Save The Children

February 14, 2005 12:40 PM

Does anyone have experiences with an organization called Save the Children? The website looks legit, but the volunteers (paid?) they have roving through downtown feel scetchy. They are as aggressive as fanatical knife salesmen. Is this a good organization with a bad public presentation of itself? Or is there something darker (profit driven) going on?

By aggressive I mean these people will stand on busy street corners and harass everyone walking by. They try to catch your eye and they smile the professional smile. They extend their hand, but if you shake they might not let go. When one tries to pull away they say things like "Are you too busy to save a child?" or some other strategically guilt inducing phrase. If one asks for a pamphlet or even a url, they say "But you can help right now!" I'm all for charity, but these people are overbearing and arouse suspicion.

posted by elwoodwiles to work & money (19 comments total)

Charitynavigator gives them a decent rating. Others are more critical. Save the Children is famous in the U.S. for having ads featuring the actress Sally Struthers.

Of course, the people you observe on the street corners may or may not actually be giving money they collect to that organization.
posted by profwhat at 12:52 PM on February 14, 2005

Is it Save the Children that has people on the street? I know around NYU, I've seen people from "Children International", or something like that, and a friend of mine got ripped off by them (extra charges on her credit card). And yea, those salespeople sure are obnoxious.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:26 PM on February 14, 2005 [1 favorite]

Here in the UK we have charity collectors for Save the Children and other charities who try and get you to sign a direct debit to pay a monthly sum to the charity. The people doing this are paid, and may also get a commision for their efforts. They work as teams, travelling around and working for different charities. You can see the same people, wearing different tabards for different charities on different days. Basically they are salespeople, the charities use them because even after paying wages and commission they still get more money donated, and with direct debit (I think they ask for around £2 a month) they have a regular income.
posted by aisforal at 1:30 PM on February 14, 2005

I don't know about "Save the Children," but some other group with pictures of missing kids has canvassers all over New York in the warmer months. Them and the New York Public Interest Group (NYPIRG) fronting for Greenpeace advertise heavily in the city classifieds with deceptive job descriptions.
I don't know about "Save the Children" (cause nobody I know worked with them) but I assume they work like NYPIRG, which pays their street canvassers commisions for signups, and fires them if they don't meet their daily quota, which would explain their aggresiveness.
posted by Edible Energy at 1:36 PM on February 14, 2005

I used to help at a Save the Children shop in the UK for a morning a week when I was at school (96-97). The patron is Princess Anne (I think). It was staffed by lovely old retired ladies. The UK branch is certainly legit, but i'm not sure how the US operation is run.

Unfortunately, as aisforal points out, these days most charities have called the vultures in. Whenever I get stopped by one of them I tell them if i'd only sign up if they donated their commission.
posted by derbs at 2:14 PM on February 14, 2005

I am guessing this method of getting people to sign up to be monthly donors works well because it sounds like these people are everywhere. In Australia, I have seen them for Greenpeace and Amnesty International. I'm currently in Finland and they are doing the same thing here for Greenpeace and I think, Save the Children.

The ones I have spoken to are all fairly intense and have been trained with a fairly heavy spiel and with quick comebacks to anything people to say to shake them off. In Australia, a lot of them are also travellers. The recruiting ads I have seen show that they get paid about $20 an hour (plus commission?).

So I think the charities are usually fairly well known and reputable charities. I dislike the method, but it must be working for them.
posted by AnnaRat at 2:48 PM on February 14, 2005

Ah, here's what I was looking for: Good Cause Advocates. This is who advertises and 'runs' most of these workers in Australia.
posted by AnnaRat at 2:53 PM on February 14, 2005

Round these parts such types are known as Charity Muggers, or perhaps more commonly Chuggers.
posted by urban greeting at 4:36 PM on February 14, 2005

I think it was a "Save the Children" guy who knocked on the door a week ago. He gave me the heebie-jeebies. He went away empty-handed.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:54 PM on February 14, 2005

We have a lot of Save the Children collectors in downtown Chicago. The other day they were doing a fundraiser in the building next to mine...you gave $5 and you got a longstem red rose. They were concentrating on areas affected by the tsunami.
posted by SisterHavana at 7:14 PM on February 14, 2005

I almost did this job for Greenpeace (in Waterloo, Ontario), but backed out at the end because I was uncomfortable with it (and knew I'd never hack it anyway). A housemate took the job though. They were mostly university kids, looking for work. The pay was not great, and they were outside all day, worrying about getting fired.

If it's a legit charity, they shouldn't be pushing their street people to do hard sell like that though. I saw some of the training stuff for Greenpeace and basically if you'd ever said anything to the effect of "You're too busy to save a child?" you'd get fired (and my friend confirmed this attitude). They don't want to piss people off. They *will* be direct and somewhat forceful, but hey, that's sales. And it's sort of part of the deal about living in an urban area. In my opinion, it's pretty honest work, and if it's a reputable charity, it's alright to sign up right there on the street. Although, if they're reputable, they'll also be very nice about giving you info so that you can sign up later.

(Oh, and the monthly donations thing works out great for charities, it's easy administratively and is a stable source of income. When I am actually employed, I intend to start one of these up with MSF. It's a good gig).
posted by livii at 7:37 PM on February 14, 2005

I see these folks in the neighborhood I work in. They're relentless in asking people to help save the children - to the degree that they're invisible to most of the people that work in the area.
posted by glyphlet at 9:10 PM on February 14, 2005

I've worked with Save the Children in an NGO context. They are about as legit as it is possible to get - a bona fide first tier NGO. Seriously, put them on a par with Doctors Without Borders, OxFam, Water Aid and World Vision.

They've previously had Christian connotations but this appears to have been excised.

What you've fallen foul of is that old devil outsourcing. NGOs are feeling commercial pressures and need to guarantee a income streams in order to take leases, charge assets and borrow against future revenues all of which is necessary when an NGO is trying to rapidly react to an unforeseen situation which requires speed and resources e.g. South East Asia presently.

In order to do this they've outsourced face to face fundraising to fundraising agencies such as this one. You've not been approached by a charity worker but a private sector worker working as agent for the charity. From what you say he's likely to have been in breach of Save's contract with the agency as not putting people under pressure is the key to successful face to face fundraising for reputation reasons as your post so successfully proves.

Fundraising agencies remain controversial in the non profit sector. The les scrupulous remunerate workers on number of hits rather than per hour although this clearly isn't best practice. My girlfriend (who's 8 years+ in another NGO) and I can't agree. She thinks that the practice alienates people and pushes them away. In my view charitable giving here in the UK is so woefully low that people should be forced to confront their selfishness. If some minor embarrassment along the way is the price to be paid for better funded humanitarian aid agencies then so much the better I say.

Still, your mileage may vary and I suspect that you're coming down alongside my fairer half. The choice as they say, is yours
posted by dmt at 4:17 AM on February 15, 2005

Round these parts such types are known as Charity Muggers, or perhaps more commonly Chuggers.

Oh how so true. Chuggers are very common in London, particularly between Charing Cross and Embankment stations. They are very forceful and will have several people placed in strategic points so that you get stopped umpteen times in what should be a 30 second walk. It's not just Save the Children that employ the Chuggers, but every main charity going. I have no problem with giving to charity but when they try to force you into giving and making you feel guilty for not doing so, its just not on (and not in the true spirit of giving).

Save the Children, on the whole, is a very widely accepted as a genuine charity over here in the UK.
posted by floanna at 4:34 AM on February 15, 2005

...every main charity going

Not quite true. MSF for instance doesn't.

I have no problem with giving to charity but when they try to force you into giving and making you feel guilty for not doing so, its just not on.

Sorry, but given how crap we British are at actually putting our hands in our pockets we should be made to feel guilty. If a few innocent souls who do give get tagged along the way then, sorry, but that's acceptable collateral damage.

The Observer, 16/1/05:

"Per capita figures compiled by Reuters and UN agencies from the first 15 days of the disaster show that the people of Norway contributed most, averaging £7.06 for every man, woman and child. The Swedes raised an average figure of £6.44, while the British contributed on average £1.65.

UK donations have now topped £200 million and the average donation per person has moved closer to £3.50, but it is still behind many other western nations.

While Mark Astarita, director of fundraising at the British Red Cross, insists, 'We have one of the most vibrant voluntary sectors in the world,' the Giving Campaign has calculated that voluntary donation fell from 1.2 to 0.9 per cent of Britain's GDP between 1992 and 2002."

Not nearly blooody good enough. We British should be ashamed of ourselves.

Other methods as tax incentive related schemes are also not without theior detractors but the efficiacy of face to face means that it's here to stay
posted by dmt at 7:34 AM on February 15, 2005

Sorry, but given how crap we British are at actually putting our hands in our pockets we should be made to feel guilty. If a few innocent souls who do give get tagged along the way then, sorry, but that's acceptable collateral damage.

Fair enough, but unfortunately I have one of those friendly faces and gets stopped all the time. I'm sorry, but I don't particularly want to end up as a Chugger's emotional "collateral damage" on a daily basis by being made to feel guilty (which I do). I already give what I can to charity, both with my time and financially, which judging by the £3.50 figure is a hell of alot more than the average brit.

Isn't being made to feel guilty, and forced into giving money, the wrong way of going about things when a genuine desire to help in any small way is far more charitable? I'm sure a better campaign can be made without the salesmen tactics that are currently in place.
posted by floanna at 9:46 AM on February 15, 2005

The chuggers are particularly active on Charing Cross Road (where I work) too. I either ignore them, say 'No, thank you', or, on a bad day and after being accosted fourteen times on my way down the road, have been known to spit 'Don't even fucking think about it!' at them.

I won't give to the charities that use them because a) they piss me off, and b) they get paid more per hour than I would donate per week, and I object to my charity contributions going directly into the pockets of people that piss me off. I'm glad that the charities I tend to favour (medical research, particularly breast cancer) don't seem to use them.

I will contribute to the charities of my choice, thank you, and not the charities that try to guilt me into it.
posted by corvine at 10:13 AM on February 15, 2005

I agree whole heartedly with corvine here. I find the idea of these people being paid disgusting, if they did it voluntarily, then I may actually give them money (not a direct debit however, since i am a student).

The whole point of these people is to catch people who don't realise they are getting paid for this work off guard, and then guilt them into paying up. I find the whole greasy salesman tactic rather disturbing to come across when I'm trying to mind my own business walking down a street, especially when they invade my quite home town.

I suggest passing these people by, even if you sound a bit harsh answering 'no' to their casual question of 'would you like to help cure cancer?'. Giving money to a charity of your own terms, and not being asked is far more fulfilling.
posted by iamcrispy at 3:27 PM on February 15, 2005

unfortunately I have one of those friendly faces and gets stopped all the time. I'm sorry, but I don't particularly want to end up as a Chugger's emotional "collateral damage" on a daily basis by being made to feel guilty (which I do).

This is why my g/f thinks that face to face is a bad idea. I'm a native Londoner myself - remember the email that went around "you know you've been in London too long when..." - they're all but invisible to me. No way that you can simply see them as private sector workers rather than as the epitome of the charity itself I suppose? Me saying that you shouldn't feel guilty given that you do actually give isn't actually going to help now is it? A quandary, for sure.

Isn't being made to feel guilty, and forced into giving money, the wrong way of going about things when a genuine desire to help in any small way is far more charitable?

Of course you're right! Problem is that as the declining GDP per cap figure shows a declining number of people feel that way. Face to face is a way of confronting people with their callousness. And it works. You, I and corvine aren't their target demographic - it's people who give nothing and - rightly - are pricked in the conscience by face to face fundraisers.

corvine's point about cost per hour is misapplied. While the overheads associated with face to face to go in a large part to a private sector the cost-benefit analysis indicates that it generates income which wouldn't otherwise be available otherwise. At the end of the day charities aren't interested in what's fulfilling for you - and IMHO, from your POV that's not the way that you should be looking at it either, YMMV - but rather securing funding to achieve their objectives.

If it's any consolation corvine, the draft Charities Bill addresses issues of regulation of face to face fund raising. More here. Self-regulation appears to be on the cards which depending on your political persuasion is either a good or a bad thing.

Personally I'm glad it exists and most NGOs brief their staff well - if I've got a moment I like to stop to find out what their key issues are at the moment as the poor fundraiser from Friends of the Earth found out the other day! I think it's just one of those things like busking - either it ticks you off, you don't mind or you like it. I hope that space remains to be made for it.
posted by dmt at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2005