October 24, 2008 | Read Time: 1 minute
As American charities suffer from the sour economy, nonprofit groups in Britain are arguably in worse shape, with charity leaders calling for the government to set up a roughly $788-million emergency fund to help struggling organizations.
Like others in Britain, a large number of charities were hit hard by the near collapse of the Icelandic banking system. Potential nonprofit losses due to the Icelandic problems are estimated at $189-million, reports The Guardian, a British newspaper.
However, so far the newspaper reports that the government minister who oversees nonprofit groups has rejected throwing them a lifeline.
Indeed, Patrick Butler, an editor for The Guardian, writes that charities need to be more forthcoming about financial losses if they want public support.
On the newspaper’s Joe Public Blog, he writes that only 13 charities have stepped forward to discuss their problems related to the Iceland banks, with many others preferring to stay quiet.
“They fear it might damage their brand, erode donor confidence, or compromise reputation in a way that would cede advantage to rivals in the bitterly competitive fund-raising market,” he writes. “The charity sector’s worst habits of lack of public accountability and transparency are coming out in spades in this crisis.”
What do you think? Should the British government provide financial assistance to charities? Should the U.S. government consider a similar move? If so, how should it be structured?
