In the real world, charities need to spend money to make it

The charity funding debate is in the spotlight - hallelujah! Let's air this question of need and how we as a nation fill it. We should take an issue such as face-to-face fund-raising and look at all sides of this ''coin'' - realising, of course, that coins have three sides, not just two.

What are the three sides of face-to-face fund-raising? Well, there is the disgruntled public side. That's the view of the person who is - very reasonably - outraged that part of a donation might go somewhere other than the end cause. Why weren't they told of this cost of fund-raising? If they don't have a real stake in this, who does?

Then there is the view of charities using this revenue approach. That's the perspective that is - also reasonably - passionate about finding new supporters and smart enough to know that ongoing, long-term funding is vital for those their organisation serves. They are ordinary people managing extraordinary feats on the smell of the proverbial oily rag.

Finally, like the ridged side of the coin joining the two faces, there is the industry standpoint that is - very reasonably - divided on face-to-face fund-raising: effective tool or damaging to people's views on giving?

Why are all stances reasonable and how can they be reconciled?

It is understandable the community feels aggrieved. The Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies undertook the Giving Australia study in 2005. We spoke with groups nationwide about their charity views and heard generous, caring voices wondering why charities couldn't be completely volunteer-run. Figures such as 10 per cent were the most that people felt should go on fund-raising and administration.

Then someone in the group would point out that the charity where they volunteered had taken huge strides when it employed some specialists. The zeroes in its annual income multiplied. Add more focus and firepower and you get more results, they said. More research, more people off the street. So the group came to think you might have to spend some money to make some. But they were rightfully cranky about not being told the real cost of raising funds. Charities, they said, are woeful communicators.

It is understandable that charities are embracing face-to-face fund-raising if it is working for them. For some, this newer approach has revolutionised their income.

People seldom give spontaneously. We know from Giving Australia that people who plan their giving donate four times as much as those who don't. Thoughtful giving and signing up for a monthly donation has to be planned.

Charities told us that people think any spending to make money is squandering. The reality is - no matter how generous we might be after a tsunami or bushfire - most Australians give because someone asks them to. We are brimful of good intentions but it takes a prompt for most of us to turn that into good action. Should that be someone on a street corner? Maybe - if they stick to the Fund-raising Institute Australia code, if they are ''quality controlled'' so they are true advocates for the community good, even if it is across a few different charities. Personally, I can't agree with the commission angle - they are doing a job and should be paid but not on commission; this method might breed pressure. Giving should be joyful, not guilt-filled.

In that vein, we need to invest cheerfully in a good result for the causes we care about. That means some of my donation will go to making the charity strong and able to do its job, not just to the pointy end of the business.

Just as I don't want a half-good electrician wiring my house, I don't want a half-good charity looking after the causes close to my heart. I want a strong, efficient but, more importantly, effective organisation, properly staffed - but hopefully still with more volunteers than paid staff. I want it to make a real and continuing difference, one that is not likely to go down the gurgler because it lacks sustainable funding.

That means agreeing to pay those who can win those funds, whether that is on staff or through a good consultant. I am happy to let the charity look after how my donation is spent to ultimately help the cause. I am extra pleased if they are transparent about where the different parts of my dollar go.

To sum up: there is charity utopia - and there is Australia in 2009. In the ideal world, everyone would keep what they need and the rest would flow magically to those who could do with it. No greasing of overseas officials' palms, no costs of getting dollars to where they can make a difference, no payment to backpackers to raise charity funds, just a seamless compassion pipeline.

Life - and the charity pipeline - isn't like that. Australians are generous, we help a mate, but our taxes and our donations still aren't touching all the deep needs and opportunities out there. In that climate, we will face new ways of being asked to support. If we don't like them, we should speak out. We should demand transparency. In return, we should understand the other side of the coin. Maybe with that understanding, more of us might join those who add more of their coin to their favourite charities each month. It could be our own personal compassion pipeline.

Dr Wendy Scaife is a senior research fellow in the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at Queensland University of Technology.