To no longer donate to charities

[Foronenightonly01]

Issues akin to those being reported in the papers of ‘One Young World’ mean that when you give money now, more often than not it seems to go into the pockets of profiteers. I do still help out locally giving my time that I can spare to projects in my area and I’ll give extra in scenarios where I know exactly to whom my cash is going. I’m so saddened that people are being conned to lining the pockets of wealthy greedy pretend do-gooders - more than anything else recently this has made me realise how f@cked our Country is. So bloody sad.

Nope. That’s exactly why I don’t either. Some of these charities have execs on salaries of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Nuffield trust ceo is nearly on a million a year. I donate my time - I’ve got a pcv licence and will drive the day trip bus for the swan and a few other local kids charities, I still do the teas and coffees and soups and stovies for the st Vincent de Paul but I only do the old folks one now and refuse to do the homeless one though if they start doing families again in the school holidays I’d do that too.

I still give to some which manage to give a high ratio of donations to “end-users” and do so with things that make a real and immediate advantage, but between the very high tax rate we pay nowadays, the political activities of some of the big-name charities and the amount that seems to go to senior staff we’ve definitely changed how we give, to whom, and how much.

I used to give loads, then started reading the financial reports the charities have to publish, and most of the money went to them running the charity and very little to their purpose. So I was paying for the building, the staff, fundraising events, salaries of the board.... enough

I used to give to charity until I worked for one, now i don't give a penny as i know the money doesn't go where you'd want it to.

Well, you wouldn't have been paying for the salaries of board members because trustees are volunteers. They can claim expenses though.

I don't really understand why you would have an issue with paying towards the cost of staff or buildings, though. Presumably they need these in order to fulfil their purpose. And fundraising is a necessary cost for charities as well. I mean, I'm sure that they would just love it if the funds for them to sustain their work would just drop out of the sky without any effort on their part, but that isn't how it works... they have to invest money in fundraising in order to get more money to spend on their charitable purpose.

Some charity CEO salaries are too high, but an awful lot of people working in the sector could earn a lot more working elsewhere, so you do have to pay enough to make it viable. There are very, very few charities that could operate effectively with only volunteers, so some staff costs are inevitable.

Of course, you don't have to give money if you don't want to, but it's silly to suggest that charities could operate without these costs. They need a basic infrastructure in place in order to be able to deliver properly on what they're actually there to do.

Many board members of charities are paid.

Hhhmm, I don't doubt there's waste in some, but don't forget that not all charities are in existence to provide goods or services to individuals.

Some are there to lobby government for change that affects the people they serve, eg British Heart Foundation lobbying for medical research or for cleaner air that would drastically reduce the number of people suffering heart disease. This kind of work requires people with the appropriate skills and can take a long time to see fruition.

This always sounds like an excuse. Yes, there are a lot of very crap, poorly run, 'profit' driven, sexually abusive, dreadful charities.

However, with a very small amount of research you can find ones which are doing good work cheaply. A couple to start you off are the Against Malaria Foundation and the Fistula Foundation. What are you interested in and we can find you a good charity?

I think you are utterly utterly wrong. I think populist news media like to stir up trouble. One Young World is a really good example. The populist press latch onto anything related to Meghan and put a negative spin on it. I do not believe for one minute that the money given to this organisation or any other registered charity goes into “the pockets of profiteers”.

You need to be less naive, don’t take on trust everything you read in the populist press nor on Facebook, Twitter etc, and do your own research from reputable sources.

I recommend the BBC, the Guardian and the Times. Read all of them and you’ll get a balanced view. And maybe do some internet searching around how charities are regulated but be mindful of the sources: the more you read with a questioning mind, the more you’ll recognise which sources have an agenda and which are more reliable.

I stopped for reasons as stated, high salaries, etc. I now buy extras when i do my food shopping and put into trolleys for the food banks.

It's your money and you can decide what to do with it, but it is rare for 100 per cent of a charity's income to go to its beneficiaries. Charities have running costs and the disadvantages of trying to run any enterprise with volunteers alone are well known; volunteers may or may not be competent and there is no sanction if they don't turn up or quit without notice.

I think that you're the one being naive - add "utterly utterly" if you want.
As for "... BBC, the Guardian and the Times. Read all of them and you’ll get a balanced view" I'm very far from being convinced. And it's not peppering your post with words like "populist" that is going to prove anything to me.
I can see a lot of reasons to be very sceptical and very selective.

Yes, you are right to feel that way. In some cases is free in other is to push a political agenda.

Read the Guardian and BBC if you want bias views. Not a balanced view. The new way to shut people off is calling them dumb Daily mail readers. I would say the gullible is making some nasty people very rich. The worse is when those organisations are linked to the radical left. There is one in particular in the US that have received millions of donations in a very short time. A documentary is coming to expose the scam. However, no doubt the usual suspects will cry sabotage and racism.

This.
There is a charity local to me run by a family. An awful lot of money is spent on luxurious building & renovation which is not really necessary.
They must also pay themselves very well indeed. They went from ordinary jobs living in ordinary homes to living the life of luxury.
Their expenditure will be scrutinised so no doubt it’s all above board but as with all major charities, the running costs eat up a good percentage of donations.

I think you're incorrect in your assessment but it is your money.

I think you just have to look carefully at what they spend money on. I found out that a charity I have supported for decades still spends money on Stonewall training. I stopped my direct debit with them.

Shelter and Women's Aid are regularly suggested on here. What about them?

I read years ago that the RSPCA is awash with money - I can imagine that much is left in wills. But they advertise, with their very sad adverts, for more regularly.

So many humans needing help so I find the ads annoying.

not all charities are the same
i think you are being unfair

If you are looking for a non-profiteering charity, which needs the money and does good work, how about this local cat rescue? No connection other than currently adopting cats through them and have started sponsoring a couple of their long-term sponsor cats.
Sunshine Cat Rescue

My brother worked for 2 of the big charities, since the stories coming out of that I've given nothing. I can understand the big wages for senior staff, however refusing to travel in standard class to meetings, only staying at 5* hotels is not needed. Diverting funds, putting everything on expenses, using charity funds to dry clean husbands clothes, the list goes on and on. Things a private company would not tolerate.

What I do do is give direct to someone or something in need. Last year we wrote to local schools and asked where they were short of things they need, as a result we gifted pens, glue, coloured pencils, pens and reading scheme books to some local schools,

There's a rub on this thread about the desire for good governance (ie cost efficiency, funds going towards donors intention, impact, safeguarding etc) but a refusal to pay for it. Charities can't win really.

Charities are run by people who need to be paid. Like the rest of you do.

The societal benefits produced by charities don't just happen without support.

Charities are like business in that they need money put in to generate the activity / the service to their beneficiaries.

If charities pay money to a service provider, such as a web designer, a fundraiser or a delivery company for example, they will only do so if it benefits their overall aims and objectives, i.e. mission delivery.

It's called the Third Sector for a reason.

I'd much rather give my money to an organisation with charitable aims than say, Amazon, or The Daily Mail owners!

Ffs running the charity needs to happen in order for the "purpose" to be met! Do you think they are going to run on beans?!

Please consider being a volunteer instead.

Depending on your role, you get direct access to the people you are supporting, so you know your efforts are benefiting those in need of help.

if I were to cost out my time spent being a caseworker, it would be quite a few £000 per year, but the value is greater in the help and comfort I give to real people.