More on philanthropic prudence

This is a follow-up on the subject of philanthropic prudence.

Marvin Olavsky said: Philanthropic humility is necessary if a giver is to do more good than harm, but it is not sufficient – philanthropic prudence is also needed. 

We wrote two posts about this previously:

http://animalcare.my/2012/12/03/it-pays-to-be-prudent-when-doing-charity/

http://animalcare.my/2013/07/26/please-exercise-philanthropic-prudence-when-you-donate/

The above posts were written when we encountered applicants who provided false information or acted irresponsibly. Luckily we called up the vet to check, so we did not subsidise the cases and we no longer support the work of these dishonest and irresponsible people.

But with dishonest and irresponsible people who have not yet realised the error of their ways, their path of dishonesty does not end with us rejecting their claims. They will try another path, with another organisation, through the various social media or with other unsuspecting kind-hearted individuals.

Hence, we would strongly suggest that you (as a donor) exercise philanthropic prudence before you part with your money. First, surely you do not want your hard-earned money to go to a cheat. Second, by inadvertently “supporting” cheats, the credibility of animal welfare would suffer and ultimately, the biggest losers will be the animals.

Here are some points you may wish to consider:

1. When giving out donations to anyone, it is important to check what the person is doing HERE AND NOW. It is not good enough to rely on that person’s past glory or credentials, no matter how impressive, laudable or praiseworthy it used to be, because what is past is past.

What the person is doing NOW is what determines whether he or she is worthy of your hard-earned contribution.

Ask questions, ask for latest photos, ask for their Facebook ID, do a Google or Facebook search, ask for references and cross-check with the various NGOs. Always ask for the receipt and please KEEP the receipt with you if you have paid for the bill and do not return it.

2. Please be prudent if the person forwards a link from this blog. Perhaps we had spoken highly of the person’s work before but we may not be supporting his or her work anymore now. So, please check the date of the post and most importantly, run your own checks on the person’s work now. We do not have resources to keep monitoring the work of people who had claimed our subsidies previously.

Please do not rely on a person’s past laurels as a gauge of what he or she is doing now. People change. Greed infects. Some people rest on their laurels and become complacent, or worse, irresponsible, especially when greed sets in. And greed may not necessarily be for money. It can be for glamour or recognition. Greed breeds dishonesty.

Recently we encountered another cheating attempt. The applicant’s story was very believable. The applicant even told us that no other NGO is helping them and that they are totally on their own. However, upon checking (because we do work closely with some of the other NGOs and we always check before agreeing to subsidise), we found out that an NGO had already taken up this case and has pledged to fully sponsor it. Some other individuals have also given money for this case through the social media.

If animal charity becomes dubious and questionable, it will lose its credibility and the biggest losers would be the animals and animal caregivers who are doing genuine and commendable work.

As cliche-ish as it sounds, in everything that we do, Honesty is still the Best Policy. We hope that all applicants will be honest and disclose the full facts to us when applying for our funds, especially on the area of whether they have already raised funds or received help from elsewhere for the same case.

To make use of animals for personal profit or glory is so very, very wrong.

honesty is the best policy copy just-honesty

A half-truth is still not the truth.

Just be honest and be true to our conscience – that would be the best way to live.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

One response to “More on philanthropic prudence”

  1. Maneki Neko

    Facebook (and other social media, I suppose) is a double-edged sword. Yes, it’s a great tool to put out the word when one needs help. Those of us involved with animal welfare see such posts constantly, and often on the pages of multiple NGOs — asking for emergency assistance, funding, veterinary treatment, etc.

    I understand this. You’ve found an animal in desperate need of care, and you want to put the call out far and wide for as much help as you can possibly get.

    All too often, though, rescuers DON’T FOLLOW UP on those initial posts. They may have left shocking photos and frantic pleas with SPCA, Petfinder, MDDB, KLPooch Rescue and dozens of others. People are sharing those posts. Hundreds or even thousands of animal lovers see them. The result? No one knows who, if anyone, has done anything whatever. Eventually, when asked, the rescuer may finally say that the cat or dog has since disappeared, died, been adopted, been euthanised, been taken to a clinic for treatment, etc., etc. Who donated money? How was it spent? If the animal disappeared or died, will it be refunded? Who knows?

    I think your post, KY, is spot on. Think before you donate. Will your money be used as you intend? How will you know? If we take the time to research the recipients and to follow up on how our donations are used, we will ultimately (we hope!) feel that our hard-earned money has done some good. If we repeatedly donate to those who misuse funds, we’ll rapidly reach donor burn-out, and in the long run, the animals will suffer for it.

Discover more from AnimalCare

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading