Legendary Mrs Oliver Cooke, aged 92, who sold poppies since 1938, took her life last year in Bristol by jumping into the Avon gorge, after overcoming with guilt on being sent 260 letters from charities every month asking for money.
She had to stop 27 direct debits to charity after she was struck with breast cancer and found it difficult to manage her finances. She also felt distraught after £250 she sent to her son went missing in the post. Her ill health escalated from the stress of cold-callers.
Her grieving son Del Whelan, 62, told the Guardian: “She thought she had done something wrong.”
“It was the constant drip of the begging letters. I think she found it difficult to say no. She had just had enough.”
Britons are notably charitable people. Millions quietly give away time and money and seek nothing more in return than the satisfaction of having done so. UK is in fact Europe's most charitable nations- in 2012 we have given away £9.3 billion to charity.
Mrs Cooke was an extraordinary woman. She was 92, she held more than 2 dozen debits and she took the streets to sell poppies even at such an advanced age showing an selflessness far beyond the norm. Yet for too many charities, people like Mrs Cooke are not donors to be proud of, but assets to be sweated. Kind hearted, vulnerable older people are subjected to hard sell tactis, constantly badgered, their repeated requests not to be contacted for more money are ignored. Personal data is passed on to other organisations, unscrupulous people get involved. The result is that many charitable souls find themselves being punished for their generosity- pressured, cajoled and cornered by those organisations- they had originally set out to help. It's an unfortunate irony, that those who profess high moral values, forget about them when asking for money. And culprits include even some of the biggest and best loved names in the sector.
The report commissioner by the government in responses to the tragic case, has set across technical changes to self regulation of fund raising. The report published on Monday 25 January, by the Common's Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee places the responsibility of aggressive fund raising tactis as a responsibility of the charity trustees. The committee has set that the moral contortion stems from the very top. Trustees see their role as a badge of honour. But the committee has pointed out that it is a serious responsibility and needs to be carefully discharged.
MPs have warned that some of the chairities think that the Cooke scandal was due to “excusable oversight. Unfortunately the question of how a charity should behave during fundraising is much more than just the behaviour or responsibilities of trustees. All charity workers should live up to the organisational values, but it is evident that without leadership it quickly becomes too much to ask. Soliciting donations soon become harassments, more as evidents surface where charity committees admit that they have failed to scrutinise subcontractors adequately.
MPss backed plans from a government review chaired by Sir Stuart Eteringtron to tackle the problems, including a new regulator, but could not go far. They have therefore asked the Charity Commission to keep a tighter check on the sector, asking people to report dubious practices and the government unused law that lets Information Commissioner protect personal data.
Charities are not commercial entities. While a large charity is increasingly competitive and can spend £20million a year trying to boost its coffers, many small ones without vocal celebrity support battle ferociously just to stay afloat- which may leads to alleged rigorous fundraising tactis. The committee has made clear that charities have one more shot at regulation. They better put their house in order. If they do not, they are bound to poison the well of public trust and goodwill from which they drink, which at one point ran over- but now risks to run dry.
