Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

not to contribute to the Shoebox Appeal

328 replies

teamboleyn · 25/10/2012 21:53

because it has a Christian message 'attached'? I have nothing against Christianity but can they not do a charitable act without having an ulterior motive?

OP posts:
Himalaya · 31/10/2012 08:24

MsHighwater, Exotic

The doc that Trockodile linked to from the http://ucskco.sasktelwebhosting.com/TheGiftMattersSchoolkit.pdf United Church of Canada does not criticise the religous motives of OCC and similar shoebox programmes, but points out the real, practical problems with the approach;

  • many cultures do not emphasize gift giving as a way of celebrating,
  • Many of the gifts sent are unsuitable for the recipients and their cultures (for example: battery run toys; shampoos and toothpaste to cultures that don't use these products),
  • There have been eyewitness accounts of serious problems with distribution, of children being left out and conflict caused.

There have also been first hand accounts on boxes distributed to expat MNers children at private schools and nurseries.

None of this is reflected in the communications of these charities, which give the impression that every box is joyfully and unproblematically received by a child in need.

We know this is simply not true, what we don't know is what % of boxes are joyfully received, what % cause problems or are wasted, and whether the recipients would have preferred something else.

These are hard hearted questions that you don't often ask about things that involve wrapping paper. But they are the kinds of questions that organisations running multi - million pound aid operations should ask. Good organisations publish these evaluations.

The Canadian church document concludes that "This type of project is more effective at making donors feel good than at meeting the needs of poor children"

Both for individuals and organisations that have, with the best of intentions, bought into this seductively direct way to make a difference, it is hard to look at whether it is really effective.

MsHighwater · 31/10/2012 18:50

Flow4, I wasn't talking about "converting" anyone, child or otherwise. I was challenging the assumption on the part of some posters that for a Christian organisation to mount a charitable effort that includes communicating its Christian message to the recipients must necessarily involve an underhand effort to convert, regardless of the best interests of the recipients.

MsHighwater · 31/10/2012 19:11

Any charitable effort can risk being misdirected - including the alternatives to OCC that are being suggested here - but many are done well and, like it or not, without charitable giving, life would be worse than it is for hordes of human beings. As an individual, my ability to fully evaluate any charitable project's effectiveness and appropriateness is very limited. I have to take a great deal on trust as does virtually everyone else who wishes to share way they have with others who are in need. To pretend otherwise is nonsense.

MsHighwater · 31/10/2012 19:12

Share what they have...

ravenAK · 31/10/2012 19:27

Well, no, that's not the assumption - lots of other Christian-founded charities do very genuine work without seeking to convert. Several people have posted links to examples as alternatives to OCC.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that OCC are seeking to convert recipients, given that they make it quite clear in their own literature that that is the purpose for their organisation's existence.

flow4 · 31/10/2012 22:06

"I was challenging the assumption on the part of some posters that for a Christian organisation to mount a charitable effort that includes communicating its Christian message to the recipients must necessarily involve an underhand effort to convert"... But MsH, this is not an 'assumption': Samaritan's Purse make it very, very clear that this is exactly what they do.

ladymariner · 31/10/2012 23:37

In our town (small, Northern, very working class) the shoebox appeal is a very big deal with lots of schools and other organisations taking part. Because of this interest in it, the local paper sent a reporter out with a lorry that was packed tight with shoeboxes to report back on what he found and saw. The report was amazing, and brought tears to the eyes, the kids that received these boxes were living in absolute poverty and to see the photos of them opening their boxes and the joy on their faces was, to me, what the spirit of giving is all about.
I couldn't give a flying fuck who delivered the boxes, be it a church organisation, the local devil worshippers, the Dagenham Girl Pipers, the point is that they got delivered and they made a lot of kids very happy.

StrawberryTot · 31/10/2012 23:49

My dd's catholic school do the OCC every year and once again ill be participating as my dd feels very proud of herself and happy to make another child's Christmas Day, she actively takes a part of the process from choosing gifts, wrapping paper and drawing a Xmas card.

exoticfruits · 01/11/2012 07:49

My reasoning entirely ladymariner.

ladymariner · 01/11/2012 09:32

Thankyou exotic

And in response to earlier posters, my box is full of carefully chosen, well thought out gifts that I bought with the intention of being both useful as well as pleasurable - it is NOT a box of tat, how bloody rude.

And to the poster who said they don't give to any charities......actually, words fail me. Let's just hope you are never in need of any assistance. Ho ho bloody ho......

exexpat · 01/11/2012 14:21

I didn't notice anyone saying they didn't give to any charities at all. I suppose some people don't even if they can afford to, but luckily I think that is unusual.

What many people on this thread obviously do do, however, is think hard and critically about what charities they give to. Having charitable status doesn't automatically make something worth supporting, and given the limits on money and resources, I think it's worth thinking carefully and supporting a charity that will do the maximum amount of good with the resources available.

And to my mind, that means every £5 or £10 donated to Oxfam or WaterAid or Save the Children has the potential to do an awful lot more good than the same amount spent on bits and pieces to go in a shoebox to be distributed by an organisation whose main aim is spreading its beliefs. Specially if you consider that 20% of the money you spend on things to go in a box goes straight back to the government as VAT, while cash donations to proper charities can be gift-aided and the tax reclaimed.

ladymariner · 01/11/2012 17:24

I would think if you asked any of the recipients of the boxes if they are now converted Christians I doubt you would get any agreeing with you. If you asked any of the recipients if they liked their boxes, and would get a lot of joy from them I think the answer would be entirely different.

I do see where you're coming from regarding the long term effects of some donations to the charities mentioned in the above post, but this is Christmas appeal, and I personally feel that by giving another child a gift at Christmas who would otherwise not get one I can spoil my ds without feeling guilty. Now that might make me wrong in some eyes but as I said earlier, I like doing the boxes and I will continue to do so. The same as I will continue to donate a small amount EVERY month to the NSPCC and the Red Cross so they can continue to do long term good........

DowagersHump · 01/11/2012 17:48

I'd rather give my child the same 'joy of giving' stuff without supporting an evangelist organisation.

And I think it is important, just as I wouldn't want to support a charity that supported training child soldiers or something. To me, it totally undermines the point of the donation if it's also doing something you fundamentally think is wrong.

WelshMaenad · 01/11/2012 17:56

As has been pointed out already, many of the boxes aren't even given out at Christmas, but when the local church is ready for an evangelical drive. If people are fully aware of that, and SP's evangelical aims, and still want to give, fine.

I'd also argue the validity of the notion that the NSPCC does 'long term good' but that's a whooooole 'nother thread...

Himalaya · 01/11/2012 19:37

Dowagershump - I agree with you.

I do understand the desire of folks like Exotic and Ladymariner to give in such a symbolic, satisfying and apparently direct way, but the fact is charities are not like FedEx or the post office, delivering resources from A to B. They are organisations with aims and a mission.

The shoebox thing is seen as a good way to teach children about charity, but it part of being a good donor is giving to good organisations, not pretending that the organisation doesn't matter.

exoticfruits · 01/11/2012 19:43

You can choose your organisation-there are plenty of good ones around. I like the personal part-showing the individual child that they are not a faceless charity case, but that they matter. I have only done the shoebox once but it wasn't tat! They were bought with a great deal of thought.

Himalaya · 01/11/2012 20:03

Exotic-

Of course the individual child is not a "faceless charity case", of course they matter. WTF? Why would we think that individuals have no sense of personal identity until the have had a hand wrapped gift from US?

This is why serious charities work with people to find out what they want and need and where outside assistance can help them.

The problem that shoebox donation "solves" is not of "faceless charity cases" but of "faceless donors" - putting money in a box or setting up a standing order makes US feel faceless and unimportant. Oh well, it's not about us.

ravenAK · 01/11/2012 20:26

Indeed Himalaya.

If it's personal gratification contact you want, you can always sponsor a child via Plan or similar.

exoticfruits · 01/11/2012 22:16

I sponsor a child through PLAN for that very reason.

exoticfruits · 01/11/2012 22:17

And it isn't personal gratification - both sides get a lot from it.

ladymariner · 01/11/2012 23:27

Uncalled for raven

ravenAK · 01/11/2012 23:42

Sorry, ladymariner. I don't mean to snipe at your charitable instincts, honestly.

It's just that Franklin Graham is a foul Islamophobic bigot, who, incidently, trousers approximately $1.2m of your money annually.

I believe that if you're going to give to charity, you should do some basic checking as to whether you & the 'recipients' are actually being conned - IMO, OCC are about as ethically dodgy as you can get.

& when a whole succession of posters, not necessarily you, have basically said 'Well, I don't care - my kids like making up nice boxes & I like the warm glow of thinking that I'm encouraging them to Do Good', then it makes me weary tbh.

ladymariner · 01/11/2012 23:57

I wasn't going to bother typing anymore as its pretty obvious there are always going to be differing opinions on this thread which is fair enough, each to their own and all that. However, when my, and others who donate a shoebox, motives are called into question then I think thats not on.

I donate a shoebox not for personal gratification but to do something that I think is nice and will give a child a bit of pleasure. As I said earlier, I couldn't give a fuck who delivers the gift as I don't think it will make any difference to the child's beliefs (I helped out at the Sunday School when I was a teenager but it didn't make a difference to how I spent my spare time...!) but I do think the child will get a lot of pleasure out of receiving it.

I also organise a collection of toys and gifts for our local Lions which are donated by them to needy children in the area at Christmas. This again is a large event, but is put together by many people. Perhaps they're all looking for personal gratification too......? I also buy selection boxes for the children at our Women's Refuge. I don't leave my name, they have no idea who leaves the stuff, so the accusation that I'm not content being a faceless donor is insulting and wrong.

None of this makes me a better person, but it does make me feel as though I'm doing what I can to help others. We don't have much money but we do have a very happy life for which I'm eternally grateful. And thats it, no ulterior motive, no "worthiness".....what do some of you to do help other people that gives you the right to judge what I do?

ladymariner · 02/11/2012 00:00

Xposted raven......think we may just have to agree to differ and go our separate ways here......[hsmile]

Himalaya · 02/11/2012 02:10

Ladymariner -

It is not about your motives. I am sure your motives are honorable and noble.

The point is your kind motives are in danger of being exploited by a multi-million dollar charity, which has managed to pay its founder millions but hasn't managed to to commission and publish one single single independent evaluation of its work to see whether its operating model is valid, and how its methods can be improved.

Its not about whether anyone on here has the right to judge you. It is about the responsibility of a multi-million dollar charity to evaluate its activities (including asking beneficiaries what kind of help they want) to find out whether how they could better serve them.

Beneficiaries are often not in a position to question how a charity operates, so it is up to donors to give a fuck how they operate.

I do wonder what is your reason for preferring to give 'stuff' when charities generally say it is more useful to give them money. So for example if you give money the Women's Refuge can buy selection boxes if thats what it needs, but it isn't in danger of having too many selection boxes (and not enough of something else) donated and then having them go out of date and not get eaten.