As Americans set new records for charitable giving in response to Hurricane Katrina, some fund-raisers are seeing a principle confirmed: when the sufferers are perceived as innocent victims, donors respond generously. On the other hand, giving patterns suggest donors are losing patience with chronic problems such as poverty, in which suffering is arguably exacerbated by questionable choices.
Private donations are shrinking for homeless shelters, AIDS-related services and programs for troubled youth, to cite just a few examples.
In religious circles and beyond, some see a troubling trend: Compassion is increasingly being reserved for those who appear to have done no wrong.
Giving patterns illustrate the contrasts. It took only 10 days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast for donors to exceed $602 million for relief efforts, according to data tracked by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Similarly 10 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, Americans had donated $239 million to relief efforts.
A quick glance at the big picture reveals an increasingly generous public. Total annual giving to all charities has climbed steadily from $231 billion in 2001 to $249 billion in 2004.
But closer scrutiny reveals that giving to human service causes — including legal services, food pantries and rehabilitation for ex-convicts — has declined every year from a $22.1 billion peak in 2001 to $19.2 billion in 2004. Hardest hit are small organizations. Raising less than $1 million per year, they received 3.4 percent less from private donors in 2004 than in 2003, according to Giving USA 2005.
“For some reason, we’re not being sympathetic to the poor and the needy as we’re leaving certain people behind,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of the Chicago-based American Institute of Philanthropy.
“It is harder to raise money for people who made bad choices,” he continued. “It is hard for the charities to tell people, ‘Yeah, OK, sure, these giant things get a lot of news, but you know, there’s thousands of people who smoke in bed and start a fire and have to get help.’”
Historically donors haven’t dwelled on who is at fault, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropyeditor Stacy Palmer. But she has a hunch that donors now ask about fault quite often.
“I think it’s increasing” as a criterion, Palmer said. “Charities need to do more to get information out about the kinds of problems people face and why they face them.” Otherwise, she said, would-be donors can too easily dismiss a cause because it seems the clientele were responsible for their own misfortune.
More than half of donors are motivated by faith, according to two recent Center on Philanthropy surveys. Yet principles of religious faith aren’t always manifest in charitable decisions, according to former Harvard Divinity School Dean and International Rescue Committee President George Rupp.
“Donors who are oriented to meeting human needs should be most generous to where the needs are greatest,” he said. “I think that is not the case when overwhelmingly more is given to the victims of natural disasters than to the victims of protracted conflicts.” (RNS)
Share with others: