Is charity dead?

Has the economic climate killed off what it means to be a charity, asks Bryan Teixeira from Naz Project London?

I think we are in danger of losing some defining aspects of what it means to be a charity organisation.

Has the economic climate killed off what it means to be a charity, asks Bryan Teixeira from Naz Project London?

I think we are in danger of losing some defining aspects of what it means to be a charity organisation.

The progress and success of a civilisation can be measured by its caring for its most vulnerable and marginalised members. The lesser the caring, the lesser the civilisation. The history of charity organisations is the history of this caring.

Is bigger always better?

Many charities have struggled with the assumptions that bigger is better, that contracts are better than grants, that delivering public services is better than doing community development. In the field of sexual health in which I work, an emphasis on public service delivery, still heavily influenced by the medical model, results in a focus on the somewhat mundane task of HIV prevention.

As a result, the genuine and holistic sexual health needs of a service user for healthy relationships and a full, pleasurable sex life have little place. It seems as if public service delivery – at least as currently understood – can undermine our ability to address the real needs of individuals and communities. It is like if someone is looking for a proper meal of solid food, and we are offering them a snack.

What do we mean by 'social value'?

Similarly, the consensus is still being built about what is and is not a 'social enterprise'. Like 'social return on investment', there is still no established understanding or consistent application of social enterprise or social value. It is clear that this concept is a further elaboration of the not-for-profit roots from which charities also spring. However, there seems to be a tendency to grow these enterprises where there is a clearer chance of their success.

But what about the causes that are not such popular, ‘low-hanging fruits’: what about the 'high-hanging' or unpopular fruits that may be most worthy of our charitable attention? 

And then there is 'mainstreaming'. In hard economic times, this is being interpreted by some as the removal of community-specific services, e.g., services to specific ethnic minorities or genders or disabilities, and replacing them with a 'one shoe fits all' approach. On the other hand, experience and research reinforces the need to build community empowerment, to ensure that service provision is targeted and tailored if it is to be impactful.

Mission drift

We are all familiar with the concept of 'mission drift'. I worry that many of us have been drifting and colluding with funder agendas that are too narrow.

We keep alive by sneaking our wider community agendas onto the backs of our funders' agendas. Is it possible that we have allowed ourselves to be corrupted by an overly professionalised model of service provision? How many of us are actually helping to amplify the voices of the most vulnerable and marginalised?

Disclaimer: Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of Voice4Change England.