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...

I've never heard a good word said about the RSPCA. They are only interested in large cases that they can take to court and get prosecutions for. I know of several people who've contacted them out of concern for the welfare of dogs and horses and they didn't even come out to have a look. If you want to donate to animal charities then local shelters are the way to go.

Surely the Macmillan nurses don't need to be labelled as such, after the charity funding has finished?

I can't see a good reason for that.

I'm not sure about all of this, but I just wanted to say don't believe everything you read about the RSPCA.

There are some sections of the media that have an absolute vendetta against them because they have tried to make sure the fox hunting legislation is complied with. They have therefore got up the noses of some quite powerful people, and notably the Daily Mail.

Not saying they are perfect, but they are certainly not going around putting animals to sleep willy nilly.

yanbu

After learning about MacMillan etc on here I have decided to not be so "English" and feel embarrassed about asking charities more questions.

I think that a major reason why food banks are a popular choice is because the giver knows that the donation is efficient (100% of the donation goes to someone in need)

BetaTest-I've come to the same conclusion as you that local charities are the way to go. I support our local school, hospice and bought many loom bands from local children sitting on the street corner raising money for charity over the summer holidays.

I've worked for many charities, both big and small and of course it's entirely up to the individual who they support. A few points from my perspective though:

• Have a look at the annual report and accounts, they are freely available online. This will show what is spent on offices, salary, etc and what is spent on the cause.
• Reserves and having loads of money is an interesting one. Having hardly any reserves is risky. When I worked at a children's charity we had enough reserves to keep our services going for 2 years which proved wise when the recession started. It was better to phase out services rather than stop overnight. Also with reserves the charity might be saving for something e.g. anew hospital or big capital project. Again, it'll be in the annual report.
• Paying staff. It would be lovely to do it all with volunteers and everywhere I've worked does as much as possible with volunteers, mainly the retail side. Unfortunately you can't manage the entire operation with only volunteers. Say you need to raise £200 million per year, you'll need a website, payment processing, a phone line people can call, IT, a database etc. Most jobs are jobs people can do elsewhere. Trust me our salaries are much lower than a comparable job in a private company but hardly anyone can afford to work for free.
• High earning senior staff. Again it's in the annual report. And again you need someone that can get influence parliament, get on TV, speak to the media, perhaps have connection with pharmaceuticals or whatever the cause is. You get what you pay for in a way.
• Charities shouldn't advertise: charities have to be clear on how much each campaign made. So a TV advert might be expected to make 10 times what it cost, for example and targets are checked. Any form of advertising that doesn't make enough money is quickly dropped. Some people will donate with no advertising but it's a very small proportion.
• Big vs Small: another interesting one. Small has the advantage of being more community minded, local but it can be more expensive to make a difference, a small operation isn't likely to be able to bring a new drug to market. But a big charity won't remember you if you phone up a week later but does have economies of scale. Horses for courses if you like.

That's rather long so if you can't be bothered to read it all, basically read the annual report - it's all in there

Thanks for all your input- I think I have been too easily influenced by the Macmillan moaners on here. I was incredibly grateful for the support they gave my family, and after reading a little bit about how they spend their money, I feel happier to continuing donating to them.

As for the other charities I mentioned, it was just hearsay, again from on here, I don't know what evidence the posters had, if any, to say it in the first place, but if there is any truth to those speculations it's very very sad

Personally I don't give to cancer charities because they're so well funded already, and because there are so many other treatable diseases in the world that your money saves more lives by donating to give people clean water and so on. But I think it's unreasonable to not donate to charities that spend money on advertising. If you think about it, most for profit businesses are interested in maximising their returns, but also spend money on advertising. The point is that even though you put an initial outlay into advertising you get more back because of it. So although you might think that a charity that spends 5% of its budget on advertising is much more worthy than one that spends 40% of its budget on it - if the former charity only receives donations of £100,000 a year and the latter £1,000,000 then it's obvious that the latter is doing a more efficient job. This is not to say that small charities don't do great work, but you have to choose very carefully. It seems to me more likely that small charities (like small businesses) are more likely to fail because of mismanagement.

I suppose so many people give to cancer charities because so many are affected by it, but your absolutely right there are many other valuable charities.

"Surely the Macmillan nurses don't need to be labelled as such, after the charity funding has finished?

I can't see a good reason for that"

Macmillan continue to provide a lot of support to postholders even after direct funding of the service has ceased. They don't just walk away and leave them to it.

Plus the charity having a high profile and a high level of brand awareness, particularly among those affected by cancer and their families, is a huge factor in fundraising, thereby enabling the charity to fund more nurses and other services.

If the charity disappeared from a nurse/other service as soon as direct funding for that service ended, then fundraising would be severely affected. People benefit from a Macmillan nurse, and because of that they give to the charity, meaning that more people affected by cancer can then benefit from something similar.

I donate to my local hospice (where my grandparents were all (4) looked after towards the end), i buy the big issue from a local guy and have done for years (i also buy him lunch occasionally when/if I see him) and I have made a few donations to S.A.N.DS but I wouldn't ever donate to a big company... I actively avoid street charity workers.

really, who gives out bank information in the street anyway??

When my grandad was dying of pancreatic cancer, he was looked after by a MacMillan paliative care nurse, she was lovely, very supportive and just a great nurse to him I HAVE NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE NURSES but soon into his care his landline did start to receive calls from charities which was a bit odd...(his number was ex-directory and he didn't give it out easily let me tell you). Luckily my grandad was quite witty and whilst they were explaining to him why he should donate he would explain that he only had 4 months to live (he didn't do chemo - he just wanted to die so that he could be with my granny who had died a year earlier of a Stroke) so what good would it be to him...

I dont know whether its age, becoming a parent or that I am just so so cynical now of charities (and i really do feel bad for saying this) buy Whenever I see adverts for starving children or disasters on the tv, I'm always very sad (cry every time in fact) but at the same time I think "well, there is a cameraman, a director (of sorts for the the advert) and a production team behind the advert... I'm sure they're all getting a lunch and water... Why don't they give up there time and food rather than exploiting these poor people who likely get nothing anyway. There is a famous picture (that I believe won an award) that I can't for the life of me remember what it is called of a starving little girl with a vulture right next to her - it is truly a disturbing image. The photographer was and had been accused of exploiting the situation for his own gain (he later went on to kill himself -I believe) and that's all I think about when I see these big charities advertising... And that is terrible.

Other pp are right charity does begin at home. If you see a homeless person on the street, give them food, your time or even money. It goes for all things really x

Plus the charity having a high profile and a high level of brand awareness, particularly among those affected by cancer and their families, is a huge factor in fundraising, thereby enabling the charity to fund more nurses and other services.

So, it's advertising?

I would certainly dispute Macmillan not being any good, because they have certainly helped more than one relative of mine. One was palliative care but another I believe is still alive today because Macmillan explained her rights to her and helped her move from the substandard care the local NHS was offering to an expert cancer hospital which the local NHS just weren't telling her she could access. They also made that relatives time with cancer easier by helping her access services which weren't for an immediate medical need but took care of her holistically as a person and helped her to deal with some of the side effects of treatment.

Herderofcats you missed this
Macmillan continue to provide a lot of support to postholders even after direct funding of the service has ceased. They don't just walk away and leave them to it.
It is not just advertising

Other pp are right charity does begin at home. If you see a homeless person on the street, give them food, your time or even money. It goes for all things really x

^^This is absolute bollocks in the main. Helping people who are street begging often helps the undeserving who often aren't homeless, funds criminality and keeps the people being 'helped' away from the agencies who can actually give them proper support with their problems rather than just perpetuating them.

The best way to help street sleepers is to go and research which local homeless charity provides the best practical and long term support. They will be doing things like making sure people have access to food every day, medical and dental care, rehabilitation services, benefits and hostel places and looking at long term getting these people back on their feet by solving the underlying problems which have put them there in the first place. They also don't stop supporting them just because they go into a b&b or hostel.

Homelessness is very much a cause where supporting a charity rather than directly 'helping' is appropriate, because the sort of direct help people often offer is either useless or actually damaging.

No, it's not advertising, it's maintaining a high profile, which increases donations massively. Is that not a good thing?? You do realise that charities increasing donations is positive? It's not giving money to shareholders, it's providing vital services to help people!

There do seem to be swathes of people who think attempts by big charities to..um.. raise money are somehow underhand or Shouldn't Be Allowed. They are not multi-national conglomerates trying to maximise profits for shareholders through devious charging practices or tax avoidance. They are spending their money on either services of some type for people in need, on raising money to provide those services, or on administration to ensure both those things happen smoothly effectively and efficiently.

Paying for adverts on telly or similar is different, although charities wouldn't do it if it didn't raise income - they aren't (mostly)actually daft.

But keeping the Macmillan name on services initially funded by Macmillan is a no-brainer. Brand familiarity encourages people to access the service, and also encourages them to donate, thereby increasing service-provision. If the nurses and other services had no link to Macmillan and were "just" seen as an NHS service, people feeling grateful for the service wouldn't be donating to the NHS instead.

Charities big and small have an obligation to spend their income in a certain way. Attempts by charities to increase their income, as long as they are not ethically dubious or unlawful, are to be encouraged. Until the government funds research or support services massively more than they do, these charities are essential and make a huge difference to many lives.

I saw that bruffin, thanks, but it didn't seem to be the main thrust of the argument.

Yes, but it's the NHS that picks up the tab for Macmillan nurses after just one year. So, in effect, there is a net drain on NHS resources or at least a redirecting of funds.

And the NHS doesn't even get the credit!

Herdof cats- this was the point that started my questioning of donating to Macmillan. They were wonderful to my family when we needed so I don't for a second doubt their need, but if Macmillan were funded by the NHS I wanted to know what exactly my donations would be good for. I wanted to know if I donated another family will benefit like I did.

I think I have come to the conclusion that a lot of money will have to go on advertising, if people don't know what they do, they will become redundant, but hopefully the donations will also be spent on maintaining services. Someone for example was sent round to help my dad fill out a form to get his life insurance early. He also had a Indian head massage and hot stone back massage because the chemo made his skin extra sensitive. It was these kind of things that made so much difference to my dad that we were so grateful to Macmillan for arranging.

Booyaka - you are right about homeless people on the street. Often not homeless.

I never give to beggar on the street or buy Big Issue or sign up with charity 'chuggers'.

However, a couple of times a year I cook breakfast for about 150 local people in our church. Homeless (and their dogs), lonely old people, anybody who wants a bit of company. Its completely free and gratefully received. I cook flat out for three hours non stop while another woman serves, another loads the dishwasher and a team of volunteers serve at the tables, pour tea, make toast. Local shops give the food we cook at wholesale cost.

We also raise money for our local homeless charity that gives homeless people and for the night, a decent meal, a place to wash and get replacement clothing as well as support for things like alcoholism and drug abuse.

I once objected vehemently to a national children's charity that was systematically raising money in local private schools (including my own childrens' school) with what I considered quite manipulative 'marketing practices. I discover from its accounts that all the money it raised was used for admin costs associated with delivering a large government contract. The entire charity which is very well known was in effect raising money only to save Government the cost of delivering childrens services. This was some years ago and it was shocking how the Govt at the time was espousing 'third way' was in fact co-opting charities to deliver Govt policy.

My childrens' school stopped hosting their presentations to infant class children after I complained and pointed out what the money was being used for.

Well if you think having the services come purely under the NHS would be preferable, you are of course entitled to that opinion. The net effect would be a reduction in service provision due to reduced funding available.

Somehow I think most NHS professionals would prefer to receive funding of a service for three years than not at all and are more interested in benefiting patients and their families than the NHS as an entity receiving "credit" for the funding aspect.

If any NHS Trust doesn't feel funding the service after the Macmillan-funded period is a good use of its resources, it is free not to enter into the agreement in the first place. Macmillan nurses are not imposed on them!

I haven't worked for them for more than a decade, who knew I'd go into bat like this?!

I'm glad someone from Macmillan has posted its good to hear that point of view also!!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2439649-RSPCA-the-final-straw