within 10 days. So a hat trick of personal dislike boxes ticked in one go! Sorry PETA I am keeping your 5p. Your methods annoy me, and your literature did not encourage me to support your aims. As a scientist, I am concerned about animal experiments, but feel they are necessary in some cases. Nothing in this appeal has changed that opinion.