Charity donationsm - Change my thinking!
Discussion
Hey Everyone,
I consider myself to be a net giver in the general sense of the word because I believe that we should all give something to charity. To that end I am thinking of making everything a bit more permanent and giving approx 5% of my small businesses net profit to charity every year, preferably local ones.
However, at the same time I am really thinking about this in other ways in which it will be taken advantage of:
1) People who will just abuse whatever they need to "because its free money"
2) These CEOs of relatively small charities that pay themselves huge fat cat salaries for doing very little work.
In essence I want to give but I dont want to give it to lazy barstewards who cant be arsed to get off their arse or charities that take the proverbial with their staff salaries and constant begathons (Cancer research springs to mind, more cash than they can spend but still want more).
I am sure some people are helped but I cant help thinking a large percentage of this cash is just "misued" to put it bluntly. To give a very recent example, the footballer who is doing the packed lunch thing and that company that cut corner after corner so the food box was literally 2 days of mismatched food, because "profits (or Managers new Jag) come first".
I challenge you to change my thinking on this. - Not looking to start an all out forum war either.
I consider myself to be a net giver in the general sense of the word because I believe that we should all give something to charity. To that end I am thinking of making everything a bit more permanent and giving approx 5% of my small businesses net profit to charity every year, preferably local ones.
However, at the same time I am really thinking about this in other ways in which it will be taken advantage of:
1) People who will just abuse whatever they need to "because its free money"
2) These CEOs of relatively small charities that pay themselves huge fat cat salaries for doing very little work.
In essence I want to give but I dont want to give it to lazy barstewards who cant be arsed to get off their arse or charities that take the proverbial with their staff salaries and constant begathons (Cancer research springs to mind, more cash than they can spend but still want more).
I am sure some people are helped but I cant help thinking a large percentage of this cash is just "misued" to put it bluntly. To give a very recent example, the footballer who is doing the packed lunch thing and that company that cut corner after corner so the food box was literally 2 days of mismatched food, because "profits (or Managers new Jag) come first".
I challenge you to change my thinking on this. - Not looking to start an all out forum war either.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 13th January 12:10
I know a bit about this so challenge accepted.
Firstly, in the UK, the charity sector is very tightly regulated. It's probably the tightest of any charitable sector anywhere in the world. This regulation covers the proportion of donated income that's spent on the cause and whether it's a charitable cause in the first place. There are some charities that said close to the wind but these are few and far between and getting fewer in numbers all the time.
Fat Cats....
I worked in the sector in the mid 90s (Barnardo's) around the time that all the big ones were adopting a more corporate approach to how they managed themselves. Income had risen hugely - Barnardo's in 1995 had an income of something like £110m each year. And IIRC we were the 8th biggest charity by revenue at the time.
A number of charities had fallen foul of the regulators because of a drop in the percentage of revenue that was spent on the cause. Most of the management of these charities were not up to running what were essentially large companies. So to attract the people with the right skills to manage them, they had to pay salaries more aligned with commercial realities.
So whilst salaries increased, some considerably so, the net result was that more money was directed to the causes people had donated to because better people were managing them better and that comes at a price.
Today there are some very high earners in the sector but more revenue is being directed to the delivery of the services and support than ever before as a result.
The notion of fat cats doing nothing and creaming off donated revenue doesn't exist. a) Trustees would not permit it. b) donors would not permit it - and all accounts are public and c) the regulators would not permit it.
The problem is that some charities receive more than they actually need. One very wealthy charity that I dealt with in the 90s was a Donkey Sanctuary. It needed a couple of 100k a year but received millions. It wasn't because many people have any particular like for Donkeys but most of this revenue came in from legacy donations (Wills). If your family has pissed you off in life, what bigger two fingers to them is there than leaving your wealth to the Donkeys! They couldn't even spend this money on other good causes because legally if someone's will states that it's for the Donkeys, then it goes to the Donkeys!
As for your concern about recipients of support just in it for 'free money', this again is proportionally very rare. There are some, that's for sure. But most charities are pretty good at weeding out the freeloaders. And would you deny help to many on the basis of the actions of a few?
Firstly, in the UK, the charity sector is very tightly regulated. It's probably the tightest of any charitable sector anywhere in the world. This regulation covers the proportion of donated income that's spent on the cause and whether it's a charitable cause in the first place. There are some charities that said close to the wind but these are few and far between and getting fewer in numbers all the time.
Fat Cats....
I worked in the sector in the mid 90s (Barnardo's) around the time that all the big ones were adopting a more corporate approach to how they managed themselves. Income had risen hugely - Barnardo's in 1995 had an income of something like £110m each year. And IIRC we were the 8th biggest charity by revenue at the time.
A number of charities had fallen foul of the regulators because of a drop in the percentage of revenue that was spent on the cause. Most of the management of these charities were not up to running what were essentially large companies. So to attract the people with the right skills to manage them, they had to pay salaries more aligned with commercial realities.
So whilst salaries increased, some considerably so, the net result was that more money was directed to the causes people had donated to because better people were managing them better and that comes at a price.
Today there are some very high earners in the sector but more revenue is being directed to the delivery of the services and support than ever before as a result.
The notion of fat cats doing nothing and creaming off donated revenue doesn't exist. a) Trustees would not permit it. b) donors would not permit it - and all accounts are public and c) the regulators would not permit it.
The problem is that some charities receive more than they actually need. One very wealthy charity that I dealt with in the 90s was a Donkey Sanctuary. It needed a couple of 100k a year but received millions. It wasn't because many people have any particular like for Donkeys but most of this revenue came in from legacy donations (Wills). If your family has pissed you off in life, what bigger two fingers to them is there than leaving your wealth to the Donkeys! They couldn't even spend this money on other good causes because legally if someone's will states that it's for the Donkeys, then it goes to the Donkeys!
As for your concern about recipients of support just in it for 'free money', this again is proportionally very rare. There are some, that's for sure. But most charities are pretty good at weeding out the freeloaders. And would you deny help to many on the basis of the actions of a few?
Are there any local projects in your local area that you could fund/sponsor? This way you could contribute towards a cause and project that's close to your heart and you could also then consider something long term with them. For example I'm trying to get a local truly accessible playground and sensory garden project off the ground. You might feel something like the local food bank, church roof fund or planting trees might be more your thing.
They are legally obliged to tell you and strangely they’re is no minimum or league table enforced by the charity commission. You should aim for somewhere around 70% for most reasonably sizeable charities, more for small and local. You should also make sure that the donation goes direct rather than through a third party that will take their cut. The fees for the likes of just giving are scandalous.
StevieBee said:
I know a bit about this so challenge accepted.
As you've worked in the industry, may I ask a question? Well, it might not even be a question as such, but rather an observation.Why is there such a massive proliferation of charitable enterprises now? It's literally everywhere you look - I log into my bank and I'm hassled with charity stuff, I order from anywhere online and I'm asked to donate, I pay by chip and pin in a shop and I'm hassled to donate, the advertising is enormous... It's almost omnipresent.
And, whilst I don't have a problem with it, I can't help but notice it. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I find it hard to believe that these enterprises all spawned from hugely moral people fighting for hugely moral causes.
And then you have the people who donate. Most lower income people I know have a direct debit to adopt a tiger because it's sad, cancer research because granny died of it, and so on. And the most deprived high streets in the country are all full of charity shops for every conceivable cause. You get my point.
In a sentence, it feels like lottery is a tax on people who don't understand probability, and charity is a tax on people led by blind emotion. In fact, they're both like taxes on emotion in their own way.
I've no axe to grind here. Just shooting from the hip on an observation.
What do you think? Is charity all good, or have certain people realised there's some cash to be made under the guise of charity?
Edited by david-j8694 on Wednesday 13th January 13:16
Voldemort said:
bristolracer said:
Is there any data that simply shows how much of your pound donated gets spent on the cause and not on expenses?
As a rough rule of thumb, if they can afford to advertise on TV they're not getting a penny from me.Very effective too - surprisingly so. They tend to air on the cheap slots and are further incentivised to take the space by the broadcasters. You can get a month's TV advertising for a lot less than you'd think (the last campaign I booked in London for a Month with 8 broadcasts a day came in at £18k - which is less than you'd pay to print and distribute leaflets to the same number of people).
Charity is a competitive market.
Also, I mentioned Barnardo's and legacy donations. Legacy donations can also be prescriptive on what the money is spent on which is legally binding within certain tolerances. A former Barnardo's Boy had died whilst I was there and was clearly successful in his life leaving a significant legacy to the charity but with instruction that X% be spent on TV ads, advertising a fundraising appeal.
There may be some good reasons not to support a particular charity but advertising on TV aint one of them.
MonkeyMatt said:
Are there any local projects in your local area that you could fund/sponsor? This way you could contribute towards a cause and project that's close to your heart and you could also then consider something long term with them. For example I'm trying to get a local truly accessible playground and sensory garden project off the ground. You might feel something like the local food bank, church roof fund or planting trees might be more your thing.
I would go with MonkeyMatts suggestion. It doesn't have to be a charity does it? You local scouts, kids football teams. My view with charities is that if they employ chuggers then I'm out.
If you are concerned about how your donations will be spent, then the "safest" way is to donate to a local charity that you know.
I'm involved with a local sports club, every year we organise various events and at the end of the year we donate any "left-over" money to the local Hospice. This is usually a high four-figure sum, occasionally a five-figure if we have a good year.
We literally go to the hospice to hand the money over (so no third-party skimming) and have an open invitation to visit once or twice a year to meet the staff and get updates on where "our" money is being spent.
Assuming the amount from your business will be significant, you could set up similar arrangements with similar charity cases in your area - whatever cause you think is worthy and also interests you. Keeping it local and having a long-term relationship with the charity can give a greater sense of purpose.
I'm involved with a local sports club, every year we organise various events and at the end of the year we donate any "left-over" money to the local Hospice. This is usually a high four-figure sum, occasionally a five-figure if we have a good year.
We literally go to the hospice to hand the money over (so no third-party skimming) and have an open invitation to visit once or twice a year to meet the staff and get updates on where "our" money is being spent.
Assuming the amount from your business will be significant, you could set up similar arrangements with similar charity cases in your area - whatever cause you think is worthy and also interests you. Keeping it local and having a long-term relationship with the charity can give a greater sense of purpose.
david-j8694 said:
StevieBee said:
I know a bit about this so challenge accepted.
As you've worked in the industry, may I ask a question? Well, it might not even be a question as such, but rather an observation.Why is there such a massive proliferation of charitable enterprises now? It's literally everywhere you look - I log into my bank and I'm hassled with charity stuff, I order from anywhere online and I'm asked to donate, I pay by chip and pin in a shop and I'm hassled to donate... It's almost omnipresent.
And, whilst I don't have a problem with it, I can't help but notice it. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I find it hard to believe that these enterprises all spawned from hugely moral people fighting for hugely moral causes.
And then you have the people who donate. Most lower income people I know have a direct debit to adopt a tiger because it's sad, cancer research because granny died of it, and so on. And the most deprived high streets in the country are all full of charity shops for every conceivable cause. You get my point.
In a sentence, it feels like lottery is a tax on people who don't understand probability, and charity is a tax on people led by blind emotion. In fact, they're both like taxes on emotion in their own way.
I've no axe to grind here. Just shooting from the hip on an observation.
What do you think? Is charity all good, or have certain people realised there's some cash to be made under the guise of charity?
Last I looked there was 170,000 registered fundraising charities (and the same number again for registered charities but not fundraising - trusts and the like).
The charity sector represents around 17% of GDP (again, when I last looked - may have change a bit). No other country on earth is a generous as we are.
The overarching reason is quite simple. We're a decent bunch (on the whole). British people are defined around the world for our generosity of spirit, tolerance and so on. We don't like to see people suffer - animals more so. We recognise that not all are blessed with the same opportunity and many like to do something about that. I can think of no other nation on Earth that would have given us Live Aid, Comic Relief and others.
Why this might be the case is not certain. My own view is that we also embrace tribalism. We like to latch onto something and then defend it. That might be a football team, the town we live in, a hobby or whatever. We Brits like to belong to something we believe in. Charity is an extension of this.
Why so many?
Demand. They wouldn't exist if there wasn't need for the services and support they provide nor the people to donate to them.
There is an argument that often emerges that charities do work that the government should be paying for. Lifeboats are a good example of this. The only reason you'd be at or in the sea is because of work or the deliberate pursuit of pleasure. If work, then there should be the mechanism of taxation to fund the support afforded to you by Lifeboats in the same way the other emergency services are. And the same for pleasure - payment from taxation or the levying of fees if you have a boat*.
The counter to this is that government can't do everything and charities offer people choices in the causes they support rather than have the support forced upon them.
- To address Lifeboats (and the same applies to Air Ambulances) is that they would suffer the effect of political whims. So if there are budget cuts, these would suffer greater levels of cuts than other services as they are seen 'proportionally' expensive compared to the benefits provided. By keeping funding outside of government control enables their operations to be maintained, protected from government intervention on funding.
Advertising on TV can be a great way of raising funds and doesn’t cost as much as people may think. This is the dilemma all charities face. Advertise and they get slated for it, don’t advertise and they can’t raise funds.
The key to running an effective charity is to create provision for fundraising as a percentage of income, make sure that the percentage that gets to the end cause is around 70% plus and make all processes as lean and efficient as possible.
I spent a year working with a large charity where I did just that and my pay was basically the first year savings which was a rather big number. You need a very proactive trustee board to keep it going and be prepared to pay decent money for staff.
Watch the TED talk by Dan Pallotta on why the way we think about charity is dead wrong.
The key to running an effective charity is to create provision for fundraising as a percentage of income, make sure that the percentage that gets to the end cause is around 70% plus and make all processes as lean and efficient as possible.
I spent a year working with a large charity where I did just that and my pay was basically the first year savings which was a rather big number. You need a very proactive trustee board to keep it going and be prepared to pay decent money for staff.
Watch the TED talk by Dan Pallotta on why the way we think about charity is dead wrong.
As StevieBee, I have also worked in the NFP sector for many years (not now).
The myths and misconceptions about how charities are run and what they spend their money on never cease to surprise me.
I think the most important thing about donating, is to find a cause that is important to you, something that you feel passionately about or that has touched your life in some way. Like MacMillan or the rescue centre you got your dog.... their accounts should be available to read on their website (so there's no big secret).
And seriously, would you want your heard earned and generously given donation, to be managed by a volunteer with no financial expertise.....really? Personally I donate to well run, well organised organisations who will invest my donation wisely... both to projects on the ground OR in running their organisation. I have no objection to part of it going to marketing or other running costs (including buildings or electricity bills!) because without it they would not be successful.
Every function that exists in a corporate enterprise is needed to run a charity; Finance, HR, Marketing, IT, Fundraising, Leadership team. The best charities I have worked for have recruited wisely and run really lean operations... they think far deeper and are more analytical about where they spend their money.... and that includes people.
The myths and misconceptions about how charities are run and what they spend their money on never cease to surprise me.
I think the most important thing about donating, is to find a cause that is important to you, something that you feel passionately about or that has touched your life in some way. Like MacMillan or the rescue centre you got your dog.... their accounts should be available to read on their website (so there's no big secret).
And seriously, would you want your heard earned and generously given donation, to be managed by a volunteer with no financial expertise.....really? Personally I donate to well run, well organised organisations who will invest my donation wisely... both to projects on the ground OR in running their organisation. I have no objection to part of it going to marketing or other running costs (including buildings or electricity bills!) because without it they would not be successful.
Every function that exists in a corporate enterprise is needed to run a charity; Finance, HR, Marketing, IT, Fundraising, Leadership team. The best charities I have worked for have recruited wisely and run really lean operations... they think far deeper and are more analytical about where they spend their money.... and that includes people.
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for the thoughts and ideas. I have just been walking the dog and thinking about it (In the rain!) In the past we (SWMBO and I) literally just took money out the company bank account and made up kits for rough sleepers (washbag, toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, flannel, socks, lady things as needed etc) and each had a little handwritten note - It was an absolute blast (and good at the same time?), we dropped them off at the homeless shelter and they were v grateful. I like to think it made a little bit of difference. The looks we got when buying 150 of everything was just a riot, we cleaned B&M out of all the toothpaste and soap
I think there are many worthwhile charities, but all the TV adverts for the bigger ones and the incesent begging annoy me intensely and I think skew a lot of peoples thinking, as do all the free bin bags (Sorry, charity bags) that come through the door where some obscure charity gets 3% of the take for using their name on the bag. I now kind of understand a bit more (Thanks StevieBee for the insight) I think for a start I am going to see if the local hospice could benefit. I also know a guy who runs a football team that exists on £23 in the bank type thing so there may be an idea.
My thinking has boiled down to "Local for local people, animals and the environment." The problem is though, this 5% only changes the symptoms, not the cause, no matter how small. However, that way I also decide where the money goes, not some Trustee, no matter how good their intentions.
Also, Don't get me wrong, it's not life-changing sums of money. I wish it was too, as a bigger 5% meant I had more money in the first place
Thanks for the thoughts and ideas. I have just been walking the dog and thinking about it (In the rain!) In the past we (SWMBO and I) literally just took money out the company bank account and made up kits for rough sleepers (washbag, toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, flannel, socks, lady things as needed etc) and each had a little handwritten note - It was an absolute blast (and good at the same time?), we dropped them off at the homeless shelter and they were v grateful. I like to think it made a little bit of difference. The looks we got when buying 150 of everything was just a riot, we cleaned B&M out of all the toothpaste and soap
I think there are many worthwhile charities, but all the TV adverts for the bigger ones and the incesent begging annoy me intensely and I think skew a lot of peoples thinking, as do all the free bin bags (Sorry, charity bags) that come through the door where some obscure charity gets 3% of the take for using their name on the bag. I now kind of understand a bit more (Thanks StevieBee for the insight) I think for a start I am going to see if the local hospice could benefit. I also know a guy who runs a football team that exists on £23 in the bank type thing so there may be an idea.
My thinking has boiled down to "Local for local people, animals and the environment." The problem is though, this 5% only changes the symptoms, not the cause, no matter how small. However, that way I also decide where the money goes, not some Trustee, no matter how good their intentions.
Also, Don't get me wrong, it's not life-changing sums of money. I wish it was too, as a bigger 5% meant I had more money in the first place
parakitaMol. said:
Every function that exists in a corporate enterprise is needed to run a charity; Finance, HR, Marketing, IT, Fundraising, Leadership team. The best charities I have worked for have recruited wisely and run really lean operations... they think far deeper and are more analytical about where they spend their money.... and that includes people.
This is one area I would have liked to have spent more time on during my project mentioned above. There is a real opportunity for shared services in al those areas with charities running one IT system, having one finance department, one HR department etc. The economies of scale for marketing and fundraising in this way could make a real difference. The problem that stops it is that most charities think they are competing with other charities supporting the same cause. When they realise they are not fighting competitors they are fighting themselves the organisations can be much more effective Sorry for the slight change of subject, but...
My in-laws contribute to their church which is a registered charity. In 2019 the church received approx £215k after tithes etc and gift aid.
The two directors received £70k in ‘consultancy fees’ between them plus pension contributions, they may also have a car each but I’m not 100% sure from the accounts.
Donations to charity was £52k (2018 it was £10.5k).
This seems a bit measly to me, but I assume it’s all legit?
Link to accounts below if anyone cares to take a look and comment.
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-im...
My in-laws contribute to their church which is a registered charity. In 2019 the church received approx £215k after tithes etc and gift aid.
The two directors received £70k in ‘consultancy fees’ between them plus pension contributions, they may also have a car each but I’m not 100% sure from the accounts.
Donations to charity was £52k (2018 it was £10.5k).
This seems a bit measly to me, but I assume it’s all legit?
Link to accounts below if anyone cares to take a look and comment.
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-im...
Oxfam and save the children = bullying , sex crimes etc. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cme28xx5grnt/cha...
Barbados https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609165/B...
Personal data misuse https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/788338/UK-charit...
Imo stick to small voluntary run charities. There is too much money and backscratching in big charities..
https://civilsocietyfutures.org/beginning-end-char...
Barbados https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609165/B...
Personal data misuse https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/788338/UK-charit...
Imo stick to small voluntary run charities. There is too much money and backscratching in big charities..
https://civilsocietyfutures.org/beginning-end-char...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff