The cost of living crisis is plunging charities into despair

Demand for their services is at an all-time high with people struggling to find funds, as Which? publishes a guide that could assist by helping donors to support charities, writes James Moore

Food bank produce: help give people what they need this Christmas (PA)

Christmas is coming and the goose is getting fat. But can donors still afford to put their cards in the struggling charity’s hat? The cost of living crisis may soon be responsible for a financial crisis in a third sector struggling to cope with its effects.

Britain’s economic difficulties have combined to push demand for charitable services to an all-time high. But the same brutal forces are also putting the squeeze upon donations. A survey by the Charities Aid Foundation found that a fifth of respondents were considering reducing their donations as a result of their economic circumstances.

Published at the end of October, the foundation found nearly 5 million people had chosen not to make a one-off donation the previous month as a direct result of the cost of living. One in five were considering reducing their outlay. Even those holding their level of gifting steady is leaving charities in a bind with inflation running hot (10.7 per cent in the year to the end of November).

The recession’s impact on businesses is oft-discussed. Its consequences for the third sector less so. Perhaps that needs to change. The foundation recently said that more than half of the 700 organisations it surveyed feared for their ability to survive in the current climate. The fallout from a mass collapse could be dreadful.

This morning’s intervention from Which? is thus timely. The consumer group has published, if you like, a buyers’ guide to donating, with a view to helping donors get the most bang for their buck. Contained within is everything from “check the amount of money the charity actually gets” from the Christmas cards people like to buy in aid of various causes, or the charitable credit cards they use (it often isn’t much), to consider the most effective means of donating before handing money over.

Food banks are popular recipients of gifts during the festive season. It is not uncommon for people to buy something to donate when they do their weekly shop. The number of food banks is growing at an alarming rate. But while such donations are doubtless welcome, Which? says it might be an idea to give cash instead because of the greater flexibility it offers. Funds donated by this method might help a food bank target specific areas of need among its client base.

Which? also urges would-be donors to look before they leap. Small wonder. The sector is catnip to grifters who prey upon people’s goodwill. But an uncomfortable truth is that legitimate charitable fundraisers don’t always play nice either. Door-to-door salespeople, chuggers guilt-tripping people in the street, sometimes quite aggressively. Do these ends justify the means?

Some might say whatever it takes when the users of charitable services are struggling with mountainous debts that threaten to crush them, or eating ketchup sandwiches and hoping that the landlord doesn’t choose that day to knock on the door of an ice-cold room. If it takes chuggers pestering people for direct debts to get them the help they need when the government has shamefully abdicated its responsibilities, so be it.

I’m not so sure. It is a bitter irony that the people who are the most likely to fall victim to aggressive fundraisers are often themselves vulnerable; the sort of people who are in need of charities’ help. Perhaps chuggers would be tolerable outside the Palace of Westminster or within the bounds of the City of London, except for the sad fact that poor and vulnerable people exist everywhere in today’s Britain.

There are, at the very least, grounds for debate about these tactics. Perhaps that should encompass regulation? In the meantime, there are the Which? tips. Give till it hurts, is a cry you sometimes hear at this time of year. Give smarter is the message at the core of its missive. It might be just as effective.