Take part in the 2025 Charity Shops Survey!

Now in its 34th year, the survey provides detailed benchmark data, giving you a better understanding of the charity retail sector. Deadline for submissions is 4th July.

Take part and find out more

PayPal pays Oxfam running costs: A double-edged sword?

01 Feb 2011 Voices

PayPal’s plan to supplement donations to Oxfam to ensure that 100 per cent of donors’ money goes to core activity and not overhead costs could fortify, not break down, donor hesitations, says Celina Ribeiro.

PayPal’s plan to supplement donations to Oxfam to ensure that 100 per cent of donors’ money goes to core activity and not overhead costs could fortify, not break down, donor hesitations, says Celina Ribeiro.

Don’t worry donors, – as we always suspected it would.

No longer does 19p in your £1 donation to Oxfam get frittered away by the INGO on such luxuries as training staff for on-the-ground work or sorting out the logistics of getting essential supplies to the front line. No! None more of this ‘waste’ on overhead stuff.  100 per cent, every single penny will go straight to the workers and the beneficiaries on the ground.

Thank goodness for PayPal, eh? Doesn’t this corporate giant make you feel much more warm and fuzzy about your charitable act? Doesn’t it?

From Oxfam fundraising director Cathy Ferrier’s statement on the launch of this partnership, wherein the online payment giant has pledged to top up donations made on the Oxfam website via (guess who) PayPal for February, it is clear the charity is cautious about this gift horse.

Fundraisers know that, given the choice, most donors will prefer to have all their cash go the sick kids/donkeys/well. Largely it is seen as the job of the sector to educate the public about the need to invest in good systems and staff to ensure that a charity is effective and efficient, as well as lean.

Oxfam I think is doing what any responsible charity would do: Accept the offer of a potentially lucrative and popular fundraising initiative by a corporate partner. That is all fair enough.

The charity has also been very clear that it thinks there is nothing wrong with spending money on ‘running costs’, which is good. But this does send mixed messages to the donating public, like a mother telling her child that eating spinach is absolutely fantastic and nothing to be ashamed of but refusing to do it herself. It’s not hypocrisy, but it’s not great.

I hope it makes Oxfam a lot of cash – and it could well do - because I don’t think it’s going to win them a lot of friends in the sector.

More on