Children in Need sitting on £87.75m

[steveT350C]

Charity beloved by our friend at the BBC have lots of cash...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tim-walker/...

Needs some PH investigation

[dandarez]

I should say. That bloody stinks!

But not surprising. Charities, eh?

A spokesman for the corporation sees nothing wrong in sitting on quite such a huge sum. over £87 million!

“BBC Children in Need typically awards grants over a three year period. Money is released on a quarterly basis as projects demonstrate the impact they are having on young lives,” he says.


So, I had a decko at their grant bit.

'There is no upper limit for Main Grants
but we make very few grants over £120,000 and most grants are for much less. Each year we are asked for much more money than we are able to give.'

Oh yeah?

I for one, will seriously be considering whether I bother anymore.

Edited by dandarez on Tuesday 14th October 18:38

[Mr Will]

Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.

Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.

But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...

[Jasandjules]

Mr Will said:

But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...

Once they are down to their last 30m they can ask for more.

[ninja-lewis]

It seems accrual accounting is beyond a social diary journalist.

Mr Will said:

Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.

Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.

But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...

Not quite. The charity has Fixed Asset Investents of £12m, which includes the net assets of Children in Need Limited (the trading arm responsible for Pudsey teddy bears). These assets exist to generate an income to meet the short term running costs in the event of a unexpected shortfall of funds (running costs are normally met from Gift Aid funding) and otherwise to top up grant making funds in good years.

The £87m that the Telegraph quote represents their Current Asset Investments, mostly invested in short term corporate bonds but also some Certificates of Deposit.

To put that into perspective, they had Grants Payable of £60m, which is grants they've awarded but not yet paid (£36m due <12 months). The reasons why they haven't yet made the payments may be because some projects a multi-year (their accounting policy is to recognise the full award in the year of award incidentally) while others they may require milestones to be met to ensure that the project is moving in the right direction and made effective use of funds to date.

As their accounting year ends on 30 June, about 7 months after the previous appeal, it is understandable that they have not yet fully awarded all funds received in the 2012 Appeal. By 30 June 2013, they had awarded £19.1m of the 2012 Appeal funds, leaving £24.3m budgeted to be awarded by the end of December 2013.

Add those figures together and you begin to understand precisely why CIN have £87m of current assets, sensibly invested in the short term instruments.

Or if you're social diary journalist, let's put it this way: in the year to June 2013 (so roughly 6 months of Appeal 2011 and 6 months of Appeal 2012), they had incoming grant funds of £44.021m and outgoing grant expenditure of £43.912m (after return of unused grants/withdrawing grants from projects that haven't met their conditions).

[Four Litre]

Mr Will said:

Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.

Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.

But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...

And think of all the teams of "Non Profit" Directors they need to manage all that lot on massive bonus related salaries.

Bet my life on it!

[loafer123]

Four Litre said:

Mr Will said:

Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.

Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.

But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...

And think of all the teams of "Non Profit" Directors they need to manage all that lot on massive bonus related salaries.

Bet my life on it!

You'd bet your life, eh?

Define "teams"...

[jogon]

Expensive business running these charities you know you need to pay the CEO at least £250k plus expenses and don't forget the swanky London office professionally fitted out with the finest Italian furniture to house the pretty ex public school PR, smedia and fund raiser girls.

[ninja-lewis]

jogon said:

Expensive business running these charities you know you need to pay the CEO at least £250k plus expenses and don't forget the swanky London office professionally fitted out with the finest Italian furniture to house the pretty ex public school PR, smedia and fund raiser girls.

Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

[loafer123]

I'm so sorry Four Litre.

It's been a blast...see you on the other side.

[jogon]

ninja-lewis said:

Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

Well maybe Children in Need are a bit from frugal than the rest on their remuneration packages. They are still sat on £87m while many children are still in need.

[moribund]

jogon said:

Well maybe Children in Need are a bit from frugal than the rest on their remuneration packages. They are still sat on £87m while many children are still in need.

You could at least try and read the long post above?

[crazy about cars]

jogon said:

ninja-lewis said:

Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

Well maybe Children in Need are a bit from frugal than the rest on their remuneration packages. They are still sat on £87m while many children are still in need.

Hmm...does make me think to do a little research on charities before donating...

[league67]

Kippers in angry about everything shocker. It's always someone else enjoying gravy train that they themselves are denied access to. Obviously not through sheer lack of intellect or ability. No, it's a conspiracy. But dear Nige will sort that out.

While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.

[steveT350C]

league67 said:

Kippers in angry about everything shocker. It's always someone else enjoying gravy train that they themselves are denied access to. Obviously not through sheer lack of intellect or ability. No, it's a conspiracy. But dear Nige will sort that out.

While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.

What on earth has UKIP or UKIP supporters got to do with this? Are you on the wrong thread, or forgot who you are?

Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 14th October 21:47

[league67]

steveT350C said:

What on earth has UKIP or UKIP supporters got to do with this? Are you on the wrong thread, or forgot who you are?

Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 14th October 21:47

I know that you are slow, usually blaming 'holiday beers'. If you look at this thread, people having issue with rather well run charity are kippers. I don't know how to put it differently. And I still do read UKIP thread. It's like comedy central there.
As for who I am, that really doesn't matter. If you think that I'm using multiple logins you should alert mods.

[PlankWithANailIn]

2 + 2 != UKIP

[mph1977]

ninja-lewis said:

jogon said:

Expensive business running these charities you know you need to pay the CEO at least £250k plus expenses and don't forget the swanky London office professionally fitted out with the finest Italian furniture to house the pretty ex public school PR, smedia and fund raiser girls.

Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...

Trustees of charities only get expenses, this is where some ofthe more egotistical setters up of small charities fall down - it's better not to be a trustee of a charity you are involved i nthe managmeent of as then payments can be made ,

as for the 250 k Salaries of the CEO - that's rubbish it;s certainly not the norm even in Charities whi ch have onerous regulatory requirements and substantial trading activities as part of deliverigntheir charitable objectives.

[steveT350C]

league67 said:

steveT350C said:

What on earth has UKIP or UKIP supporters got to do with this? Are you on the wrong thread, or forgot who you are?

Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 14th October 21:47

I know that you are slow, usually blaming 'holiday beers'. If you look at this thread, people having issue with rather well run charity are kippers. I don't know how to put it differently. And I still do read UKIP thread. It's like comedy central there.
As for who I am, that really doesn't matter. If you think that I'm using multiple logins you should alert mods.

I will admit that I am not that hot on understanding how business, or in this case a charity's finance works, hence my starting this thread and asking for help.

Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis

Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.

[P-Jay]

Every large charity is the same - it's foolish to think they take in a £1 and spend a £1, they invest the money and use the profits to fund their good causes that means that even if they never raised another penny they could continue to do what they do in perpetuity.