Monetary gifts and administration fee

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Under Consideration
  • (Edited)
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: This issue is closed.

I really hate to "beat a dead horse" since I know this was discussed at length a few months back but I've spoken to quite a few sponsors and want to bring this suggestion up again.
With the new fee, I think it would be a really good idea to add the 10% fee on to the monetary gift instead of it being taken from what we are sending.
I would much rather have the option to send say $60 and have the website add 10% on to that for administrative fees than have it taken from my gift. I know that in the end it's all the same, but it just feels like nothing is being taken from the child if the fee is added on, where the way it works now it does seem that way.
Photo of KristenH

KristenH, Champion

  • 1122 Posts
  • 695 Reply Likes
  • love Compassion

Posted 4 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Susan

Susan

  • 7386 Posts
  • 1594 Reply Likes
Hi Kristen! As you know, for over 60 years, 100% of monetary gifts have been given directly to the child, family, or center. However, when we deliver these gifts, there is still an administrative cost involved. In order to ensure that each child continues to receive the maximum benefit from our program, Compassion has begun using ten percent of gifts to help cover the administration costs. How would you like to see the 10% fee added to your gift? Have different options of gift amounts? Have it show like a "tax" on the check out page? 
Photo of KristenH

KristenH, Champion

  • 1122 Posts
  • 695 Reply Likes
Susan, thanks for asking! I'd like to see the gift amount plus a fee tacked on, rather than a fee deducted from the gift amount.
For instance, if I send $60 I would like the 10% added on to that instead of $60 - 10% going to my child.

I know that in the end it's all semantics because I could (and have) adjust what I'm sending to reflect that 10% being deducted....and I am totally on board with the "whys" of why the fee has been implemented. Just in talking to other sponsors it seems like most would like to see that fee tacked on, it seems less like it's being taken from the kids that way.

Thanks Susan!
Kristen
Photo of Jamie Riemersma

Jamie Riemersma

  • 123 Posts
  • 77 Reply Likes
I just want to say that I agree with Kristen.  I would rather see the fee tacked on, rather than taken out.
Photo of Adam

Adam

  • 503 Posts
  • 565 Reply Likes
That's a great idea, Kristen. I would really love to see this too. It could be just a checkbox to select for the option to add the administrative fee on the gift page. If a sponsor is giving the limit, without the option to give more to cover the fee, then that money actually is being taken away from the kids, and it doesn't just seem that way. The average monthly income for the community of one of my kids is $25 and they have a family of six so I imagine that even amounts that seem small to us would make a big difference to them.
Photo of Adam

Adam

  • 503 Posts
  • 565 Reply Likes
Maybe even a simpler solution would just be to raise the limits by 10% to accomdate for the change. The comment I made in my previous post is only relative to the amounts that we were previously allowed to give and I do trust the wisdom that Compassion has in setting guidelines for us to follow in giving, but unless there is a reason for effectively reducing the limit by 10% then it seems like an adjustment should be made to the guidelines to allow for the fee. And just to clarify, I know that there are administrative costs assosiated with the gifts whether that money is collected with the gifts or not and that money has to come from somewhere instead of being utilized elsewhere in ministry, and so I'm happy to pay the fee as well; the fee itself is not the issue.
Photo of KristenH

KristenH, Champion

  • 1122 Posts
  • 695 Reply Likes
Good idea Adam!

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.