Sarah Nelson calls for closer monitoring of charities after the
decision of Denise Brett to withdraw her appeal against suspension from
her position as managing director of the Leukemia and Cancer Children's
Fund. The suspension followed allegations of serious misconduct
WHAT is most extraordinary about the Leukemia & Cancer Children's
Fund? It is not that one of Scotland's highest-profile charities, one of
its noblest and most widely supported causes (from the rich and famous
down to the humblest community fund-raising group) should turn out to be
flawed. On the contrary, it is that so few of the public or media
noticed for so long that anything might be amiss or unprofessional.
This was in such stark contrast to the views of many charities and
professionals working in the same field that the important issue is not
simply why such people failed to gain a public hearing until this past
week. (Either because no-one wanted to listen; or because there was no
adequate system in Scotland for receiving, gathering and dealing with
complaints; or because these charities and professionals could not get
their act together on the issue: or a mixture of all three.)
The key question is also how such a gulf could possibly exist, and
what that says about public perceptions and understanding of the causes
for which charities seek support.
The message is highly relevant and depressing for all organisations
working or campaigning on childhood illness, physical and mental
disability, and overseas aid. All have struggled for years to substitute
rights, and images of dignity, control and self respect, for what one
leading Scots charity expert this week angrily called ''LCCF's technique
of waving the amputated stump, and parading the festering sore''.
LCCF had remarkable, perhaps unique, success in Scotland in attracting
sympathy and support at all levels of society, from politicians to
punters to newspapers. Its collecting cans were ubiquitous in shops and
pubs. Its glitzy functions endlessly succeeded in attracting showbiz,
sports and business personalities.
For years almost every local newspaper has had some account of
sponsored events or collections for LCCF by a community group, sports
group, local store or bank branch. Hardly a town or village in Scotland
has not seen enthusiastic fundraising for the charity. The combination
of leukemia, cancer and children made for an irresistible pull on
people's genuine goodwill and sympathy.
In contrast, most charities and professionals working in the field --
however much they respected LCCF's good intentions and dedication --
either viewed LCCF with concern or could not, professionally, take it
seriously. Emotions ranged from irritation to downright anger and
frustration. This was not simply sour grapes at its high-profile
success, nor due to continuing alarm at some of its fund-raising
methods, and the flak other cancer charities took for these.
Professional issues -- though they have had less publicity -- were to
many the central, most important point.
They could not understand why celebrities, the public and media did
not ask the same, obvious questions that they did. Where were the actual
services which would match the vast fund-raising? Where were the trained
support staff and counsellors which families need? Where were the
pamphlets, leaflets, information packs of the kind Cruise, Enable,
Scottish Downs Syndrome Association or numerous other charities produce
for families and professionals? The seminars and conferences most run,
increasingly with involvement from clients themselves?
Why did LCCF have so few working links with other cancer charities,
and play so little part in co-ordinating groups linking statutory,
voluntary and health agencies? Where was their presence in relevant
hospitals, or their professional voice at gatherings which tried to
improve policy and practice for children and families? And why did the
One in a Million Appeal seek #1m for a sterile respite unit when most
children with leukemia did not need sterile conditions in the first
place?
Crucially, they also viewed highly emotive LCCF publicity with dismay,
distaste or both. It went to the heart of their ethics: and they
basically disagreed with all the emphasis on dying when a majority of
children with leukemia now have a good prognosis. Most charities
involved with children who are ''victims'' have developed strong rules
about using photographs or parading them publicly to gain sympathy and
funding.
Charities, in particular, whose clients are or include child cancer
sufferers have consciously taken a strictly low profile on child
publicity. The only exceptions are sometimes if a young person with
cancer actively desires to lead a support campaign. ''It is our most
fundamental principle not to exploit children,'' said Donal
Donnelly-Wood, social work consultant of the Malcolm Sargent Cancer Fund
for Children.
Yet nobody else seemed to question this publicity: they just dug
deeper into their pockets. The message that gives about public education
suggests learning disability charities might well ask themselves now if
they would raise more cash by returning to those old photographs of
helpless, twisted, open-mouthed ''retards'', tended by their devoted
carers. It is not, of course, an option they would dream of taking.
There are other equally disturbing questions raised by the continuing
affair. It did not need the Scottish Charities Office nor the Lord
Advocate to raise doubts about the professionalism of this charity, nor
to spot practices which whether legal or illegal, would not be
considered good sensible practice by any other major, high-profile
charity.
Their press releases, other literature and lists of names and titles
always had a slightly bizarre quality. The presence and position of Mrs
Denise Brett's relatives could easily have been discovered by any
famous, or ordinary, visitor to the holiday homes. Coupled with the
concerns of other charities and professionals, these matters could have
been followed up by curious observers -- including journalists -- at any
time.
The question must be asked, not least because many of the public will
be asking it. Did it become too embarrassing for many influential
supporters to look closely at the charity just because they were already
publicly involved in supporting it? And did some people who did have
concerns, or had these brought to them, feel pressured into ignoring
them because making a fuss would do such harm to the noble causes of
cancer, leukemia and children?
That is an important question, the moral dilemma, even blackmail, of
goodwill. Because it will arise again, with some other charity, in some
other place. Postponing the evil day does not, of course, assist noble
causes or other charities. On the contrary, it can lead to far greater
public cynicism and a fall-out against charities in general, which many
fear and some have already experienced. This fall-out makes it harder,
not easier, to have the actual truth believed: that the vast majority of
charities are honourable, scrupulous and at least reasonably efficient.
Cynicism (even if undeserved) could be deeper and more serious as a
result of LCCF's scrutiny, precisely because so very many Scottish
people gave their time and effort to raise money in all kinds of ways
for LCCF. Most cancer charities in particular are almost totally
dependent on voluntary fund-raising and use a network of local
fund-raising committees.
As Evelyn Smillie, manager of Cancerlink, put it: ''Local committees
and communities are simply our biggest single resource as charities. And
if such people feel their trust has been betrayed, it's bound to put
them off making that effort for anybody else.''
Scottish charities will now need to push a concerted message, that the
moral of the LCCF affair is not that you can't trust anyone who rattles
a collecting tin. Rather, the public has a right to expect influential
people and agencies to be vigilant and outspoken. Secondly, popular
goodwill for a cause is not enough: wrapped in ignorance and prejudice,
it is dangerous.
If the public and media are educated and informed about the vulnerable
people charities support, about their real needs, and about the
principles most charities actually actively promote about their client
groups, they are far less likely to have wool pulled over their eyes by
anyone.
Sarah Nelson is Press Officer for the Scottish Council for Voluntary
Organisations.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article