To ask if you would donate online to a charity?

[cantbearsed1]

This is a result of a discussion with a friend who said she would never donate online to a charity, as "they all waste money". I disagreed.
So it made me wonder about other people's views.
So would you donate online to a charity?

Depends on the charity!

I prefer to support small charities that have low or minimal admin costs. I think charities should be clear about how much of every £1 received goes on admin and running costs.

Surely how charities accept money is a separate issue from how they spend it?

Most charities will accept online donations as it's a practical, low cost way of receiving money.

Most charities will spend some of the donations they receive in ways that some will consider wasteful.

Your friend's reasoning makes no sense at all.

I do online donations for big events (Children in Need, Red Nose Day, disaster appeals), direct debits for my regular charities and cash in tins if someone's collecting for a charity that I like.

I would probably find it easier to donate on line than actually give cash

What's the problem with donating online? I'd rather donate online than give to chuggers. But yes, a lot of charities waste money.

cwtches But every charity has admin costs. So if you are running a club for kids, you need someone who will collect the registration forms, organise DSBs (police checks), keep allergy info in a place where everyone is clear about it, make safeguarding referrals, write to parents with information, give reports back to grant funders, keep insurance up to date, deal with OFSTED and registration, etc etc.
Without any of that, the club would be poorly run. But charities know most people do not want donations to go to admin, so many lie and do not count any admin as actual admin unless it is done by an admin worker.

I won't donate to a charity unless I am fully aware of what they do, how they spend it on the charitable aims and how much of their income goes on administration. In some cases, the size of their reserves, too. I also won't support any charity that uses chuggers.

It's shocking how much some major charities spend on admin.

But that's got fuck all to do with whether I would donate online, by cheque, by bank transfer, by cash in a pot etc. Donating online can often be fairly cheap to administer (which is a good thing) if the charity sets up their own systems and portal - using someone else's or JustGiving is often more expensive.

@cantbearsed1 But a lot of "clubs" for kids won't be registered charities, though

If they have more than £10000 income a year and are non-profit making, then legally they have to register as a charity. But my point was just that some admin has to be done to be well run.

@cantbearsed I know what the requirements are. I run a registered charity (albeit not a kids club). Most kids clubs will not be registered charities. And what's that got to do with your friend's statement anyway?

If they have more than £10000 income a year and are non-profit making, then legally they have to register as a charity

Not true. The organisation I volunteer for is not a registered charity, it describes itself as a voluntary organisation, seeks donations, is transparent about what it does and how it spends donations - accounts are available to anyone who asks, has an income well above £10k, doesn't make a profit and works perfectly well as it is.

Isn't it more admin to count the coins and bring them to the bank than receiving it direct on tgeir bank account?

I don't mind the admin costs for charities. I do mind the very expensive television ads and if the CEO has a big salary.

i tend to donate online to one off events as i work for a cat charity there are other smaller cat charities near me who though too small to register i know the people personally and sometimes they get a cat in that needs specific expensive vet treatment so i will donate a small amount to this specific cat but dont donate to their general running costs as i know there are fundraisers who help with their day to day costs

Whether you donate online, in person, or by cheque in the post, is surely immaterial to the issue of whether the charity is well run and economical with its admin costs?
Donating online, and saying you don’t want mailshots by post, saves the charity money on admin. They can update you or thank you by email for free.
I support charities with acceptable admin costs (under 10%) in areas that I prioritise. Some are regular longstanding direct debits, but I donate surplus cash online each month on a rolling basis to several other worthy causes.

I dont mind the admin for charities, it is necessary, how else can they be administrated

I always seriously roll my eyes at people who complain about 'admin costs' of charities.

'Admin' costs covers everything in their mind from paying qualified or educated people to do the work requiring qualifications or education, to begrudging the fact a charity that generates that level of income - shock! - needs the infrastructure to disburse it. And that's why they are effective.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's complete bollocks:

www.fastcompany.com/40528257/donors-cant-stop-believing-that-nonprofits-pay-too-much-overhead

How you donate has nothing to do with how they spend their money though?

I have a few charities that I support regularly by direct debit who I believe spend their money in an impactful way and will occasionally give online or in person if friends are fundraising or there’s some sort of crisis/event.

@thecatsthecats I'd prefer a UK article than a US one but I don't necessarily disagree with the fundamentals. But people are entitled to see how a charity wants to spend their money and if that person thinks 27p in each pound is too high and can find another charity with a similar cause manages to do their admin for 22p in each pound and is happier with that, that's their right.

Yes a few times a year I donate via PayPal to the charities I support, plus I donate to Wikipedia when they ask. I must use them once a day and they have to raise funding.

Your friend is just looking for reasons not to give anything, all charities have costs. She needs to look for the ones doing the best they can won't the money.

Drs without borders spends a load of money but most people agree they are needed.

I don't see the difference between online and offline donations, but find the website givewell.org is a good starting point to assess which charities make best use of their donations

Yes, I donate online. It's an easy method and also enables them to claim gift aid to top up the donation

But I don't donate willy nilly. I research the charity first to make sure it matches my values and is a cause that I believe my donation can help to make an impact.

There is one major charity that focusses on on-line donations that I don't donate to because they don't respond to my communications, even though I work in the charitable sector they purport to support.

I wouldn't donate online to any charity. I make donations by direct debit mandate and make cash donations to street collectors to charities of my choosing.

I never give my bank details to any of the charity chuggers in the street but decide who to support and set up DD myself inside my bank.

I hate being accosted in the street by Pudsey etc. If you shake a can at me you'll get nothing. if you just stand and allow me to see who you are collecting for, you're more likely to receive a donation.

i'm moving house in 18 months so am ebaying 20 odd years of hoarding ,[mine and the dc's stuff], it's going really well but what doesn't sell goes to various charity shops. i'm clearing clutter, making money, charities get stuff for selling, someone gets a bargain, everyone's a winner as del boy would say.

I work for a charity and online donations enable us to actually achieve our goals. It isn't possible without the support of donors.

This sounds more like a question about someone thinking charities are a waste of money, rather than paying money online.

I don't understand how the method of donation is the question here?

As for charities wasting money, I think many of them are currently picking up the pieces of the massive decline in public services in the wake of austerity at the moment.

Anyhow a few questions for those who are sceptical:

Who's going to rescue you at sea - RNLI.

Who's going to provide you with a guide dog if you are blind - Guide Dogs for the Blind.
Who's going to be first on the scene at a festival or football match if you feel ill - St John's Ambulance.

Who's going to help with your hospital discharge - more often than not British Red Cross.

Who's going to take Rotherham to task about child sexual exploitation - Barnardo's.

Who's going to help wounded ex-serviceman - Help for Heroes
Who's going to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty - RSPCA
Feeling suicidal and desperate with no one to talk to - Samaritans
Get into difficulty in the mountains in the UK - Mountain Rescue
Find yourself homeless - Shelter

And that is just a tiny selection of fairly essential services being provided by charities.

Most charities are well run, well governed and it is a real shame that people have a view that they "waste money". I suspect it is an excuse used not to support them, rather than based in reality.