To start questioning donating to some of the bigger charities.

[ButtonMoon88]

I think MN may have turned me into a cynic. Basically I have always donated, and even volunteered for Macmillan, and my brother, Cancer Research UK. However I read on here that the money raised basically went on advertising because the majority of staff for both charities were funded by NHS. Is this true? Also someone on a thread earlier was talking about RSPCA and how they unnecessarily put animals to sleep. I find this so shocking!! I'm training to run a half marathon next year and was Hoping to donate to Macmillan but I am seriously doubting my charity choice. As I said I find this devastating because I had lossed someone to Cancer and really felt better about doing something for Macmillan, it felt like my loss was worthwhile if I could do good...

YANBU. Charity begins at home. Donate to local charities and you'll see the difference.

Ah the sweet memories of explaining to some scumbag on the phone that my mother was unable to come to the phone to donate (again) to cancer research as she was too ill from her chemo......bastard wouldn't take no for an answer!

What is the point in donating to cancer research when the drug companies make massive profits in producing the drugs? Surely the best research is where the money is-with the drug companies?

British Rd Cross a nightmare! They caught me at a vulnerable moment with a real " foot in the door" salesman. Set up a standing order, then they kept harassing me on my mobile phone to give them more. I stopped the SO & won't ever give to them again. I agree sunsoo re local charities.

Find a small local charity which will use the money at grass roots level rather than using it for staff or advertising. Yanbu

tracy CR funds work in universities too. Drugs are the only thing being researched. It's important to understand why cancer develops, genetic markers etc etc

Yanbu
Large charities waste millions on their cushy offices, flash adverts, and appallingly large pay packets for bosses.

Nearly all the bigger ones waste money in my opinion. I'd rather donate to local smaller ones, or even one off local causes/ fundraising.

YANBU, RSPCA have some shocking practices. Lots of the larger charities spend far too much on advertising and admin imho and don't do what they claim (MacMillan a good example, they were of no use to relatives of mine past getting them 'on their books'), bhf I won't donate to because their research is suspect and often unnecessarily conducted on animals. (I'm talking repeating experiments that have been conducted elsewhere already, not Ltd to inflict as little suffering as possible etc).

Local/smaller charities are often more ethical and appreciate the money more.

Try looking at the accounts, which are all in the public domain, before making an informed decision.

Y'know. If you can be arsed.

Otherwise, just let mumsnet tell you what to do.

Mumsnet is influencial, after all. Gets in the papers and everything.

(and influential)

I would love to know what research people have done in order to make such sweeping claims.

Noeuf are you referring to the charities or we posters?

Some of the posters. It all sounds a bit bandwagonny - cushy offices, huge salaries etc and salt of the earth local charities.

Yabu for not wanting to give to large charities. They are still charities FFS. They exist to support people, not to make money for shareholders. Yes some large charities pay their chief execs decent salaries but those salaries are no where near what someone in the private sector would get to run a similar size organisation. If you paid a pittance then you just wouldn't be able to recruit someone with the skills to do the job.

I used to work for a large charity that was accused of having 'plush offices'. It simply wasn't true. It was necessary to have an office large enough to accommodate the staff and in a location where the senior management could reasonably travel to other sites of the organisation. The office was actually very good value but still we were criticised.

Some pps have suggested donating to smaller charities me and your money will be better spent. Not necessarily. I've seen huge incompetence and badly run small charities as they just don't have the skills needed to run the organisation well. This isn't the case for all small charities of course, many of which are very well run.

What nameinlights said.

You can't expect all charities to survive off a volunteer workforce and be run out of community halls, it's simply not realistic.

Like any business, a % of funds will have to go on trying to make more funds... but this is common sense not moral corruption. And as many paid members of staff are combining their skill and their passion they are worth 10x what they are paid.

For what it's worth, I believe Macmillan are a wonderful charity.

I don't advocate not doing research, I've researched the ones I was interested in donating to at various points and found some not in keeping with my ethics and so haven't donated. Not all large charities are bad as not all small charities are good, I've gone on my own experiences and research.

Yes lots of sweeping statement snouts plush offices etc. any real evidence?

And the claims about the RSPCA - shocking if true. Evidence?

I have been called several times by different charities. The ones I say no to do bugger off and don't trouble me again. One can put down the phone and shut the door.

Having said that, some of the bigger charities have quite large financial reserves like Help for aHeroes. I wouldn't give to those charities but would focus on smaller, poorer ones.

There's going to be a lot more need for charities and the work they do.

Statements ABOUT plush offices etc

i would donate to a charity that is close to you and you have actually seen it in action.
I always supported the NSPCC, until I needed them and all they did was pass my details through to Social services. well i could've done that myself, and there was a reason i didn't. I cant help but wonder what do these actual charities do??
I now donate to a large but local charity, Air ambulance, as I have directly seen the work they do
YANBU but charities have had a lot of bad press this year, with kids company, rspca and that story about the elderly pensioner being pestered. Don't tarnish all with the same brush

If you are going to donate to charity, do your research. Some large charities do amazing work; some small charities are hopeless, no plans, waste money and achieve very little. And vice versa.

I had a senior role for a charity. We had fabulous offices at London Bridge. The rent was a pittance because the landlord dedicated that building to third sector organisations. I earned a good salary by any measure, but it was half that of my previous job. For that salary I worked from 7am until 7pm and many evenings and weekends.

Some charities do tender for public sector contracts and a significant amount of their revenue comes from NHS, councils etc. In the cases I know about, that cash is barely enough to cover the standard of service delivered. Charitable giving tops up the revenue to enable - for example - carers to spend a bit of extra time with the supported person, or take a group of service users out for the day.

You can't generalise. You can educate yourself so you know what you're supporting and how your cash is being used.

MacMillan a good example, they were of no use to relatives of mine past getting them 'on their books'

My mum died last year from cancer and they were brilliant. She was also on a Mcmillan ward which was lovely.

Large charities waste millions on their cushy offices, flash adverts, and appallingly large pay packets for bosses.

Money spent on advertising, is often donated specifically for advertising. I know when I worked for a charity (finance for 11 years) that one or two major companies would donate money to spend on media campaigns and because it was restricted funds we would not have been allowed to spend it on any thing else. If investing a few k in advertising raises 10 or 100 times that investment, then it is money well spent.
We had offices in the City, we didnt pay a penny in rent because the offices were donated from a large insurance company.
Charities also need to attract good staff, why shouldn't someone who runs a multimillion pound operation not get rewarded appropriately for it.

I do agree that pestering and chuggers are not an appropriate way to raise money.

I think YABU - I won't repeat PP points about plush offices etc, but I wanted to comment about NHS funding.

Some charities (large and small) do receive funds from the NHS. This can be because no one else would provide it, due to size (too small to be worth funding) or expertise (charities may have provided stuff outside of the NHS and may be the best at providing it).

This can be partial funding or full funding. Often charities will get the basic costs covered and then used raised funds to pay for extra things. One example I know about is hospices. The vast majority of hospices receive some NHS funding to cover beds, staffing of the basic service. However, some hospices may want to provide extra services, such as lymphodema (sp?) treatment, which they pay for out of raised funds.

Some charities might pay for a service to get it going, prove it's value to the NHS who then carry on the cost. I believe certain specialist nurses are funded that way i.e. Macmillan.

NHS funding can often be a vital and relatively stable source of income for charities to provide much needed services that may not be provided without them.

Disclaimer: I have worked for a number of large charities

I used to work for Macmillan. I definitely didn't have a plush office [deprived].

Salaries were the appropriate level needed to get the staff required, and no more.

I see a lot of complaints on here that Macmillan pump-primes nurses, ie funds their salaries for a set period and then hands over to the NHS.

Well, don't you think if Macmillan had enough money to fund them for longer, it would do so?!

It's not as if they could indefinitely fund all nurses but choose not to and decide to spend money on private jets for staff instead. I mean, seriously!

This model is the most effective way of getting support to as many people as possible, and there's no one forcing the NHS to fund them afterwards. There is an agreement to do so.

Anyway, as others have said, do some research about charities and give to those you feel are worthwhile.

That is the way our charity worked in the beginning Flowery

They set up a centre with 1/3 donated from us, 1/3 from local authority and a 1/3 self funding. This arrangement was for 3 years and then they were expected to self fund/ LA fund after that. They still remained under our umbrella and they could access grants for their "users", conferences and advice.

Local charities are the way to go I think. I support a local hospice and my local church charity fund raising and activities in the local community. Very grass roots stuff.

I do give money to the RNLI as I used to work in the shipping industry and have huge respect for the people that crew the lifeboats as they are all locals who live near each lifeboat station.

I am afraid I am deeply cynical about the people at the top of large national and international charities that seem to effortlessly float about in a rarefied world hopping between civil service, public sector, quango and charity sector. They are very well connected and usually appointed mainly because of their (mainly) left wing political connections.