I was about to write about two matters which we’d like to clarify. Coincidentally, we had 22 cases to subsidise today (just done over the last 5 hours), so the timing is just about right for this clarification.
Let’s first take a look again at what is stated in our policies:
We are a non-profit and non-governmental organisation. The subsidies we offer are donated by friends and from our own hard work. So, please apply only if you really need the financial assistance.
The policies above have been revised over time and we feel that what we now have is fair. Fair to the applicants, to our supporters/donors and to all the hard work that we ourselves have to put in to raise funds.
Despite the above statements being sent to every single applicant (in three languages) when they apply, we heard recently that some applicants actually think that we are a big organisation and that we are funded by government sources and huge sponsors.
This is untrue. But perhaps the fact that we are able to subsidise many cases per day has given people that impression.
So, let’s set the record straight here.
AnimalCare is far from being a “big organisation”. We are not funded by government sources. We do not have huge sponsors.
I founded AnimalCare. We are still working hard every single day to earn the funds so that we can continue helping the animals.
Our funds come from donations from friends and readers of this blog, the products that we sell (by donation) and the handmade items that are sewn by my mother and me, which we either auction or are made-to-order.
The only reason that we are able to subsidise many cases every day, every week and every month is that our funds have been earned through the last 6 years and every single sen is kept for the animals and we have zero operational costs. But this does not mean that we have unlimited funds; we have enough to get by every month (and this is good enough).
We are really happy that we are able to help so many animals through the good work of their caregivers and will continue to help until our funds run dry. And this brings us to our second point, which is, this below:
Our subsidy is NOT open to:
1. animal welfare organisations, groups, shelters and their members.
2. animal caregivers who have their own funds, the means to raise/source their own funds or who are supported by other sources.*Other sources of funds: Facebook, PetFinder, animal welfare organisations, other social media, friends, family, well-wishers, etc.
(1) is self-explanatory since animal welfare organisations have their own funds and would be able to help their own members.
But (2) is the tricky one. We had hoped that this will cover those who can afford to fund their own caregiving work, those who are able to raise their own funds through their own circle of family and friends and those who receive support from other sources. If you belong to any of these categories, we hope you will not apply for our funds so that we may channel them to caregivers who are more in need.
Lately we have been told that some of our applicants are actually very generous donors to other charities. Yet, for their own neutering work, they apply for our funds. Could this be due to the fact that these well-to-do applicants think that we are that “big organisation” that has money trees growing in our backyard OR are supported by government sources (both assumptions are absolutely untrue), or could it be that these applicants are so willing to donate to other charities but are unwilling to support their own personal neutering work (for reasons which we cannot fathom)?
Charity begins at home. It’s true that it should not stop there, but it does begin at home first.
So dear applicants, the policies are sent to you, please read them and be guided by your conscience.
Thank you.
Comments
4 responses to “22 cases today and it’s the right time to clarify”
Hi Kah Yein,
Perhaps partly due to the first phrase “non-profit and non-governmental organisation” that are the most prominent parts. Both these does not reflect that all funds are privately sourced.
“Non-profit” only refers to how the funds are used – all money and profit generated (yes, non-profit org also makes profit) are returned back into the organisation to continue the work, and not declared as a profit and “masuk pocket.”
Non-governmental refers only to the type of organisation. If an NGO manages to get government support, then it gets funds from the government too. An NGO does not exclude the possibility of government-sourced funding.
And it is also not right to say that you have zero operation costs. This is never true in any situation. So making that statement implies AnimalCare does not need money to run. What is more accurate is that all operational costs have been paid for and absorbed by you and your family. If you are to make a cost estimate (including utiliies and time, you will probably find it a fairly big amount.
This fact is also not included in the info for AnimalCare on the FB page where many people would refer to. In fact, you may put the call for donation right at the front page itself. There is no mention of requesting of donations on the FB or the Twiiter account.
Also the word “subsidy” in Malaysia, has very strong association with government money because we are used to government subsidised goods. I strongly suggest not to use the word “subsidy.” Many organisations outside also prefer not to use this word because of the strong government connotation. Many just use the word “aid” or the wordier version “financial aid.”
correction: “outside Malaysia”
Hi Chen,
Thanks very much for your feedback and useful information. The “zero operational costs” is not written in our policies. I only mention it in this particular blogpost. We have a Donate tab (animalcare.my/donate/) and in it, we have this: Please be assured that 100% of the donations is used for the animals and our work to promote kindness to animals. We are a full volunteer organisation; all operating costs and personal expenses incurred in the course of our work are borne entirely by ourselves.
We don’t shout out for donations as I personally don’t like to do that. That is why the call of donations is not featured prominently in any of our social media pages. And it’s not donations that we are looking for. Rather, we are just hoping that those who can afford to fund their own work, will do so and not apply for our funds. Let us help those who are more in need.
“Financial aid” seems a more appropriate word than “subsidy” now that you have brought home that point. We’ll see if it’s feasible to start changing that now, but we’ve been using “subsidy” for the last 6 years!
Thanks for your thoughts!