UKC

Why have so many charities started asking for specific (large) amounts of money or monthly donations. I can't help but feel
that this is counter productive.

In reply to GridNorth:

If a charity has a monthly donation it means it can plan ahead in terms of what its income will be, meaning it can start programmes knowing there'll be funding coming in regularly.

If they ask you for £20/month and you're on 22k, which is roughly average, that would work out as around 1% of your income going to charity. That's not actually very much really.

In reply to seankenny:

Except they don't know what other charities you give to.

We give a few quid a month to a few charities by DD, and they sometimes ring up and ask for more! Cheeky bastards!

In reply to seankenny:

The problem is though that I think it will put people off. Someone called at my house last week on behalf of the local air ambulance service. I said that I could not /would not commit to a monthly direct debit but was happy to make a donation but he was unable to accept it.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:



They did that to my elderly mother, started off with a very few pounds then calked her up pressurising her to increase her donation.

I got her to cancel, she gets confused, and how would we be sure that they would not exploit her generosity , again and again.

SOME Charities are just another big business, with large offices, and huge pay cheques for the management. In the worst cases little of the money goes to the intended recipients, and huge amounts go to ' administration and salaries'

I am a fairly generous, but careful giver.

In reply to Jim C:


Totally agree, at the fundraising end its big business, pushy and competitive bonus driven world. They do great work, but how they do it is questionable.

In reply to IainRUK:

Plus the exemption from corp. tax makes it a no-brainer to be a 'charity'

In reply to Jim C:


Just some?

Apart from the local charities that do live and die on a shoestring budge and frayed nerves of the hard working volunteers, all the major names on the high-street and those that can afford to advertise on Channels like 'Dave' are businesses.

In reply to Jim C:
I really agree with your point.

My 87 year mother is often on the phone really upset because she feels she can't keep up with all the envelopes and telephone requests she receives on a constant basis.

The plaguing of elderly, vulnerable people is morally objectionable

In reply to Babika:




Get her a recording caller display phone, Babika, and tell her only to answer the numbers she recognises.
Other than that those she can let it go to answer phone, where you set the message to say that you don't want any cold calls, they will be very unlikely to leave a recorded message if they are cold calling.

( and put her on the caller preference service)
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2012/10/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/

In reply to The Lemming:



I prefer to support local charities, I can go along and actually see where my money goes.
Overseas charities I leave to Government to donate on my behalf ( via my taxes) .

I have been sounding off about India accepting aid, and their Nuclear and space programme for years, glad to see that it is being addressed. For me they were incomparable with accepting foreign aid ( particularly as India said they did not need our aid money.

In reply to The Lemming:



Having worked in both business and charities, I can assure you that charities aren't really like businesses, though they do strive to be professional. This includes paying the people who work for them - many of whom take a pay cut in order to do so.

In reply to Jim C:


I can see why people do this but there's nothing wrong with supporting big charities and my personal thoughts are that it's better to split whatever you can and support both. However much money is "wasted" by big charities a lot of people would be f*cked without them, save the children has saved millions of kids lives for example. I can't say I've looked into what percentage of donation money gets swallowed up in bureaucracy but whatever it is it's probably not enough to be worth cancelling a donation over.

I haven't got any experience of the bigger charities but I would guess they're largely not staffed by people who are out to grab money and exploit peoples good intentions. More likely I think running a large charity is just a cash hole pain in the arse of jumping through bureaucratic hoops and trying to stay on the right side of the law with very little money to start with. They can have my donation anyway, it's only a drop in the ocean of what's needed.

In reply to Sharp:

I give to charities, but will not commit myself to the TV ads regular donations of £5 per month etc. I think
1/ they ask too much, it would be better if they left it up to you how much you give, especially on a regular basis.
2/ the needy most charities change from day to day due to world changes, climatic considerations etc
3/ Some charities are founded to help specific global events, e.g. Syria, I prefer to let the truth unfold before I send off my hard earned cash.

In reply to Sharp:

Incidently I put my money where my mouth is and went to Bosnia to work for Save/Feed the Children, did not just sit at home being righteous and send £5 a month out to the cause.

In reply to GridNorth:

>...I can't help but feel that this is counter productive.

I wonder if charity chief executive salaries are counter productive, I just don't know:

http://society.theguardian.com/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

In reply to abseil:




The guides at the bottom are helpful sorted by turnover etc, tells a better story, and paints a better picture.

In reply to Al Evans:


Good on you, something I would like to do when I retire.
How did you find it worked over there, is the money wisely spent? ( like they did not waste money and put you up in fancy accommodation or anything)

Are they short of helpers?

In reply to Jim C:


???????

HTH could anyone be dumb enough think that turnover is a sensible way to judge the performance of charities?

In reply to Jim C:

To be completely honest I was being paid my salary by ITV when I was out there and was mostly involved in publicity, but from everything I saw all the aid got through to where it was intended. The people driving volunteer trucks full of goods were directed by UNPROFOR to exactly where they needed to be, at least in Bosnia the aid got to where it needed to be got.

In reply to GridNorth:

It's certainly worth doing a bit of research on how and where the money is spent I think, E.g the recent scandal involving the RSPB, which I personally found really disappointing.

I'll certainly be more careful in the future

In reply to Sharp:

Exactly, any foreign aid is going to have huge overheads.. it's unavoidable. They still do great work.

In reply to timjones:


Dunno, how can anyone be dumb enough to think that a table of salaries by turnover is in anyway a judgement of anything but how much of the turnover generated is spent on salaries?

Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund Andrew Purkis! salary 78,740, turnover only 4.0 million so £ 19.69 per thousand raised spent on the salary !

Four lousy million, and a large salary like that seems way out of kilter with most of the the others, but there may be reasons ( anyone know?)

In reply to Al Evans:


And here was me thinking that you were bunking up in a cheap hostel

But anyway good to hear that good work was being done. It is , however, always difficult to gauge if what is being done is close what could be done, (if all the money raised ended up where the donors expected it , (ie not swallowed up in admin)

In reply to blurty:


??link?? I'm curious about this. They claim that 90p in the £ goes on the birds, not admin.

Sx

In reply to Sarah G:
Yes, but what kind of birds? ;-0