Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Are there any?
more than enough for what they need.
isn't the RSPCA the most donated to in the country. mad
Cancer Research UK receive about 4 times as much. Oxfam, Save the Children, the RNLI, Macmillan, the NSPCC - to name a few - all receive more too.
And while I find it frustrating the amount that animal charities get ahead of other causes, in fairness to the RSPCA they practically provide a statutory service in terms of their cruelty prevention and rescue stuff.
CRUK earn more than 99% of UK charities through Race For Life alone. Income's around £100m for that fella ain't it? (Only about 15 charities in the UK have an income above that I think)
and in slow decline for a while I believe.
To be honest I've had the `Race for Life = £100m` bants in my head unchallenged for about 5 years now - unsurprising that it's dwindled. And that's fair enough, the overwhelming majority of these mass participation gigs peak and then plateau. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Wonder also if Race for Life doesn't sit quite right in these `resurgent times for feminism` or however you wish to phrase it. What with it being a woman only event and all.
donations/publicity to potential beneficiaries. Especially considering the existence of existing forces charities (RBL, etc)
as opposed to a `scale of problem` level.
Your observation is a fair one, but the amount of opprobrium Help for Heroes get for their existence and efficiency is quite galling (even if they are despairing all the way to the bank etc. etc.).
But I think it would be easy to fall into thinking they are unworthy of your money because of the people and the social attitudes you assume they're trying to appeal to. It's worth bearing in mind the huge problems that ex-servicemen and women have in later life in terms of physical and mental health, homelessness, unemployment and social exclusion, and how we as a society should be fucking ashamed that anyone doesn't get adequate help for these issues, but especially so if those problems have been caused in the defence of our safety, even if you personally don't sign up to the terms of that defence.
'I know some stuff but can't post it' teaser posts, I'm afraid.
arguing that incidents of mental health issues etc in ex-service people broadly equate to those in the wider population. And that perpetuating otherwise negatively effects perceptions/employment prospects and so on...
Bunce for Balonz
if you're donating to them instead of donating to the Royal British Legion, you're probably a thundershit of epic proportions
Charity exists almost as much to the benefit of those that support it, as it does to those who need it. Bluntly put - giving to charity is an act that has benevolent consequences, but it is an inherently selfish act. It is as much about making ourselves feel better, as it is others.
Why do you think people feel good when they give money to charity?
Human beings are hard wired to give. We are naturally predisposed to want to help those who are suffering. It's a biological impulse. It is absolutely not a criticism, although I feel you've misinterpreted it as one.
When people give money to charity - they feel good. Are you really querying that?
not as a criticism of any charity or trying to say `some people give better to charity than others`.
'inherently selfish'. If being good to others makes you feel good, that's not the same as being inherently selfish. Even if people only give so they feel good, it's still not really selfish, because the reason they feel good is to do with the giving in the first place.
It's like saying 'saving someone from a burning house fire' is an inherently selfish act because you might feel pride in what you did afterwards. Just makes no sense when you put it under any kind of scrutiny.
I was using the word `selfish` a bit too casually/inaccurately there in retrospect. Happy to change it to something else (someone else can think of a more suitable word, I'm too tired).
reading it back my very clumsy wording has undermined my point entirely. Which is frustrating.
did you mean something along the lines of it not really mattering if someone donates money to an inefficient charity because at the absolute worst they still feel positively about what they've done?
Cause I'd go along with that. Donating money to the worst charity will probably still be one of the best things you do any given day.
It was more saying that charitable giving is largely driven by the motivations/sympathies of the people who do it, meaning that any argument about the worthiness of various charities is inherently pointless.
But I agree with your statement there also :)
The charity status of private schools has always been an anomaly/blot on the charitable landscape which I conveniently choose to ignore when making bold assertions about `charity` and whatnot but... yeah I can't really argue against that, to be honest.
There was some air ambulance appeal fairly recently that turned out to be a completely pointless shambles, but seemingly run by well meaning idiots rather than crooks. But I suppose things like that come down to the Charity Commission rather than the concept of charity so *shrug*.
Setting up a charity isn't the easiest thing in the world to do mind. But a lot of people think that all you need to do to run a charity is have a amateurish fervour of benevolence and self-sacrifice so...
Robbing Peter to pay Paul in a lot of instances also.
He must be minted
rather than doing something useful to resolve it.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. Most lefty charities are more interested in political positioning over practicalities.
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth both do their campaigning through non-charitable organisations. Aren't you meant to know about this sort of stuff?
Now that's a truth-bomb.
Bit of a fashion amongst wet-end Tories these days to get a bit weepy at charity campaigning... usually Oxfam and Save the Children and their international development chums are the ones getting it in the neck though - not Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (two of the greatest campaigning organisations ever created).
left by the shortfall in essential services, rather than advocating that the shortfall doesn't occur in the first place.
and use them to make all of their campaigning literature.
People are free to do what they want with their money though and who are we to judge.
Easy mistake to make
I mean, if everyone actually put effort in to helping their fellow humans around them or doing something to better the world, then that would have a much greater impact, but it's a lot easier to pick a cause you like the sound of, chuck some money at it and tell yourself that you're a good person.
There are a lot of charities that do a lot of valuable work, but there are also a lot that squander and use the donations they get not entirely appropriately too.
Given that I actually worked for a 'marketing' company in my younger days (for a very short time as it made me fucking sick to my stomach) that supplied these people to reputable charities, and seeing the eyewatering amounts they paid these people, as well as some of the things that the people were encouraged to say to the public (Seriously, we can't say or promise this... *wink*)
Not to mention the relatively well documented salaries of some high up members of certain charities.
I mean if people would rather take the easier option and do the whole exercise in guilt assuasion, then I'm not going to judge anyone for it. A couple of clicks on a website is easy, and since having crohn's I have donated to several crohn's charities, fundraised and also offered them some help on the side, so I'm not saying I'm above anyone else with this.
most effective way (in terms of money in vs money out) to fundraise that there is.
People don't like them because they don't like to be reminded of their privileged position and made to feel guilty.
the outlay involved in paying people on the street and making calls from call centres offers the best return and is the most effective way to get long-term funding commitments (via direct debit and memberships).
it's the most effective?
Perhaps they worked for charities where huge events and campaigns weren't viable, but then again, I suspect that's the case for virtually all charities.
legacies, major donors, companies, etc. - all of which are more effective forms of fundraising. Your friends must work for some really weird charities where they can afford street fundraising but none of the above.
"the most effective way (in terms of money in vs money out) to fundraise that there is."
This thread is all about who to and how people give their own money to charities.
have made an appearance to say something slightly odd about the charity sector also.
...but fair enough, if you're purely talking about raising money from the general public. Encouraging supporters to set up Direct Debits is the most beneficial medium-to-long term source of funding for charities. And street fundraising is the best method of getting it. It's expensive in Year 1 but looking at 3-5 year returns you get a handsome ROI for the most part.
The most cost-effective thing you can do with them is encourage them to leave money in their will I'd argue but we're getting into niche territory here.
Whilst I agree with your concerns about street fundraising *practice* (some of it is fucking shameful), the fact of the matter is that charities operate on a 3-5 year return on that method of fundraising. And it generates more money for most charities than it costs. Why would a charity knowingly engage in fundraising practice that LOST it money? Doesn’t make any sense.
Also – how much should senior members of charity staff/Chief Executives be paid? Many charities would be grateful for your guidance, I'm sure.
but "chugging" usually brings in £2 to £3 for every £1 invested in it.
Most companies would bite your arm off to 'squander' their money like that, wouldn't they?
IU know they wouldn't continue doing it if they were making a loss, but in a lot of ways I see investment in unethical practices as squandering, for want of a better term, as that wouldn't be what I donated for. They could also go and gamble, invest in stocks or do any number of other things with that money as well that would potentially increase it, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
They wouldn't be acting in the interests of their beneficiaries if they didn't.
Leads to MEGABANTS like Comic Relief investing in arms industries and whatnot.
Because you didn't donate for them to do that. That's rather short-term.
about not wanting to actually directly help anyone.
It's almost as if propagating inaccurate and negative statements about charities have made people less inclined to give to them and led to them being able to help fewer people as a result...
Also - you didn't answer my above question, how much do you think senior members of charity staff should be paid?
but you wanted to focus on the statement. I still think if people were less inclined to be lazy the world would be better, but that's opinion really.
How much? a living wage I suppose, I suppose it depends on the charity and their work/contribution. Lower base rate, higher bonuses on charity successes that they had direct involvement with perhaps?
with thousands of staff and millions of supporters and beneficiaries on £9.15 a hour?
Can't really argue with that :D
the more the Execs would be allowed to trouser. That would be a great incentive to donate!
Because we're all fine with bonuses aren't we!
rather than people helped? interesting.
when losing an argument while simultaneously being exposed as a money grabbing, capitalist, women, children, old and sick kicking worst cunt.
Yes, I'm really sorry, he's embarrassing himself again. Yes, I know, again! Can you pick him up please? No, no need to apologise, it's not your fault, well not entirely..."
why invest even more in curing and aiding sufferers of cancer, when you could give employees a bit more money to get pissed at the weekend?
Glib but inarguable point, admittedly.
A Fundraising Director at a large national charity will be responsible for about... 100 staff and a turnover of about... £100 million or so. Be interesting to see what type of person you'll get in doing that for £8.80 an hour.
of a 'living wage' :D
Several of my friends who work at the Living Wage Campaign thing told me a figure that was a year out of date!! http://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation
Next time I see them they're getting what for!
a living wage =/= Living Wage™
Beautifully subjective. Although given what I know about your taste in suits I can imagine that your idea of a `living wage` is pretty close to that of high-flying charity executives :D
Now I think we're making real progress.
How many new suits a year? I imagine a lot of meetings, so either it's factored in to the wage, or they get a grant for a new suit for every quarter?
More lives saved = a fresh Armani for every trustees meeting.
100 points for a medical breakthrough
5 points for a child's life saved
3 for an adults?
Maybe like a posh nectar system - then you can redeem 1 point = 1 pound at the menswear department of Harrod's?
Although many senior managers in charities are women and you've gone all gender normative on our arse there so... I don't think this is a venture I could support.
I wish you every success with it b d
I was running out of steam myself.
many wages don't come from public donations but via grants and more behind the scenes stuff, so when places say "99% of donations go directly to *charitable goal*", that's what they mean.
rereading, I suppose I didn't make that clear.
Children in Need being a good example.
to act as a lobbying group.
Not sure on up to date figures (and some charities might have cleaned up their act), but Asthma UK, Alzheimers Society and Beating Bowel Cancer were ones from my experience that were quite significantly funded by pharma
"Asthma UK, Alzheimers Society and Beating Bowel Cancer were ones from my experience that were quite significantly funded by pharma"
So `being funded` by pharma companies and being `lobby groups` for pharma companies are one and the same right?
I'd say protesting government organisations and mobilising members to bombard them with letters and protesting outside offices to fund expensive drugs is being a lobby group. These charities always protest at the NHS, and not at the pharma companies to lower their prices - strange that.
These charities spend a huge amount of cash (fundraised and pharma-donated) on "government policy" work. These charities have a seat at high level discussions about drug regulation and approval and members are extensively trained to be persuasive 'patient experts' at these discussions.
The whole area is very murky. But like I said, I've not been directly involved in this area of my work for the last couple of years so it could all be very different - but personally I doubt it.
I'm sure there are some examples of bad practice like the ones you mention above. But you're oversimplifying a) the rigorous processes most charities have in place re: corporate (especially pharma!) funding and b) the relationship between how that money comes in and how it influences the charities messaging. Often, the corporate fundraising team will have absolutely nothing to do with the campaigning team or whatever. So to suggest there's some kind of joined up plot which filters down to individual lobbying decisions is pretty rum for the most part. Not saying it doesn't ever happen, but it's not as widerife as you suggest based on my experience.
I have to be careful what I post on here, but there have been clear issues in the past where the predominant activity of a charity has been to mobilise protests and campaign/lobbying (whatever you want to call it). I find it disappointing that charities ask their members to act in this way because in many cases it's to build false hope. However the constant pressure and 'wearing down' that comes from it has had an insidious effect.
Some of these charities have been significantly funded by pharma, and irrespective of what they say in their mission statements or financing policy or whatever, it's clear that they have a close relationship with pharma and pharma have exploited that. I've seen it first hand.
Like I said - there's always instances of bad practice, which deserve to be castigated at every turn. And I'm sure the examples of it you've seen have been gutwrenching, but it doesn't tally with my experience of working within 2 medical charities (I saw no evidence of this happening) I must say.
Also - am I right in thinking you're not based in the UK? Are you commenting on UK charities mainly here?
I've seen them do amazing work and have been funded by and worked closely with some amazing charities and inspiring staff. So my experience isn't at all purely negative.
However there is a worrying and subtle issue about the influence that pharma can have through charities and patient groups, even though many have clear and transparent policies about how they raise and spend funds. My original post didn't intend to offend people (like yourself) involved in medical charities, but yeah I'll admit it was bait ;-)
it's lead to an interesting chat and me learning more about an issue I didn't know a massive amount about. So that's always good!
Will definitely have a crack at the reading material suggested too.
As always bad practice is the exception and not the norm - doesn't mean it shouldn't be reasonable exposed and destroyed where possible. Especially in a field such as what we're talking about where inappropriate information about treatments is a definite problem.
of the relevant sections of Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Pharma'.
Pharma puts in a lot of funding where they think it will do them the most benefit. And all the studies done of organisations and individuals that receive this funding show that said organisations and individuals are many times more likely to espouse the views of the pharmaceutical company and endorse its latest product.
This is of course because Pharma will choose to support people who already agree with it, but the process is insidious.
Ben Goldacre's a very respectable source too so I'll seek that out :)
many people are either surprised to hear we're a charity or they don't think we (the arts sector) deserve to hold charitable status.
both for free because they didn't have enough people sign up to make them worthwhile running.
I met Michael M. Kaiser at the first one. Top bloke.
But yeah so far so good, just a shame the attendance has been quite low for the ones outside London.
someone always tells me that they're wankers and are hoarding money in an offshore bank account and only giving the interest to whatever they're supposed to give the money to
so i just don't bother
easier, isn't it? (for me)
in Tesco or something.
the thing is that i left all the money i have spare in my other wallet today but i'll try and remember to look this up when i next feel like doing something nice
Biggest charity of them all.
Fink about it.
do some work Geoff
Boss wouldn't stop going on about how hard-working and dedicated I've been since I've started this job. She was lapping it up.
Why Do I Keep On Getting Away With This?? :(
can we organise that?
It's hard. I don't have targets or have to cold call anyone or anything, mostly research or applying for funding with paperwork or whatever. But it's still like getting blood out of a stone.
And yes while the answer is generally all charities are deserving of your money, if we sorted out the frankly shameful conduct of some of the biggest companies in the country and got them to contribute more it wouldn't be such a problem.