To ask what you think about charities asking for government money?

[Knowhowufeel2]

There was a piece on BBC news this morning about charities starting to run out of money and expecting help from the government.

What are people's opinions on this? Should they receive help or not?

I'm not sure where I stand, tbh, part of me thinks they can't help everyone or they'll be nothing left, but I accept that my opinion is probably coloured because I've become rather jaded with charities, so I'm really interested in what other people think.

Apparently St John's Ambulance will have run out of money by August, and it just makes me wonder where the money goes.
I only caught the end of the news piece so may have missed some of these answers.

Presumably St John’s Ambulance are supporting the NHS in some way, given their speciality?

Many charities deliver government services via contract/service level agreement. If their admin costs are no longer covered, the services will go under with the charity.

think of hospices. they will close if they have no funds

The financial model for most charities means if income for projects doesn't come in, they only have enough reserves to pay redundancy for their staff and other winding up costs.

I would rather charities with expertise and experience didnt close.

But then if there are other models for delivering support without charities and government will fund the development of that instead, fine.

I've got mixed feelings.
I volunteer for a national charity and I give my time.

Knowing that some of the administration people in the large charities are paid huge salaries pisses me off.
Knowing that some have vast reserves (I believe Children in Need was quoted at one time for having £10m in the bank) pisses me off.
Knowing that some of the above is needed for these charities to exist/continue is where I go wobbly.

Knowing that some of the administration people in the large charities are paid huge salaries pisses me off

the administration people managing multi million pound projects are paid considerably less than they would be in both public and private sectors for doing the same work. Why shouldn’t people be paid approx for their expertise and knowledge? The charity sector employs thousands of people. You can’t expect people to live on fresh air and being reliant on volunteers simply isn’t possible for service delivery.

It largely depends on the charity. Some really are quite rich, in charitable terms. Great Ormond Street are a good example of this, while other children’s hospitals don’t get similar funding. I don’t begrudge GOSH a single penny but it would be nice if the government could offer at least some equivalent funding.

Some charities are not benign, however, and as the Kids Company scandal showed, some are downright corrupt.

Who do you propose provides the services the charities offer if they can't? Ts's reasonable for the government to support charities if the services they offer are needed and they are best placed to provide them.

gatehouse I work for a charity. I earn a good salary for doing so.

When you donate to Macmillan, say, it isn’t with the expectation the nurses will do the job for free, that’s the whole point.

Charities legally aren't allowed to have 'vast reserves'. 10m might sound like a lot but for example, I worked for a charity with 6 employees and their costs were in the 1 million per year range, and I assure you none of us earned megabucks. They ran dozens of events per year furthering the cause that all made a loss.

And yes, people in charities earn considerably less for their role than they would out of the charitable sector. My charity CEO earned about 50k.

Charities which perform legitimate functions, which the government should already be providing?

Yes.

"Charities" which are effectively giant high paid jollies for paedophiles to go and offend in 3rd world/disaster stricken countries?

Nope. Down the spout with them.

#anupsidetoeverything

@Gatehouse77, that's kind of where I stand.

I've become quite disillusioned with most of them (the large international ones that I see as businesses rather than charities), and I actually cancelled all but one of my direct debits to various charities last year.

I've also volunteered for local charities for around 15 years, although my health hasn't been up to it for the past year or so.

I'm sure most people are still paying their dd donations to charities too, and I'm a bit shocked how little money they've got in reserve if they're already running out.

I'm wondering if they've done what most businesses have had to do and took paycuts (those that get paid), etc, to get ahead of the issues, or are they expecting their salaries to be fully covered as part of any help?

Thanks for all the differing opinions though, it's useful to read other people's views.

I work (employed) in a charity shop which raises revenue for the charity.

I am currently furloughed along with all my retail colleagues. Charity is paying us until the govt money comes through and has then promised to top up for as long as it can.

Revenue has been slashed. Wage bill has stayed the same. Services are still being provided.

I work for a big charity which must have some reserves but I think it’s going to be very difficult tbh

Many charities provide important services, even during the current crisis. Cancer treatment - cancelled, I'm sure Macmillan is stepping in to reassure patients.
Homeless people moved into hotels- I know our local charity is helping as they already have a rapport with the people who need to be moved.
And so on... they need help just as any other business.

Depends on the charity obviously but, some charities are doing vital work that maybe the governments over the years should have been doing themselves. Age UK, Cancer Research, Air Ambulance, The RNLI just for starters. So yes, they should get government help because if they go under where does that leave us after this is all over? And charity reserves are strictly controlled so yes some will be running out after 3-6 months.

I work for a domestic abuse charity. We have the contract to provide the service for the entire county and get the bulk of our funding from the county council. If that money stops, so do our services meaning there would be no refuges, no community support, no specialist support for children.

I think our bosses are in talks with the council about additional funding. We're not being greedy. We have more work to do now as lockdown has increased the number of DV victims.

I'm afraid that I would rather see charities supported than I would the big multinationals that have been supported and the larger companies.

The charities have many volunteers but also have staffing costs as well. Many also fund research. In addition to the running costs if they have offices, shops etc.

Why should they be so adversely affected but airlines get support?

A lot of the work charities do is picking up what the NHS, local authorities and social cere no longer do!

Many charities deliver services that the government can't or won't provide. I work in mental health and Mind, for instance offer free or very cheap counselling or other forms of support that are stretched within the NHS and may otherwise be unaffordable.

If they're providing such services, I have no issue with them getting funding from the government or local authority.

I spoke to a keeper at my local zoo the other day, wondering how they were managing. He told me it costs 1.4million pounds every year to feed the animals (split over the two zoos the charity manages) They along with another zoo in the region have been on Facebook asking for donations to help as so much of the funds they need comes from the entrance fees. This particular charity has a lot of breeding programmes trying to rebuild the population of endangered species and they will struggle without support.

Charities providing services that the government can't should receive support.

I heard on the radio yesterday that premier league teams were applying for the government's 80% wages programme for their non playing staff, catering and cleaning staff etc who only earn £100s a week whilst still paying out ££££ for their players which I thought was disgusting. The players should be offering to support those workers with the obscene amount they receive.

It's interesting on this thread that some posters are questioning why charities have such huge reserves and others say charities should have reserves and not receive government support. Charities generally can't win with the public. One or two bad apples and stories in the press taint the whole sector. Yet charities are a huge part of our welfare and social support system, not to mention medical research. Do you know how much cancer research is done by the government? Zero. So if you want people to survive cancer, you need charities. And charities need staff.

Many charities rely heavily on their shops to fund their work so have lost this source of income. Hospices and the RNLI often have collection boxes in workplaces or pubs which are now not being filled. Others, such as domestic abuse charities, have seen an increase in demand.

I personally don’t mind charities claiming from the government. It’s far preferable to the premiership football clubs that continue to pay huge salaries to their players but are using the government scheme to claim for non playing staff (or even laying them off).

I'd much rather charities (even large 'well-off' ones) get money from the government than massive companies like Virgin fucking Atlantic who make billions in revenue and are still crying they have no money the scum sucking parasites.

I think it depends on the charity. Sone provide essential support in the fight against Covid-19 both at home and abroad. It would be cheaper to fill the gap than to provide these services directly. Other charities spend the vast majority of their donations on paying their non-voluntary staff and getting in more donations (yes oxfam, I mean you), I don’t see why they should receive additional funding given that they don’t provide any important services and their continued survival isn’t particularly beneficial given that they don’t even pay tax.