shocked at charities..

[cuckoooo]

My brother is an auditor in the charity sector and he was telling me that the big charities, particularly the 'sponsor a child' ones are pointless.

He was telling me that the biggest childrens charity - UNICEF - only 14p in the pound gets spent on actual causes the rest of the money goes to advertising, offices and staff costs. He also added that Unicef's boss has a company Rolls Royce and $1.2m salary.

He said for worldvision/plan uk/save the children only between 15p and 23p in the pound gets to the children sponsored and not even directly to the child - just allocated to the local area. The majority of costs are rent, advertising, mysterious 'consulting' costs, and staff costs. He said they have swanky offices in really expensive places - Belgravia/Mayfair etc and the execs have high-ish salaries with lots of perks (chauffeur, paid holidays, lots of annual leave etc)

He said Red Cross was the worst offender of all, but wouldn't go into details.

I just felt a little outraged, though not entirely surprised. It feels like that even the good things of this world are corrupt.

If you have a 6 figure salary I'm pretty certain you can pay for a cab.

The same goes for MPs then who seem to only occasionally get held to account for ridiculous expenses claims.

If you want to attract good people to do a good job and make real change then they need to be paid a competitive rate. Nobody goes into third sector work for the money but the staff need to be compensated a reasonable amount for the work that they do - the work that is much more valuable than in the private sector.

I think you need to pay people employed in charities the going rate, else no one will take the job. Charities are very much businesses, and are cannot be entirely run by volunteers. Therefore, I don't object the CEO of a charity to get a comparable rate, providing it's not obscene.

cuckooo Is your brother saying that UNICEF is lying in their annual reports/audits?

plan adverts at the very least imply that you sponsor an individual child and your money goes to that child

I have sponsored through Plan for years. I am under no illusions as to the fact that the money I give is not spent individually on the child I sponsor.

Head of charities do not earn extortionately in UK, but they get certain perks that CEOs don't get - take worldvision - they get an ok salary plus private school for kids paid by company and home in london paid for as well - those alone are worth much more than their salary

oh dear. You are clueless. Totally and utterly clueless.

Chiming in here. My father is a solicitor and he strongly advises against giving to certain charities in your will. The larger ones will fight tooth and nail for every penny even taking the bereaved family to court and costing huge legal fees for more more money than was alotted to them by the estate.

It's a very ugly side of the industry. Good to hear you're DH is explaining the research. more people should know about this.

As previously mentioned your brother has violated the terms of his licence to practise as an auditor by saying this to you.
He is also either very bad at his job or a liar bending the truth.

If you want to find out exactly what charities spend their money on, go onto the Charity Commission website and read their accounts which are freely accessible.

Then they told him what the salary was and he said he felt sick. It was in the region of £40k

what skills and experience do you think a fundraiser needs? you are aware of the (very many) different facets of fundraising? you are aware that a fundraiser will be expected to more than cover their salary as a basic prerequisite for the job? you aware of the qualifications many fundraisers have?

What a goady OP. At least write about your own opinions instead of hiding behind your auditor brother who clearly isn't very good at auditing

Yep. All true in my experience. This is why I give to small charities with fewer overheads and no head office costs. I absolutely don't mind paying for staff who are helping people but don't want to fund a huge HQ.

You can always believe an anonymous person on the interweb.

I was once told a story about someone relative who had died and left a large childrens charity a legacy in his will. In the region of 10%.

The charities lawyers added on thousands of pounds on to the estimated value of the property after he died to boost the value of their 10%. Meaning that the house never sold as it was over priced. Over the years the house deteriorated as no one was living there, which the lawyers forced the family to pay the upkeep for. Of course the longer it sat empty the harder it was to sell. The family were at the mercy of the charity lawyers for years. I don't know the outcome but it made me cautious about large charities and they way they are run.

On the other hand, there are thousands of smaller ethically run charities, that spend every penny they can on good causes and run exclusively by volunteers. I'm really happy to support those.

plan adverts at the very least imply that you sponsor an individual child and your money goes to that child

No, it doesn't. I have sponsored a child through Plan for years as well and at no point was I under any illusions about this, they send you regular updates about where the money has been spent in the child's community.

All this charity bashing is starting to get my goat. No one's happy unless it's a collector with a tin on the high street, anything else is corruption apparently. And god forbid charities should actually try to CONTACT PEOPLE to give them money.

How astonishing the DB is an auditor for all these specific charities as well as being unaware of his professional code of conduct.

That being said more accurate data, than an anonymous person on t'internet, will be available to the public on these charities' websites. All an auditor does is check the data published is accurate and honestly portrayed, this fantasy DB will not have had access to anything special that reveals anything else.

stopped giving to large charities years ago but I admit it was mostly knowledge I gained after working for one.

local hospice for me.

Small charities are great and can help hundreds of people. And it's completely right to support them and make a difference to your local community. However they have no clout and can't bring about lasting change. Big charities as a PP said are able to lobby the government and make sure that their issues are brought to the front and that change is made. This takes a lot of cost to do but in the long term it's more effective than the small charities who can only change the world one person at a time.

"He said for worldvision/plan uk/save the children only between 15p and 23p in the pound gets to the children sponsored and not even directly to the child - just allocated to the local area."

I sponsor a child through Compassion International and I am completely happy with the idea that the money goes in part to support 'my' named child but also to the local programme and area, helping with clean water, healthcare etc for all children attached to the project.

When I send him presents, they go directly to the child with the project director helping to choose gifts that will really help. Most recently, the child (who is now a young man and 16) bought jeans, trainers and a big tub of paint. Not sure why the paint, I'm going to ask in my next letter!

www.compassionuk.org/about-us/financial-integrity/

It costs £25 a month to sponsor a child. For every £1 given to Compassion UK: 80p directly benefits your sponsored child

At least 80% of Gift Aid is used to support children living in poverty through RESPOND Initiatives, specific grants, child ministry and initiatives to advocate on behalf of children.

The private school bit is tricky, you know. FCO and army do it too. It generally only applies if you are going to be moving around a lot, and in those circumstances, what other option is there? You're in (potentially not-capital city i.e. no international schools) Pakistan for two years, Angola the next two, then back in the UK, but going abroad again two years later - I can't see that there's a feasible option other than boarding school.

Another thing - what's wrong with spending loads on 'staff'? It's lazy to think that staff costs are always a problem: what if staff are doctors, midwives, vets, trainers, trainers of trainers etc. etc. Or take another example: you're building a much-needed bridge: LOADS of your costs will be people - the actual workers on the bridge, engineers, surveyors, project managers, accountants. They are necessary.

My father is a solicitor and he strongly advises against giving to certain charities in your will. The larger ones will fight tooth and nail for every penny even taking the bereaved family to court and costing huge legal fees for more more money than was alotted to them by the estate.

He shouldn't really be influencing people one way or the other.

If you could see how many long estranged relatives turn up when they get a sniff of an inheritance you'd be shocked. Even those specifically excluded from the will by the deceased for very valid reasons, will try to bring a 1975 Inheritance Act claim, particularly since a couple of high profile cases against large well known charities.

If a charity has been named in the Will it has no choice but defend itself against that claim. Most claims get settled before even getting to court as, believe it or not, the charity has no interest in racking up extortionate costs either.

When DS1 worked for World Vision they were in Milton Keynes, not exactly swanky Mayfair.

My DH was talking to an older gentleman who's retired early. He did a lot of voluntary work and charity fundraising for a local hospice. When they had a vacancy for an official fundraiser, they invited him to apply as they thought he'd be ideal. As he was still fairly young, he thought "why not?" and went along for an interview. Then they told him what the salary was and he said he felt sick. It was in the region of £40k. He felt disgusted that he had spent years raising money to basically pay the salary for someone to raise money. I appreciate that it is a job that possibly needs doing but that salary in the area we live in is far too high.

But fundraising involves a hell of a lot more than organising people to go out and shake tins or run jumble sales. It's a professional job and it will always be allocated on the basis that the person concerned is expected to raise several times his salary; without someone fulfilling that function, the amount raised would reduce by at least 70%, so it's worth every penny. No matter where you live, you really wouldn't get someone with the necessary experience, qualifications and contacts for less than £40K. If the job were based in the South, you would probably need to pay considerably more simply because of the costs of housing and commuting.

I never get why people object to charities paying for rent and salaries. Are their staff supposed to work in the local library (if it exists) and live off fresh air?

Sponsoring people directly is really really problematic: creates massive jealousy, opportunities for corruption, extortion etc. Supporting a village/area is also problematic (why this one and not the next one etc. etc.) but is generally better.

And on size of salaries, well, I don't think (most) charities pay more than they need to. But nor do I see why people who work for charities should work for an unfair wage. (NB - I DO think there are some very serious pension issues for some of the bigger charities tho: it's a bit of a time bomb).

BTW yes to WV being in Milton Keynes. They do have a tiny office near Westminster though - to be near DFID/for political lobbying... Seems reasonable enough to me.

what skills and experience do you think a fundraiser needs? you are aware of the (very many) different facets of fundraising? you are aware that a fundraiser will be expected to more than cover their salary as a basic prerequisite for the job? you aware of the qualifications many fundraisers have?

Yes, I am. We are talking about a local hospice here not an international operation. In an area where a senior manager in a large company earns less not to mention the actual nurses carrying out the care. The worst bit was that the gentleman was happy raising that every year for nothing but they were happy to pay him that money to do the same thing.

Giving to charity just feels like another tax. I tend to give by donating goods, and buying from charity shops, the odd bit of sponsorship, volunteering and bake sales etc. I don't feel bad about saying no to chuggers and the heartrending advertising campaigns because I know that so much money is just spent on fundraising and fancy London offices. I don't like being harangued for money, especially on a regular basis.