View Full Version : When is a Charity ,Not a Charity
When does a Charity break the rules on "being a Charity" as we would know it .Would you say its still a Charity when its spends 42% for its income on Wages ,25% on offices and cars,13% on loans and interest and only" 20%" on making life better for the folk that should be at the center ,after all its suppose to be run for their benefit ..What if running it this way is against all the rules ,would you speak up .So "when is Charity not a Charity"
20% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
People work hard to make charities work. I think of all the cold calls I get on my phone from various charities. I'm always polite but I'm sure it must often be a thankless task.
Modern charities are businesses and need to service the beast before they can feed the bairn.
20% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
People work hard to make charities work. I think of all the cold calls I get on my phone from various charities. I'm always polite but I'm sure it must often be a thankless task.
Modern charities are businesses and need to service the beast before they can feed the bairn.
I dont understand how you would or could be happy knowing that only 20% was going to the folk that the charity was set up to benefit .This Charity turns over £1.8 million and £1,440,000.00 that goes into the pockets of staff and to pay the running costs ,no one in their right mind would be happy with that.
SunnyChick
18-Mar-11, 11:11
Before supporting a charity, it's good to have an idea of how they work and their set up. There is a register of charities in Scotland, and all scottish registered charities should display their charity number when doing any fundraising. (Being on the register means they have been verified as a bonafide charity. Also I think that if you looked on the register of charities, then you may be able to find out some more info about a particular group).
Charities can't run on thin air. Most of the larger ones will need to have some paid staff, and then a large number of supporting volunteers to make it work.
If someone telephones me asking for money, as seems to happen more and more often, then I refrain. It upsets me, people begging me to sign into a contract where I have to commit to giving them £120 over the course of a year, to educate a child in a poor country (very worthy cause - but I have my own children to raise, and their education to invest in).
Gleeber - I am also always polite to them, but I hate it that they have this infinite ability to make me feel guilty!
I dont understand how you would or could be happy knowing that only 20% was going to the folk that the charity was set up to benefit .This Charity turns over £1.8 million and £1,440,000.00 that goes into the pockets of staff and to pay the running costs ,no one in their right mind would be happy with that.
I am with gleeber on this subject, 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Many of the larger charities have to be run like businesses, and staff have to be paid, not all staff in these businesses can work for nothing, the running costs have to be found and funded from somewhere, these charities cannot run on fresh air.
NickInTheNorth
18-Mar-11, 11:19
so how about naming the charity concerned so we can all make an informed comment on the situation.
I dont understand how you would or could be happy knowing that only 20% was going to the folk that the charity was set up to benefit .This Charity turns over £1.8 million and £1,440,000.00 that goes into the pockets of staff and to pay the running costs ,no one in their right mind would be happy with that.
What do you expect? Full time staff working for free? Landlords not getting rent? Energy companies not getting fuel paid? Under that logic charities would not need to fundraise in the first place!
no one in their right mind would be happy with that.
:eek:
If my life depended on it I would probably say Im not happy but as it doesnt I can be more pragmatic about it. Not only is the charities object getting a picking but the wheels of capitalism are being oiled by supplying work for it's staff and buildings are being rented and cleaners are employed and landlords are making a killing.
Its an ill divided world.
I can understand dozy’s concern about how charities use their funds. If he/she were to involve themselves in the charity itself he/she would see that there is more to their work than running a few projects for the disadvantaged. Projects need management and skilled managers cost money. Few people are going to involve themselves in a career for purely altruistic reasons when they have families to support and mortgages to pay. Charities are forbidden to politicize campaigns since it would jeopardise their status and so their lobbying has to be carefully orchestrated, a skill in itself. The large well known charities are good at what they do because they employ skilled professionals.
One of the reason charities make such an effort to recruit regular donors is because of the Gift Aid Scheme. This is a method whereby they can increase the value of monetary gifts from UK taxpayers by claiming back the basic rate tax paid by the donor. Here (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/basics.htm) are the details.
Dozy has a point
'The British Heart Foundation (BHF) makes sure every penny we receive is spent on things that we believe could make a real difference to you and your family. That means out of every £1: - 56p is invested in pioneering research to help fight heart disease - 27p is invested in prevention and care to benefit patients and their families - 16p is invested in generating income - 1p is invested in keeping the charity working efficiently and effectively.'
An interesting link: http://www.smallcharitydirectory.co.uk/what-percentage-of-donations-go-to-charity.html
SunnyChick
18-Mar-11, 12:29
Ha ha - everytime I see "Nick in the North's" menacing grin I think, "oooh here comes the spoon". ;)
Just teasing - I think his Avatar is ace and definately suits him!
orkneycadian
18-Mar-11, 12:45
If someone telephones me asking for money, as seems to happen more and more often, then I refrain.
Maybe these charities could run more efficiently then if they didn't repeatedly waste wages and call charges on perpetual nuisance phone calls?
orkneycadian
18-Mar-11, 12:49
Ha ha - everytime I see "Nick in the North's" menacing grin I think, "oooh here comes the spoon". ;)
Just teasing - I think his Avatar is ace and definately suits him!
Dunno - I have Avatars switched off in my preferences, so I don't need to look at pictures of folks kids staring out at me! Same with signature files.
A charity is not a charity when it fails to conform to the regulations layed down for it in law.
http://www.oscr.org.uk/
Do you think some one is breaking these regulations dozy?.....or are you just grinding a personal axe???
babajane32
18-Mar-11, 17:48
Maybe it's time all charities had to go "transparent" (I detest that word - but) and issued an annual % figure of income to go to the charitable cause/destination. updatable annually.
There are definately fat cat aspects to some charities where people are employed at an executive rate far beyond the measurable benefit of having them within the company. There are also many charities that do have lighting,fuel,transports costs , rent etc to pay that may use a chunk of the money, and whilst even 1 % of something is better than 100% of nothing, a charity that gets close to single figures being passed on either is not operating anything like a good buisness plan or are indeed not playing cricket.
At least if they were to be required to list their costs amount or the % passed on the donors would be able to make an informed choice as to which charity would be best to give to and indeed may encourage better business practices.
Dozy has a point
'The British Heart Foundation (BHF) makes sure every penny we receive is spent on things that we believe could make a real difference to you and your family. That means out of every £1: - 56p is invested in pioneering research to help fight heart disease - 27p is invested in prevention and care to benefit patients and their families - 16p is invested in generating income - 1p is invested in keeping the charity working efficiently and effectively.'
An interesting link: http://www.smallcharitydirectory.co.uk/what-percentage-of-donations-go-to-charity.html
That didn't come about overnight. They are a very large charity. Smaller charities must pay a larger proportion of their income on running costs.
oldmarine
18-Mar-11, 20:00
When does a Charity break the rules on "being a Charity" as we would know it .Would you say its still a Charity when its spends 42% for its income on Wages ,25% on offices and cars,13% on loans and interest and only" 20%" on making life better for the folk that should be at the center ,after all its suppose to be run for their benefit ..What if running it this way is against all the rules ,would you speak up .So "when is Charity not a Charity"
A good question. Is the answer "when a person uses another person's money?"
Alice in Blunderland
18-Mar-11, 20:12
Oh dear we have a charity in Wick that spends no money, does no fundraising ( at present ) and refuses applications from would be helpers and fundraisers but hey its still a charity. ;) On the up side it could never be accused of wasting money on unnecessary costs. ::D
I know, yet another bleeding link: http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html
but it gives an insight into the pay of the CEO's (The old Sally bash does well)
It's a bit confusing really. Not all charities give money. Say a charity is running a project to help disadvantaged young people access activities which improve their health or social behaviour. They have to pay an instructor, they have a volunteer who does the admin but they have phone bills and postage costs even if they work out of someone's garage. They may have office space costs too. If, however, all of these costs are going towards the ultimate goal of improving the lot of children with health and social problems; if their wages are not over generous; if their office is not over priced; if all these things are costing money is it not money well spent?
SunnyChick
19-Mar-11, 11:09
If, however, all of these costs are going towards the ultimate goal of improving the lot of children with health and social problems; if their wages are not over generous; if their office is not over priced; if all these things are costing money is it not money well spent?
Agreed!!!!
Agreed!!!!
How about if we do it this way ,just to see the response .If i asked you to sponser me in a 10k run for cancer research and you give me a £20.00 donation .What would you say if i keep £16.00 for it for food ,trainers and nice a tee shirt and only pass on the remaining £4.00 ...
Would you feel that it was only fair because i have to pay bills as well and after all its me doing the work, or do you feel that i have cheated you out for £16.00 ..
Things should be made clearer by Charities if they stated that 50p in every £1.00 taken get directly to the end user ,that way you could choose not to sponser the ones with 1p goes to the end user .
How can it be a Charity when its the folk that run it get ALL the benefits ,when that happens (i my eye's ) "its a scam" not a charity
It's a bit confusing really. Not all charities give money. Say a charity is running a project to help disadvantaged young people access activities which improve their health or social behaviour. They have to pay an instructor, they have a volunteer who does the admin but they have phone bills and postage costs even if they work out of someone's garage. They may have office space costs too. If, however, all of these costs are going towards the ultimate goal of improving the lot of children with health and social problems; if their wages are not over generous; if their office is not over priced; if all these things are costing money is it not money well spent?
Squidge is right. There are different types of charities. For example, there are community swimming pools which are registered charities and are able to draw on funds from many organisations as well as raising revenue through coffee mornings, sponsorship, raffles, etc. They do not pass on money to the needy but provide a service to the community.
so how about naming the charity concerned so we can all make an informed comment on the situation.
Perhaps, as NickinTheNorth says, you could let us know which charity you are concerned about? Apologies if you have already responded to his post - perhaps I have missed it?
How about if we do it this way ,just to see the response .If i asked you to sponser me in a 10k run for cancer research and you give me a £20.00 donation .What would you say if i keep £16.00 for it for food ,trainers and nice a tee shirt and only pass on the remaining £4.00 ...
Would you feel that it was only fair because i have to pay bills as well and after all its me doing the work, or do you feel that i have cheated you out for £16.00 ..
Things should be made clearer by Charities if they stated that 50p in every £1.00 taken get directly to the end user ,that way you could choose not to sponser the ones with 1p goes to the end user .
How can it be a Charity when its the folk that run it get ALL the benefits ,when that happens (i my eye's ) "its a scam" not a charity
I would probably call you a selfish git! When you fundraise you do so as a volunter. With cancer research as an example, what would you consider to be the end user? Cancer reasearch in a very large charity. It needs full time staff to manage, lead and undertake its finances, stratagies, marketing, administration and research. Some of the scientific equipment used costs over £1million but its not going to cure cancer over night.
Although you heart is in the right place I don't think you appreciate what it actually takes to make a charity work.
Bill Fernie
19-Mar-11, 23:54
When does a Charity break the rules on "being a Charity" as we would know it .Would you say its still a Charity when its spends 42% for its income on Wages ,25% on offices and cars,13% on loans and interest and only" 20%" on making life better for the folk that should be at the center ,after all its suppose to be run for their benefit ..What if running it this way is against all the rules ,would you speak up .So "when is Charity not a Charity"
I am not clear what the thrust of your question is asking. If it is to imply that there is something wrong with spending 42% on wages then I am slightly at a loss. As Squidge has said "Not all charities give money. Say a charity is running a project to help disadvantaged young people access activities which improve their health or social behaviour. They have to pay an instructor, they have a volunteer who does the admin but they have phone bills and postage costs......"
Perhaps it is your overworked sense of cheating as in your other posts such as on Damn Lies and Cover Up http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?138181-Dam-lies-and-Cover-up
Some of examples that I am connected to might illustrate as local charities where I am involved -
All of them have staff and volunteers.
HomeStart Caithness
I am the chairman and a director of the group as an unpaid volunteer in both capacities. We have other directors all unpaid and we have a number of volunteers who deliver a service to families with young children. The paid staff are senior co-ordinator, coordinator and an admin person who are paid. We get grants from the Health service and the council. We make reports To HomeStart UK and have agreements with the Health service and the council as to what services we will deliver. A high proportion of our funds go in wages and expenses. Note neither myself or the other directors have claimed any expenses. Our volunteers and staff are entitled to claim their travel expenses to visit families. We incur some costs in training in addition to our running costs. We publish annual audited accounts submitted to OSCR.
More details about our work can be found at http://www.caithness.org/community/healthandwelfare/homestart1.htm
Laurandy Day Care Centre
I am a committee memebr and director (unpaid) and have never claimed any expenses.
Again we run services for the elderly and we pay staff to run the service and have the help of dedicated volunteers who are not paid.
We have a service level agreement with the council and the health board for the serivces we deliver to frail elderly people. Our services include meals and baths and showers to folk who have difficulty living on their own due to their frailty. We organise their transport to our centre near Wick airport with a minibus.
Our staff are paid and we have all the usual expenses of running a building to pay and for food costs.
So a high proportion of our money is spent on wages. Again our audited accounts are submitted annually to OSCR
See more about Laurandy at http://www.caithness.org/community/healthandwelfare/laurandycentre/index.htm
I have just last week ceased to be a director and committee member of Highland Housing and Community Care Trust who also employed one part time member of staff for most of its years of existence. We wound up the charity last week after 13 years. We built 41 house for the elderly and disabled around the Highlands. We handed over our homes to housing associations and developed some schemes aimed at alleviating the problems associated with povery and renting a house on low incomes particularly those on benefits. I was one of the founding directors when it was set up and was very glad to have served on it for 13 years. We handed £100,000 to Highland council's housing department to run a scheme we had set up connected to rents to assist our communities and the council will administer the fund into the future for the purpose we set it up for. We also donated £58,000 to Highland Housing Alliance being a charity with similar purpose in assisting people in need to get a home. Again our accounts were submitted annually to OSCR. Without staff costs we would not have been able to function. We raised several million pounds mainly from grants over the years to build the houses and carry out other works. A couple of days ago I received a copy of the minutes of our final meeting.
Previously I have been a committee member of Highland Community Care Forum as a directors and committee member as well as being on the local community care forum as a committee member. Again a lot of the funds were spent on wages to paid staff who carried out work on our behalf.
I have given these examples that I am closely connected with to show that there are many places that pay out a high proportion of their fund in wages and salaries and other expenses to deliver many valuable services. There is not always an ulterior motive as your posts seem to imply. Indeed both the volunteers and the staff who are often paid fairly modest amounts carry out the services in the best interests of our communities. I and the other committee members and fund raisers do so for the reason that we want to make life better for as many people in our areas as we can.
Across Caithness, the Highlands and the rest of Scotland there are thousands of charities delivering many needed services. A high proportion have expenses such as wages and salaries and in any charity where services are the main purpose as opposed to distributing funds then the percentage will be heavily weighted to wages the highest cost in any service led organisation including the council.
I am sure we could always use another member on our committees if you would like to volunteer.
How about if we do it this way ,just to see the response .If i asked you to sponser me in a 10k run for cancer research and you give me a £20.00 donation .What would you say if i keep £16.00 for it for food ,trainers and nice a tee shirt and only pass on the remaining £4.00 ...
Would you feel that it was only fair because i have to pay bills as well and after all its me doing the work, or do you feel that i have cheated you out for £16.00 ..
Things should be made clearer by Charities if they stated that 50p in every £1.00 taken get directly to the end user ,that way you could choose not to sponser the ones with 1p goes to the end user .
How can it be a Charity when its the folk that run it get ALL the benefits ,when that happens (i my eye's ) "its a scam" not a charity
You've made your point dozy.
At the end of the day the donor makes a choice whether or not to support a given charity. They/You have a free choice and if you are in any doubt there are avenues you can pursue to find out everything you need to know.
If you want detailed information about a charity in Scotland you can go here (http://www.oscr.org.uk/)
If you want detailed information about a charity in England or Wales you can go here (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/)
You will find that all charities will provide you will a copy of their last annual account (probably for a small fee).
If you wish to know more about the charity, its work, its campaigning, its accounts, then visit the appropriate registration authority and ask.
If you feel so strongly that a charity is a ‘scam’ then don’t support it ‘simples**
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/index.aspx
deal with charities in England and Wales- and have the overview for the whole of the UK
http://www.oscr.org.uk/
deal with the picture in Scotland
What i can't understand is. All the charities that ask for donations for equipment for safe water.
This has been going on for umpteen years. Why has the problem not been sorted yet. Where is the money going.
I am not being funny, thid is a genuine question.
What i can't understand is. All the charities that ask for donations for equipment for safe water.
This has been going on for umpteen years. Why has the problem not been sorted yet. Where is the money going.
I am not being funny, thid is a genuine question.
There are a hell of a lot of places that don't have clean, safe, fresh drinking water. Plus once you have the equipment installed it still needs to be maintained.
What i can't understand is. All the charities that ask for donations for equipment for safe water.
This has been going on for umpteen years. Why has the problem not been sorted yet. Where is the money going.
I am not being funny, thid is a genuine question.
Charities have been active across the African continent for as long as I can remember. I can only imagine poor governance is responsible for not allowing these countries to develop adequately. It would be interesting to know how many sub Sahara politicians have very large deposits in bank accounts all over Europe,:confused[disgust]
Shabbychic
22-Mar-11, 15:52
When is a Charity not a Charity? When it becomes a multimillion-pound business (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/30/salvation-army-profits-kettering-textiles). :eek:
Charities have been active across the African continent for as long as I can remember. I can only imagine poor governance is responsible for not allowing these countries to develop adequately. It would be interesting to know how many sub Sahara politicians have very large deposits in bank accounts all over Europe,:confused[disgust]
This is what i mean. How long do you go on, plowing money into something, that the corrupt goverments are spending.
This is what i mean. How long do you go on, plowing money into something, that the corrupt goverments are spending.
Check the video link titled £346 on Thurso Lifeboats FB now thats a real charity closer to home, and gives you the breakdown on what the money is spent on.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001833608833
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.