Morning:
14°c
"Hello! How are you today ?" The smiling young woman who approaches me outside Farringdon Tube wants just a couple of minutes of my time.
She is, of course, collecting for charity and she was there yesterday and the day before and the day before that except that each time it was a different young woman in a different coloured jacket advertising Africa, handicapped children, Aids, whatever.
The smile was the same, though. So was my response. With great self-control I managed to walk past without screaming.
The technical term for these delightful people is, apparently, "chuggers" - charity muggers. A survey this summer found 500 of them on the same six streets in central London and they may soon be banned. Many people find them intrusive and objectionable.
It is unclear what percentage of the money they raise actually goes to good causes. But that doesn't stop extremely respectable charities - from Great Ormond Street Hospital to Amnesty International - from using them.
What is my objection to them? Mainly that they're annoying and insincere and that often they seem to know very little about the charity they're representing.
It seems to me that, as individuals, they have the same morality and approach to life as clampers. Also, if it is illegal for a vagrant or a masked assailant to stand in my way and demand money, so should it be for them.
Worse than that, though, they're surely the thin end of the wedge: the very nature of charity itself is being besmirched.
Charity Christmas cards have taken a bashing this year - it was recently revealed that as little as 6p in the £1 can get passed on. Poppies were briefly banned in Derbyshire libraries. The RSPCA spent the summer losing a particularly damaging case that had them - on the face of it - trying to turf a 58-year-old Yorkshire woman out of her family home.
And isn't it with a sense of tiredness that we look forward to the cast of Corrie or EastEnders doing something silly quite soon for Children in Need?
Charity is everywhere. It is pervasive. It has a hunger that can never be satisfied. And there are times when I wonder if it isn't somehow feeding on the enormous goodwill and selflessness of the British people who, for example, raised £300 million in 2004 out of $7 billion worldwide following the Indian Ocean tsunami.
What happened to that money, by the way? Even now there are rumours that chunks of it were never spent.
From my experience, the most effective charities are the ones you've never heard of. The ones that just go about doing amazing work and which have managed to escape becoming businesses in themselves.
Crocodile Tears, my eighth Alex Rider book, features a villain who runs a major charity. It was inspired by a lethal definition of international aid: "Poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor counties".
I would be the last person to dissuade young people from giving to charity, but it's surely not unreasonable to suggest they ask themselves why.
Crocodile Tears by Anthony Horowitz is published on 12 November (Walker Books, £14.99).
An Audience with Anthony Horowitz is at the Apollo Theatre, W1, on Saturday 14 November at 4pm (01497 822629, www.hayfestival.com).
The author donated his fee for this article to East Anglia Children's Hospice.
Reader views (17)
Congratulations Anthony on mustering enough self control to hold back from ‘screaming’ because a chugger is still smiling! Your article is nothing more than a vitriolic attack on charity fundraising, in particular face-to-face fundraisers, in an effort to market your own book. Classic. Whose morality should really be in question?
I’m happy to be ‘chugged’ by smiling face-to-face fundraisers any day of the week. In fact I was chugged just recently by a fundraiser representing a brilliant international development charity, and am proud to see my £5 a month pop out of my account. Do take a moment to consider that charities continue to engage in street fundraising because it delivers significant returns and because some people – yes really – like to support in this way.
- Rowena, Fundraiser, London
A very interesting article - for many reasons. What I find particularly interesting is the complete lack of engagement with 'charity.' I would have expected a person with such grave concerns to actually try and substantiate these by asking relevant questions of any charity concerned. I am sure that each charity mentioned would be more than happy to share the percentage of money raised that goes to 'good causes.' For example, at the charity I work for, 96 pence of every £1 we spend goes directly to our program work - and we are more than happy to share this infomation. And likewise with the money so kindly donated to us after the Tsunami.
I find it interesting that 'charity' should be lumped into one homegeneous group. Yes, there are great needs that have to be met. And while I am not naive enough to realise that, unfortunately, there are rare instances when charity status is misappropriated by spurious organisations, the majority of charities, whether large or small, are genuinely committed to their cause. And for this work to happen we rely on the generosity of the British public.
And while I agree that 'young people' should ask themselves why they want to give to charity (and I would argue this should apply to everyone), I often think of this quote about giving from someone I used to work with: "There are people alive today because of what I did yesterday."
What greater reason can there be than this?
- Danielle Atkinson, London, UK
I was sorry to hear that Anthony Horowitz finds charity fundraisers "annoying". Having been a charity fundraiser for the last six months, I can imagine why he does. But I'm writing to ask if Anthony could perhaps tell us all about the charities that "just go about doing amazing work" without asking members of the public to support them. Yes, street fundraisers are a small annoyance but the problems they are raising funds to help solve are the real crises worth writing about.
In the meantime, I'd like to make the wild suggestion that, for the most part, street fundraisers (and clampers) are doing a horrible job because they can't pay anything else to keep up with London's extortionate rental rates not because they've given up more satisfying work out of a deep desire to annoy the general public. Also, all of the fundraisers I work with have a passionate interest in fields relevant to the charity we fundraise for.
Yours,
John Palmer
- John Palmer, Brixton, London
Two points. In West London we are now seeing the same charities doing door to door evening fundraising. Charities please take note - this is even more intrusive and annoying than being stopped in the street.
Secondly, if you are going to seriously commit to supporting a charity do some homework - I was astounded at how much of the NSPCC budget is spent on trying to criminalise all forms of smacking (even chastising a child who has run out into the street).
- Londonken, London
Dear Mr Horowitz,
in response to your article “I’ve had my fill of these insincere charity chuggers”. The next time you approach an anorak-wearing friendly-face warmly greeting “HELLO! How are you today…?” I beg that you share some charity of your own. May I remind you Mr Horowitz that charity spreads far further than the pocket. A simple smile or compliment to a stranger in the street is a humane gesture of its own accord. Charity after all, as I understand the meaning of the word, is the unbiased love for one’s fellow man across all humankind. I ask you to consider Mr Horowitz that the youthful workers you disdainfully suggest “have the same morality and approach to life as clampers”, are in fact hard working citizens. Many of these young people survive on what they are paid for this often demoralising, highly demanding work, barely treading water in a country wrestling its own employment problems. It appears to me Mr Horowitz you would rather see more young people unemployed and on our streets searching for work than engaging in this service to charity.
- M. Sampson, London
Dear Anthony
What you call chugging and we refer to as face-to-face (F2F) fundraising – finding new donors on the street or door-to-door who will give by direct debit – is one of the most cost-effective ways for charities to raise money.
This form of fundraising is responsible for finding about 17 per cent of the people who currently give regularly to charity, making a combined donation of about £10m each month.
You claim that it is unclear what percentage of the money raised goes to charities. This could be phrased ‘I don’t know what percentage of the money raised goes to charities’.
All fundraising has a cost and all forms of finding new donors have a break-even point, that being where the money donated by a supporter is greater than the cost to the charity of recruiting that donor.
Charities put aside an amount of money to find new supporters. If you were to choose to give a monthly donation to a charity by direct debit, then every penny would go to that charity. The method by which you came to sign that direct debit (street fundraiser, advert on the telly, letter landing on your doormat) will have cost the charity money.
There is no prospect of street F2F fundraising being banned. There is a new licensing regime contained in the Charities Act 2006 that is due to be implemented in 2010 or 2011.
No charity has a right to your donation, but they should have the right to ask.
Michael Naidu
Assistant director of fundraising, Mencap
Chair, PFRA
- Michael Naidu, London, England
"Charities are struggling to raise money in this recession and yet comfortable people aren't even embarrassed to display their "compassion fatigue".
So everyone who walks past a chugger is comfortably off?
"No-one likes being pestered by chuggers, but it's not so hard to just say "no thanks" and then go a give a little something to a charity that you choose instead."
Have you seen how they react when you say "no thanks". One I passed in Oxford sneered "running away" at me.
My main objection is how rude most of them are. Visit a charity shop instead. They are great for cheap books and run by people who care about helping others.
- Richard, London
As soon as you sign the direct debit, the agency employing the chugger (usually Dialog Direct) bills the charity for a set fee - anything up to six monthly payments eg 6x£10, 6X£15 etc.
If the debit instruction is cancelled within that period the charity makes a loss on the transaction. Charity law applies only to cash transactions: the debit forms are a way round the system. Oh, and chuggers are fired on a daily basis if they fail to meet their sales targets.
But charity bosses prefer this system as it brings in some money for very little effort on their part, and they can always blame the company employing the chuggers for anything that goes wrong (which it often does).
- John, W1
Believe me aggressive cheerfulness can be quite menacing in defying you to refuse. Some very highly paid charity fundraisers appear to adopt some of the psychological 'don't take no for an answer' tactics that the street Scientology recruiting sergeants used a few years ago. Charity fundraising has changed. It's big business! No longer are they headed voluntarily by retired people who were successful in their own fields. They now employ CEOs from the commercial sectors who justify their very high salaries by running aggressively cut throat (collecting) campaigns with business world methods. Those high salaries are paid for directly by our charitable donations. People in this country are re-known for giving very generously to charity. And waste not want not, we even recycle unwanted useful items to charity shops, fetes, jumble sales, etc. It seems to me that running aggressively intrusive appeals campaigns, particularly on street collection, is like shooting yourself in the foot. Likely to produce exactly the opposite of the intended goal - compassion fatigue. They kill impulse donations; we revert to specific charities that mean something to us. To reiterate good advice, never give away financial details to chuggers on the street.
- T. Cory, London
Giving to charity in its many different and varied forms, whether this is buying a charity Christmas card or leaving a gift to charity in a will, is essential to good causes, providing income to fund vital services for a wide range of beneficiaries.
It is important that fundraising is carried out professionally and to a high standard, and this is why the Institute of Fundraising has developed Codes of Fundraising Practice. These standards exist so that fundraisers who follow the guidance can raise as much money as possible for beneficiaries whilst respecting the wishes of donors, as well as relevant legislation.
Members of the public also have an input into this process through the self-regulation of fundraising scheme, which allows them to feed back any concerns about fundraising techniques.
- Louise Richards, London
Nolan you are right. It is not hard to say "no thanks"; however it just gets a more than a little tedious saying it around a dozen or so times a week, fifty two weeks a year for the last five to ten years!
I work in the West End where they are almost a constant and my journey home can mean I can cross their path anything up to three times! Not content with pestering me when all I want to do is get home, they are now out at the weekends around Peckham and East Dulwich! Just leave me alone and brush up on the laws of obstruction!
I can salve my conscience as I regularly give to small charities and also volunteer around 400 hours per annum of my own time to work with young boys from the Peckahm/East Dulwich/Forest Hill area. As a volunteer and trustee of a small charity in East Dulwich I would say that these major charities are strangling our funds, particularly as they are now are out in force in our locality.
- Mark, South-East London
If it's any help I used to work with an out of work actor who used to chug, he made his money outside of supermarkets in Winter doing his "it's so cold" dying swan act, if I remember his commission was 40% of the takings and he used to do up to £800 a day in the run up to Christmas.
- Bob, Cheam
Chuggers are paid to collect by some but not all charities and therefore act as a middle man where you dont know what proportion of your money goes to charity.
Apart from only giving to collecters who are holding a valid coillection the best way to donate is of course direct to a charity.
There is also another way and that is to enter the websites of companies from a charity.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
Charities need to come clean about this kind of fundraising. I have been told, by a reliable source, that the first year of your direct debit payment to the charity actually goes to the collecting agency.
Also, I'm sick of hearing about how badly charities are doing in the recession. Have a look online at the Charity Commission to see the vast millions some of our charities actually have.
Also, charities should remember that they're not actually entitled to our money. If we choose to give it to them, that's great. But if we don't, that's just tough.
The sense of entitlement dripping off some of these charities makes my blood boil.
- Sarahn, London, UK
I think there's more than a touch of misanthropy about this article. Charities are struggling to raise money in this recession and yet comfortable people aren't even embarrassed to display their "compassion fatigue". No-one likes being pestered by chuggers, but it's not so hard to just say "no thanks" and then go a give a little something to a charity that you choose instead.
T. Cory - the article doesn't actually state anything at all about being "approached with aggression and menace".
- Nolan, Londonist
It is difficult to give these days, given the very poor governance of the many countries that charities are trying to help. Unfortunately the percentage of money given that is 'misappropriated' is considerably high. India for instance spends billions on a space programme and nuclear weapons, I refuse to donate to such countries.
I give to local charities, St Wilfreds Hospice do fantastic work. Who knows when I will need them!
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
Steve Allen, LBC, does a great service in advising people specifically against giving your credit card details to these complete strangers. I've heard that some of the chuggers are out of work actors, presumably craftily employed to bring pathos and sincerity to the various charities they've been sent out to beg for. It beggars belief that anyone in this day and age will give out their credit card, or bank details for direct debits, to strangers on the street. Whatever accreditation is shown, we have no way of evaluating the validity of anything shown to us.
Time was, when charities were only allowed to appeal directly for money on the street, once a year. A licence was obtained, each charity co-ordinated with others for a calendar date, and volunteers were distributed at designated points with flags and collecting tins. It worked and was pretty fail safe, with few cheats hijacking the system. Allowing money to be begged for (for charities) off the street, opens up a rogues charter for fraud and misuse. Desk top printers can give anyone official looking accreditation for any kind of charity. It's not unusual to be approached with aggression and menace as this article states.
It's time for officials and charities to review street collections. They should be banned/outlawed and revert only to flag days. There is no need. Scope for charity appeals is so wide now, through a vast range of charity shops, print and other resources, as well as free Internet use.
- T. Cory, London
