First off, being from one of the countries mentioned, New Zealand, I have a personal take on whether fundraisers should have helped out, so will leave that out of this ‘debate’. Let’s look at why people are involved in fundraising: The area they are fundraising in/for is close to their heart – personal experience
They’re involved because they care
It’s human nature to help others These are only three of the reasons why people work in the nonprofit/charity sector, there are more. So just looking at these three areas, if we’re asked to help because we have skills and experience based on the above, then we’re more likely to. Not having seen the debate (restricted access) I can only comment from a personal level. Something that I’m wondering is who took part in the debate, were they representatives of their ‘employees’, or were they attending as ‘individuals’ – which ever, the outcome can be skewed. As people working in the nonprofit (fundraising) area we’re interested in doing what we can for others, those we represent directly – the organisation people are employed by – but we’re also interested in, and care for others in other countries who work in the same or similar field of assistance. So if we’re humanitarian and care about, for argument sake kids with cancer then we’re likely to rally our resources to help organisations working in a similar field in a country or area affected by a natural disaster, and by helping the wider ‘relief’ effort we are doing our part to help. I’ve written previously about charities supporting charities, but feel that this is a different kettle of fish all together. The debate about charities supporting disaster relief is likely to not go away, what we perhaps need to do, rather than be negative to organisations who support relief efforts is to get in behind then and support them. What are your views, does your organisation support efforts outside of your organisations aims, what effect has this had on your abilities to maintain your core objectives?