To ensure that neither side is 'taken a lend of' by the other, strict protocols must be followed when a call for help is received. This is necessary for any community-based group, whether it is run by a Christian, secular or other religious organisation.
"Simply understood protocols, set out with clarity with an equally straightforward reporting system in most situations, reveal the true circumstances," Mark Tronson explained. "But inevitably there will be times when the system might not function as it should."
The ethics of benevolent societies is to help those in need. To do this, they necessarily have funds 'donated' by applying for grants, from governments sources (originating from the taxes of the population, of course) and from direct donations. This money is given in good faith, that it is indeed the 'needy' who will benefit, and the money will not be frittered away on unnecessary or 'unworthy' causes.
M V Tronson illustrates a case where local community knowledge, combined with well-trained counsellors and clear protocols and guidelines, helped to keep a benevolent society from giving money to a fraudulent client.
Some years ago, this society received a request at its national office in one state, from someone in a regional area in another state, purporting to be the single mother of a talented school-leaver, who had been accepted into a prestigious University course, but whose studies could not be funded by the family.
"So many similar situations occur in all charitable societies, that this story will ring true to those involved in such endeavours," said Mark Tronson
The daughter's name, secondary school and university were unavailable as this would apparently create embarrassment to all involved and this inquiry was a discreet one so as to ensure the student was not hindered by feelings of charitable help.
Only a phone number and the woman's name was given so that the benevolent body might follow through this plea for help
The protocol was followed through to the next step, in that a major Denomination's local welfare arm was in turn asked to make discreet contact with the woman by telephone. A well-trained and experienced representative was once again told the same story, without any explicit details.
As the Christian welfare communities of that provincial area worked closely together it came to light that someone in that community of welfare workers (but not of that same organisation) knew the phone number but not of any person who might fit such a description from that residence.
It was then agreed that both these welfare officers would visit the woman at her place of residence.
However, this woman was only at that residence temporarily. In the face-to-face interview, her story became inconsistent and again no information was available about her daughter's name, secondary school or the university and the offer made by that tertiary institution.
The case-worker of the Christian society and the local community worker were able to report back to the national office of the benevolent society, categorising all the appropriate protocols that they had put in place, and recommending that this was not 'proven' to be a genuinely deserving case for granting money to the woman who had made the original enquiry.
"In Australia, we sometimes have a tendency to applaud those who defraud the system," M V Tronson concluded. "In this case, the benevolent society maintained the ethics towards both their donors and those in genuine need, by being vigilant and flexible enough to guard against both human failure to follow protocols, and fraudulent enquiries."