Children in need....falling popularity?

[mids2019]

So children in need seems to be raising less money in recent years. Is this due to the cost of living crisis meaning people give less or are people jaded by this annual event? Are people giving to more local charities instead?

Personally I feel the whole thing though raising money for some good causes does seem to be a vehicle for celebrities profiles and there is a feeling the event showcases the most heartening emotive cases which maybe isn't quite balanced.

I also have question a about schools coercing children to give a pound or 2 towards the event as even at a young age charity should be about choice. It also means you feel you have given if your kids have paid a line to non uniform day and I don't know if that is quite the sun c. In n are thinking about?

Should we think again about children in need?

BBC caring for kids? They should really rethink that one.

the only time I’ve donated to it was when the kids were in primary school. Cake sale etc as i didn’t want them to miss out.

It doesn't in reality raise a lot of money...half the cost of the coronation for example and should be put to bed. Perhaps more advocating of local charities from local figures?

I don't know the final total for this year, but they certainly said on the night that they'd increased on the 2023 total (ie the on the night total).
I thought Paddy's cycle challenge was amazing, he put his heart and soul into it. I watched the one hour special on his challenge and found it inspiring.

So no, I don't think people are jaded by it. It seems clear lots of people consider it a worthwhile cause.

In my naivity I used to think these people did out of the goodness of their hearts and was gobsmacked to hear otherwise. I now think so much less of them.

I think it’s had its day. These heroic acts leave me cold. As a pp, helps boost a flailing career or trying to make people forget past misdemeanours. Celebrities are paid so much these days, it just feels uncomfortable.

Our school switched non uniform donations onto ParentPay and made them optional (you didn’t have to wear uniform regardless of whether you pay) which if they must ask for donations, I think is the way to go.

Don't people ask what the celebs are getting out of it and whether they indeed donate themselves? It is rich people asking poor people to donate to poor people that girls me as it has been shown that the poor disproportionately give to charity.

I think the celeb agents must say up appearances carefully in terms of the general celeb profile.

To those saying they won’t support a charity that pays a CEO £98K or whatever, the alternative is often worse. These charities can be complex, operate across challenging countries making payroll, government interaction and welfare of staff an issue, and also run complex multi-year programs that you can only start if you’ve got multiple years of money banked, e.g. water wells, new hospices or whatever.

By all means give to a lead of a tiny charity who rescues cats but it’s a different job with an important but lower impact.

(No I don’t work for a charity!)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/31395578/paddy-mcguinness-wins-mansion-christine-mcguinness-divorce/

Paddy imaybe needs a bit of a profile rise with a virtuous charity event?

The divorce seems a bit acrimonious and the jokes about his stand up audience paying for his divorce are a bit off. He seems to eventually will have to move from the family home as to allow his autistic children stability surely he can find a reasonable house somewhere in the North West?

I think a lot of people don’t understood charities operate. All large charity CEO’s earn around this amount (or more for the very big ones) but it’s less than they’d earn in the private sector for a similar sized organisation. Just because someone works for a charity doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be paid what their experience and expertise is worth. Charities have to match market rate otherwise they wouldn’t be employing anyone worth having. A charity is run very much like any other business in that there are overheads and assets to be paid for, you can’t spend 100% of money raised on the cause, it just doesn’t work that way.

Children in need is primarily a grant giving organisation, other charities apply to them for money and CIN administer and oversee that. No charity is flawless in every decision it makes but as far as I’m aware CIN is well regarded and is compliant with the charity commission.

@Hurdlin @AgnesX none of the celebrities are paid to take part in CIN. They do obviously benefit in exposure but that’s fair enough given the time they’re giving for free.

@mids2019 The concept of a tv programme to raise money may be outdated but it’s still a viable fundraising model, they raised nearly £40million this year, the most they’ve raised in 3years. They’ve raised almost £1billion since I’d started in 1980.

People have the right to support (or not) any charity they feel is worthy, some schools make the choice to support CIN but others don’t. Presuming if there was a general feeling that this wasn’t the right thing to do this could be discussed with individual schools. Any amount donated makes a difference, if that’s just £1 from a family for a non uniform day then that’s great.

No one is forced to participate but I do think there are merits to involving children in the concept of charity, volunteering and engaging in fundraising. Showing them that everyone has different life experiences and helping others, if you are in a position to do so, is a good thing to do.

I wonder how many people here play the lottery each week - that can be viewed as a charitable donation. The national lottery gives out huge amounts of money to charities across the uk, about 40% of their proceeds.

@HansHolbein all charities are required to submit financial reports annually to the charity commission. It’s a publicly available website and you can see exactly where money is spent.

Re Paddy McGuiness - he’s just taken on the weekend slot on radio 2 and is their latest “big hire”. It’s notable that over the years, whenever someone new joins radio 2, they do the next children in need challenge. (Vernon Kay did his running one shortly after joining, Scott Mills did his challenge shortly after joining radio 2, Sara cox did hers after moving to a more high profile slot.)

I assume it’s part of the contract negotiation, they’ll do something for CIN for radio 2.

What I don't like about having to rely on charities for support is that it's a postcode lottery. If you are lucky, there is a charity in your area that you can use but other people are not so lucky. There should be support for children everywhere.

Public foundations ( charities that raise money from the public and corporates and then use that money to make grants to other charities) need to have a USP to add value to the process and I’m not sure that CIN really does anymore. Where public foundations add value is where they grant to charities that are difficult for the public or corporates to donate to directly ( often international development focus, complex areas of work requiring in depth local knowledge and contacts) and they offer a lot of capacity building and field building support alongside. If they’re literally just making grants then it’s just another layer of admin. It made sense pre internet when CIN probably benefited a lot of charities that struggled to fundraise from the public directly but now I’m not sure what their real purpose is.

For schools not doing much - ours had own clothes days recently to raise money for the school. They can only ask so much from parents, they can’t raise money for charity as well.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/how-paddy-mcguinness-won-divorce-33999866drink

Paddy's agent has probably seen recent tabloid stories and decided the best thing Paddy coukd do was to get on his bike and pudsy wash an acrimonious divorce featuring an autistic wife and chikdren.

Sorry to be cynical

NZ dreaming.

I think the notion of somehow making children thinking of charitable giving as a virtue is a complex one. Children have to realise money raised by charities is dwarfed by state budgets and perhaps they should be encouraged to consider politics as well as charity. For instance you could take a hard line stance on the two child benefit cap and yet give a box of eggs to a good bank to help families in poverty. I think as well it is important to realise children have a choice in who they do or don't donate to. We also have the problem that a lot of school kids are in need themselves.

Charity giving to families with children with DEN for instance may be a distraction from the overall problem of government fiance in this area. I certainly think millionaire celebs who probably do everything possible to minimise their tax burden shouldn't really advocate for poor people to donate to charities which could have been otherwise supported if they had been less tax efficient.

I think cost of living does have an impact. I also think that more people have found small, local charities which they donate directly too now. It's easier to find about smaller charities than it used to be with social media. Not that long ago, they could only advetize themselves through flyers, newspaper articles, word of mouth etc but now with social media they can reach a larger and wider audience far more easily and even get support from people all over the world.

I agree. Many families are struggling. It is so wrong when schools give a specification about what should be worn, like spots or whatever, so parents are put under pressure to buy clothes. Then they have to pay for the privilege. The families in need in our communities do not need this.

It also used to be a big TV event so raised money during the broadcast. People just don't watch TV in the same way so won't donate the same way. Always hated charity telethon things, wealthy celebrities begging poorer people to give money.

I worry that of my £5 donation, after salaries, admin, publicity and marketing, how much actually goes to the children in need. I've seen too many reports of very high salaries of charity CEO's, ridiculous 'expense' claims of celebrities (Fashion Aid) and vague 'admin' costs. I'd prefer to donate to a local charity who don't have layers of bureaucracy, an expensive CEO and who don't have expensive advertising costs.

I remember watching it when I was a kid and it was a TV highlight. We did give during the program too. Nobody watches TV anymore though really (I don't know anyone who does). My kids have never seen it and their schools don't really get involved so they barely know what it is.

My concern is that an umbrella charity then donates money to causes I don’t support. I understand that a few years back CIN was making grants to Mermaids. For me a very good reason to stay clear.

I also want to know where my money is going and how it will be spent. Too many large charities spend too much on fundraising and administration.

I just find the whole thing so fake, staged, put on. Canned laughter. I think it has had its day. About 30 years ago. I haven't seen it since the 90s but I doubt it has changed much.

They give money to some inappropriate organisations. The BBC is a bit too cosy with paedophiles. I prefer to choose my charities very carefully.

Had enough of the entire shitshow. Millions of people in this country are on the bones of their arses and it’s sickening to see multi-millionaire celebrities shaking tins in return for their gurning and cavorting (aka shameless virtue signalling and self-publicity). I think we reached peak celeb sadface when the Rock and (billionaire) Oprah Winfrey exhorted everyone to dig deep for Hawaii - when between the two of them they could have had an instantaneous effect on that situation by making comparable donations themselves.

As for the charities, I refuse to give to any that employ executives on bloated salaries, have swanky head offices and expensive ad campaigns, any that have affiliations to religious or proselytising groups, or any that use chuggers or fundraising organisations.

These big organisations need millions in donations just to keep their infrastructure afloat - buckets of cash are absorbed at the top end, whilst all the actual grunt work at the coalface is done for free by volunteers. The whole fucking thing is an endless gravy train of skimmers and takers before a single penny gets to the people or causes it was donated to.

Much better IMO to directly support small grass-roots charities, food banks, hospices, sports clubs, etc. Donations to these and the work of the volunteers has a direct and measurable impact on the local community - you can literally see where the money goes.

I believe it’s still the biggest single day of fundraising in this country, and also supports the smaller charities that go under the radar. Eg, the therapy groups , hospices, young carers etc, . I do understand why people are disillusioned by it, but without it, a lot of charities just wouldn’t be able to deliver the services they deliver.

Maybe they need to re-focus it, and encourage people to give locally, as well as nationally. Have locally nominated charities that get bigger profile that week.

i wonder also if local charities do get a boost that week on the back of Children in need. Is, people don’t give to CiN, but think they’ll give their £20 to the local hospice instead, so although the CiN total is dropping, the overall amount donated that week is still large.