I want to donate to a charity where the money will go entirely to the person in need (e.g. cancer)

[LettuceBeFree]

I want to donate to a charity where the money will go almost entirely to the person in need - I'm especially wanting to donate to a cancer research, cancer care, etc. type charity.

My concern is that a lot of charities seem to use the donations they receive to line the pockets of millionaire senior management staff, CEOs etc. with only a small fraction actually going to those in need. I want to avoid "charities" like that.

Please let me know of some genuine charities (esp for cancer) that you know for sure don't do this.

How about donating to a smaller organisation such as your local hospice?
If you don't feel comfortable with donations potentially paying the salary of someone who works for a charity, maybe you could offer to buy a piece of equipment?

And how do you think giving money directly to a cancer patient will help cancer research?

Surely you can see that the money needs to be spent on scientists, equipment, labs, transport for samples, lab technicians, payroll staff to pay them, procurement people to buy the equipment, mechanics to service the fleet vehicles...

All charities have to pay staff wages and will have admin costs though. As PP says I would look for a small local charity. I only donate to small local charities my family has personal experience with.

Surely you can see that the money needs to be spent on scientists, equipment, labs, transport for samples, lab technicians, payroll staff to pay them, procurement people to buy the equipment, mechanics to service the fleet vehicles

This. Staff need someone to look after their computers, database, admin staff to pay the researchers, building staff.

This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum

Not a cancer charity but 100% of donations to Caudwell Children goes towards helping families, not on wages or overheads.

How do you expect any of the activities you describe (research, care) to take place without paying people to do the research or deliver the care? Even smaller charities have management, legal and administrative responsibilities.

You might as well just find a token person with cancer who has a Go Fund Me, but then of course there’s no oversight or guarantee that any of it is genuine...

My concern is that a lot of charities seem to use the donations they receive to line the pockets of millionaire senior management staff, CEOs etc. with only a small fraction actually going to those in need. I want to avoid "charities" like that

Would you consider giving to a charity where the Chief Officer is underpaid for the valuable work she does?

Smaller / local charity / hospice / hospital charity?

Even Go Fund Me has administrative fees.

Running any charity or business is not free. You need to look at each charity’s pence in the pound.

“Charity Choice said the top 100 charities spent an average of 78p in every pound on their charitable activities, while 21p was spent raising more income.”

There are no such people as millionaire managers in the charity sector.

Do you apply the same principles to your choice to buy something from a private company? do you refuse to buy a can of coke because the ceo is paid millions?

Money has to go on staff. Usually staff will be working for a smaller wage than an equivalent job in a company looking to make profit. My friend was offered a job at a charity on 50% of her current pay. She couldn’t make ends meet with that kind of pay cut so couldn’t take the job.

This is a very common argument. Sadly, I think most people are just ignorant of the realities of running a charity. There will always be overheads.

Surely a better way of looking at this is to consider the impact that each charity has, rather than the breakdown of how they spend their money. A charity with exceptionally good managers might spend a chunk of its income on paying those managers, but it might also achieve twice as much impact with the remaining money than the charity down the road which pays peanuts and gets monkeys.

Which charity has a CEO or any other staff member earning millions from donations, or has a CEO who is a millionaire.

I can only think of ex-USA presidents, Bill Gates & Zuckerberg. Believe none of them draws a salary for heading their charitable trusts, though.

OP, which cancer charities specifically have you identified that are lining the pockets of millionaire executives?

Running a charity effectively and efficiently requires a similar level of expertise to running any other business. You need excellent executives, managers and staff to make the most of all of the income, and to have the biggest impact on beneficiaries. If you don't offer to pay a CEO the going rate for managing a £multi-million operation, then chances are you are going to end up with a bit of a crappy CEO.

You COULD choose a charity that underpays its staff and leaders. I worked for several at the start of my career. IME poor management equates to poorer outcomes for beneficiaries.

All charities have running costs though. And do and should pay their staff.

This article may help you. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/charity-donations-make-sure-money-isnt-wasted/amp/

The other very sensible option is to give money to an NHS Trust - they all have a charitable arm, where funds are used directly for equipment and training, but money isn’t spent on staff and overheads as that’s already being borne by the organisation.

Have a look at The Christie Charity at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. You can look up the percentage that goes directly to patients.

OP, charities don't generally help people by giving them cash. They help them by setting up services, which cost money to run. All those lottery funded projects? The money isn't going directly into the pockets of 'the needy'. It's going on salaries.

I used to work for a charity - I was single handedly responsible for over £2million in income (half that charity’s voluntary income). I had to ensure that I complied with charity law, other laws, accounting rules and keep the charities good name (we had someone attempt to con us out of £50,000 and I was responsible for getting it back without him running to the press about ‘evil money grabbing charities’.)

I was paid half what I would have earned in the private sector and counted myself lucky that I could afford to make such a career choice. Would a volunteer have done my job for free? If so, would they have been as effective? Would you work in a demanding job, full time, for free?

Every charity employee deserves to be paid for the services that they give to the charity, we are not money grabbing.
I always try hard to support charities with good governance because I know they pay their people enough to attract good talent to use funds wisely.

I think you’ve misunderstood how charities work. If you want to give some cash to someone with cancer then I’m sure it would be easy enough to find someone with cancer in your neighbourhood. However, I suspect they would rather that money was actually spent on care and research so that they can actually get better.

I'm a nurse working for a charity. Should I not get paid?
Should my HR and payroll not get paid?
Should our fundraising team not get paid?
Should our management not get paid?
Should our CEO (who is vastly experienced and could earn a lot more out of the charity sector) not get paid?

A charity HAS to act as a responsible business to be successful. There are ethical ways of doing this but it's naive to think that keeping running costs to an absolute minimum will result in better care.

Have a look at the Ellen MacArthur cancer trust. They are a charity who take children and young adults sailing who are in recovery from cancer and leukaemia. You can donate towards an individuals sailing trip so the money will be going directly to the person who will benefit the most. I don't work for then but I have benefit from what they do many years ago now.

www.givedirectly.org

If you want the money to go entirely to a person in need, a charity can't help you. Charities have to pay staff (don't understand why people are expected to work for free or less than market rate just because their employer is a charity) as well as marketing costs etc (the things that make them more money).

Why not find a crowdfunder for someone with cancer? True, you won't know if they are a scammer or not but that's the peace of mind you pay for with a charity donation.

Any charity that tells you 100% of donations go to beneficiaries is being disingenuous - all that means is that those costs are covered elsewhere, either by another donor or endowment etc. It's very damaging messaging for the sector.