I have had a thought-provoking email exchange with a non-profit on the Indian sub-continent which works with disadvantaged children.  I am using this as an Case Study, and it is still in progress.  Chapel & York receives similar contacts almost every day.Here’s a brief history:   

A couple of months ago, the head of the charity (let’s identify him as BD) found the Chapel & York website www.chapel-york.com   BD believed he had identified an organization that would raise the funds for his charity, namely the UK Fund for Charities.    I explained that the UK Fund for Charities is a registered charity in the UK designed to help donors who want to take advantage of Gift Aid and suggest to the UK Fund a donation to a non-profit outside the UK. The UK Fund doesn’t find the donors.  The non-profits that are Associates of the UK Fund’s International Programme find their own donors.  In fact, initially, the non-profit has to find the UK Fund, and this is exactly what BD’s already done.  The UK Fund reviews potential Associates to ensure that if they were in the UK they would qualify as a UK charity, and are, therefore, qualified to receive a garnt from a UK charity. 

Now, about Gift Aid for those unfamiliar with the complications of the UK tax system:  
Gift Aid enables a UK charity, in this case the UK Fund for Charities, to reclaim from the UK taxation authority, which is called the Inland Revenue, the income tax paid by a donor on a donation.  This increases the value of the donation by the amount of the reclaimed tax (currently an additional 28%) without costing the donor anything extra. 

Back to BD:  I explained that the UK Fund doesn’t do the fundraising.  The non-profit outside the UK has to do it.  We had a disagreement about the description of the UK Fund on the website.  I came to the private conclusion that Case Studies would make the explanation easier to understand. 

BD said that he wanted to open an office in the UK.  Great, I thought, they have supporters in the UK, and these supporters may be potential donors and they may find other donors through their various networks in the UK.  But I asked BD, and so far as I could ascertain there were no supporters.  Without more information from BD I advised against an office.  He didn’t press the point.  If BD has no supporters in the UK, another possible source of funds is UK grantmaking charitable trusts.  I told BD that a very limited number of charitable trusts will fund projects outside the UK, and they nearly all require a partner organization.  I mentioned BOND, a UK network of partner organizations working in developing countries.  At this point BD received in the mail the hard copy information that he had requested from Chapel & York, and he emailed to say that he was definitely going apply to become an Associate of the UK Fund for Charities! I have just emailed back saying No, Don’t, Not Yet.  It won’t raise you any money. 

I have suggested that BD prepares a short description of the work of his organization, including where the organization is located, what it does, who benefits and how the benefit is measured, who does the work and who is responsible for the management, where funding comes from currently, total income and expenditure, how much more money is required and how it will be spent.    I suggested to BD that this short description could be used as an introduction to his organization when he contacts UK charitable trusts that do give directly to projects outside the UK if any suitable trusts can be identified.  It can also be used when he contacts Bond and members of Bond.  I am awaiting a reply. 

In the meantime I would appreciate in your comments, advice and assistance, and so, I guess, would BD, and many other non-profit organizations in developing countries around the world.

Charities in the UK are waiting for a definition of ‘Public Benefit’.  A spotlight is on whether schools which have charitable status and charge substantial fees are benefitting the public as well as educating the children of (mostly) wealthy parents.  I would like an answer to a much bigger question.  Do we get value for the tax that comes form the public purse in the form of Gift Aid in the UK? 

 The question is also under discussion in the USA where the tax deduction is an article of faith for philanthropists.  It’s a contest of billionaires as described recently in the New York Times.  Eli Broad, a billionaire, says “The public benefit is significantly greater than the tax benefit an individual receives.  Smart entrepreneurial philanthropists get greater value  for their money than if the government were doing it.”

 But William H. Gross, also a billionaire, wrote in his investment commentary “When millions of people are dying of AIDS and malaria in Africa, it is hard to justify the umpteenth society gala held for the benefit of a performing arts center or an art museum.  A $30 million gift to a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation.” In an interview he said “I don’t think the public would vote for spending tax dollars on these things.”

I suspect that the public think that charities should primarily help those in need.  In fact, we all know that people give to charities that address issues that have touched them personally, not necessarily to those that help where the need is greatest.  Gift Aid and the tax deduction translate into the public allowing individuals to decide how to allocate money on their behalf.  Sometimes very large sums of money.

 Tax breaks reduce government revenues; and tax breaks enhance the giving of private individuals to their personal interests - the wealthier you already are the more help you receive.  I would like to see a public benefit debate about that.