There are few statistics about the charitable sector that surprise us in the CAF office. This one did though. The average UK household spends as much as week on charity as they do on cheese.
This figure is just 0.4% of household expenditure and this hasn't moved in several decades - despite all the work that has been done by politicians to get us giving.
We know that the UK population value charity. Three-quarters of us have used a charitable service in the past year and two-thirds believe that the work charities do is vital to creating a good and fair society.
This Government has been relatively vocal about the role of charities because of their importance to David Cameron's Big Society project. The Giving White Paper and the changes introduced in the Budget this year were welcome steps forward but more could and should be done to make giving easier and more appealing.
CAF believe that that the levels are so low that ministers need to kick start a new drive on giving by pledging to donate a percentage of their income to charitable causes.
The Giving Pledge in the US has done much to highlight the positive effects of talking about giving and has provided a focal point for a discussion and debate on what people think appropriate levels of charitable giving look like. It is important to retain the element of choice, which is why we have not been prescriptive about the exact percentage of spending that should be given.
As well as leading from the front with their own giving, there are other steps the Government should take to encourage generosity. Much has been made of exciting and innovative ways of giving using new technologies, but we also need to ensure that existing schemes which allow people to give more for less - like Payroll Giving and Gift Aid don't get left behind. Both need to be transformed and modernised so they can reach their full potential in our increasingly digital world.
Businesses too need to play their part. More business leaders should actively support effective partnerships with charities and foster a charitable culture within their own business and workforce. Research shows that schemes which encourage employee volunteering improve staff retention and employee satisfaction with their workplace. Better and more transparent standards of reporting on corporate responsibility programmes will allow consumers to judge a company's activities and enable competitor benchmarking, which should in turn drive up standards.
Finally, the Government should explore ways to encourage individuals and companies to use their assets for social impact - not just through giving but investment too. The financial needs of charities and social enterprises are often as complex as those of businesses, and the range of funding options should reflect this. New forms of social investment that can offer access to growth or working capital will offer charities opportunities to scale up their activities far more easily than they have been able to in the past.
We know that people don't tend to respond well to being told that they should be giving more, especially in the difficult economic climate, so we need to look for more positive ways to encourage generosity. We are taking our campaign to the political party conferences to get people talking about giving, and to encourage them to work with us to really drive things forward.
More details of CAF's Charity or Cheese campaign can be found at www.cafonline.org/cheese
Follow Hannah Terrey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cafonline
Donald Lenihan: Will David Cameron's 'Big Society' Work in Ottawa?
Dan Jacob: The Positive Power of Selfishness
Anyone coming and shaking a tin or bucket at me will not get me to give but if l see someone in need l will find a way to provide a job, food or a roof over their head, that is my way and l believe the true meaning of charity as it begins in the heart as home is were the heart is and boy does it make you feel good.
This way me and my organisation can choose who l feel really need help and guidance and as so often happened in the past, by giving money to anyone they never always use it to feed themselves,but to gamble, drink or worse.
UK Stats and Giving:
Wealth from the lower classes has been rapidly moving to the highest 1%. The rich have gotten richer and everyone else much poorer; income disparity (the gap between rich and poor) rose 32% 1960-2005. The current income disparity is the highest since the 1920s preceding the Great Depression.
Competition from migrants lowers wages, while there's increased inflation of prices resulting in a .8% loss of disposable income in 2010, which will treble to over 2% in 2011. 'Austerity' tax increases only impact the middle/lower classes, but UK may lower the highest tax rate. Real property values are down in all but the richest areas.
I couldn't find UK charitable stats with giving as a percentage of annual income; but the trends follow the US model. Upper income (couples $250K+, individuals $200K+) give less than half that of a low-income (under $25K) in percentage of annual income; it's much worse if you figure in tax deductions. This is called the Compassion Deficit.
This 'Compassion Deficit' is due to a number of factors, among them their total insulation from need. This is one link that's worth the read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html
Charity for Fun and Profit
Cameron's 'Big Society Capital' is a perfect example: Funded with £400 Mn from escheated UK bank accounts, run by a cadre of Big bankers to do undefined 'social lending' to anyone or any corporation. No oversight. No rules. Free money.
'Charities/nonprofits' are wonderful for tax avoidance as well as income; trips, property, salaries, honoraria, donations to friends, family, political campaigns, etc. (even more satisfying if 'little people' donate.) Blair's donation/tax issues, 'celebrity charities' try to balance expenses and income, and do as little 'charity' as possible.
Recent proposals for employee donations using LINK network are scary; imagine 10 Mn employees (26 deductions/yr): LINK gets an automatic cut of 260 Mn deductions...Ka Chink! I can't find actual financials of Link, but ATMs (if used for donations) would also get a cut.
'Guilting' the working man is very profitable for the rich.
I think we should be left alone and stopped feeling like we are child murders for not donating even more, oh yes we also have our salaries, 13.8% NI forced from our employer to Government, 20% tax and 11% national insurance - so I get fleeced by the government already for around 44.8% of my pay ! Of the little that is left I then get whacked with another 20% on nearly everything I buy or spend money on, so 64.8% tax.... and if I have not been bled dry enough the Government and business is going to encouraged to convince me to give over even more ? Why not just shoot me, I am being mugged anyway.
I've hardly any money left to buy Brie, Cheddar, Edam, Gouda, Lancashire, Wensleydale, or best of all, Stilton.
Excuse me, must dash, I feel a sudden urge to go to the local supermarket......
I once gave a lot of time and money to charity. Time went with the growing family but money went later with tax rises. I couldn't afford both and I felt I was being forced to give to charities defined by the Government anyway. So the Direct Debits all stopped.
Would like to see those studies about retention etc. Question is, are they the sort of people that keep a business in business. You know the CSR function of any company is full of the people that you don't really know what to do with but are quite likeable. I've yet to meet the truly motivated rain maker who told me that the reason (s)he was at the company was becuase of its outsatandng CSR policy / is a member of the 1% club.
FInally, if you are sending your time at the conferences lobbying rather than trying to raise money and members, then you really are in trouble. Get members, not favours.