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.

OP, I have such mixed feelings on this. The OXFAM scandal and being cold called endlessly by charities has really made me feel differently towards the big charities.

But the small charities really can make a difference on the ground. Especially the ones fighting for unfashionable causes like those that help prisoners or their families. They do need the support.

I definitely agree about the premier football.

Those players earn enough to be able take a pay cut which would then support all the grounds men, cleaners, etc, that do the general day to day running of such clubs.
I don't agree that they should be getting government help to pay their wages.
If I was a multi millionaire footballer, being paid over 100K a week/month, I'd be telling my employee to suspend my pay fully for the year with the caveat that they use it to pay the wages of the grounds men, cleaners, etc.

If we had that kind of money I'd be using it to support others to stay afloat during these times, and I don't understand why they aren't.

Even if all the players just took a 20% pay cut, that would probably go a long way to paying the wages of ordinary staff, without relying on the government.

Lots of great points being raised that are definitely helping me see how some charities will need temporary help to continue running their services.

I do think it should depend on the type of work the charity is providing though, and I'm not sure if it should cover all costs or salaries, eg, those that fundraise.

I'm thinking it should maybe be limited to those that are actually out in the field, so to speak, helping to keep the country running, eg, Macmillan nurses, etc.

I really appreciate everyone's pov though and I am reading and taking it all in.

PersonaNonGarter, that's kind of where I've been coming from too.

I've also been very disillusioned by a charity that I'd been donating monthly to for over 15years, when it jumped on the virtue signalling bandwagon and basically sidelined 50 odd % of the population to pander to a certain group.

This has definitely coloured my opinion of charities, along with all the scandals that have come to light, and is most certainly affecting my judgement in this, which is why I posted about it, so I could get other people's views.

Our hospice will struggle I think - even with cash reserves

They run a huge sponsored walk every year that is one of its biggest fund raisers. It’s has been cancelled this year so will leave a huge hole going forward

So may of the large charities have lost their way it seems - OXFAM, NSPCC etc and I would feel very angry if the govt decided to help out charities such as Mermaids. I hope they don't.

Charities raise money for their causes from a variety of avenues. Events, like marathons, have all been cancelled. Community fundraising like bake sales and coffee mornings can't take place in the current climate. Charities often have partnerships with companies, many of whom are currently struggling or going bust. Likewise, the public cancel their direct debits during times of hardship. Right now, most people are heading into difficulties so every stream of income for charities is being squeezed at the same time.

Now when this fundraising stops coming in, the charities will go under unless they are helped. They have commitments to provide services or research. Staff are needed at every step of this - to fundraise to make the money to provide the service. 'Admin' staff like marketers, IT and editorial staff are essential. Charities cannot run without them. The services cannot be provided without them. The Tories are not going to pick up the thousands of support services and research projects that UK charities are currently funding. They will be gone. Charities employ thousands of people working very hard, predominantly very dedicated to their causes and earning less than an equivalent role in the private sector. Why anyone thinks they shouldn't be protected I cannot imagine. It makes me think people don't know the reality of the third sector and total lack of support services actually provided by the government.

Some charities should already be government funded, like air ambulance for example.

I was quite pleased to see this morning that BP have stepped up and are giving free fuel to air ambulance services in the UK at the moment.

Campaigning charities shouldn't get a government penny irrespective of what they campaign for. Active charities that literally save lives/provide critical community services should have the support they've always deserved from government but never had. It's shameful that we live in a country where hospices/children's hospitals/rescue services are run as charities!

As an aside, all private schools should have their charitable status revoked unless they're a not for profit enterprise but that's an entirely different rant.

Surely charities are for things the public has already decided not to pay for through tax ? So there is a series discussion to be had about suddenly dishing out hard-earned taxpayers money to organisations that individuals would never have donated to in a million years ?

Personally I don't like the idea that a single penny of my money goes into Trident. But given the government was elected with that as a promise, I can't complain.

It's much less clear cut if all of a sudden taxpayers money starts going to disparate charities ...

I think some charities essentially become self-serving, spending more effort and money on raising funds than on using them. It's an inherent risk of the model. But we should not tar all with the same brush.

I work for a charity which looks after people with a very rare illness

They always worked on the breadline. It cost money to run the phone lines. To buy the computers. To pay the nurse we have to take calls. The fundraising manager.

They are asking for people to give £100. Otherwise they will go down the pan. They almost always worked to a deficit.

I hope they don't go under. They are the ONLY charity used to help people with my rare illness

I work in the charity sector. The amount that will receive emergency gov funding is really minimal - would love to see the data when this is over. I work for a small international charity and we are 100% not eligible for any bloody Gov support. Most will probably be for community charities for vulnerable people. Would you rather them or big businesses step up a gear?

However. I also work for the homeless as well. I'm lucky that all my time means I volunteer for whatever I can

I can't imagine what will happen if that goes down the pan. We have staff 24/7. For people who are sick etc. We run their lives by helping them back into the community and we're only just doing that! They weren't any resources before. God knows if we will even be able to help these people. Who will end up sick and on the streets. That one is truly upsetting. Because you have to have a kind heart to do that job. Everyone is lovely.

Used to work in the charity sector and there is so much variation in how they are funded.

Some live a very hand to mouth existence, really they are often just a few weeks from the doors shutting if donations stop.

Others are more secure because they deliver statutory contracts and/or have some reserves or assets to back up donations. They are in a position to keep going for a bit, but would probably need to look at shutting down services and letting staff go if their income falls, possibly selling assets (but not the best market to do that).

Some (very few) are backed by endowed funds, so they aim to run services by only ever spending the interest from the endowment (donations tend to go into the endowment or to add extras). Usually these places are pretty well run and the advantage is that they can provide very stable services. They are usually able to keep going in times of crisis, but with interest rates having been low for a long time already, some are already creaking and relying on donations more.

It's probably stopped one of my friends from losing her job. It's a small local charity. It has about 6 part time employees and they run a children's centre and provide food in school holidays. They have had to close the centre but the staff still deserve to be paid.

Lots of charities wear both hats snafa. My friend works for a specialist DV charity that provides lifesaving refuge support and also campaigns very actively on DV issues. Not always possible to split services and advocacy into two totally discrete groups, especially if the charity is doing what is often a totally sensible and legitimate thing to do in using the front line work to inform policy campaigning.

I don't think most people understand what charity is these days. More and more, charities provide essential services that SHOULD be government funded.

My sister was terminally ill with brain tumours and it was a McMillan nurse - employee of a charity - who looked after her. She ordered drugs, got her to hospital when it was needed, arranged care for her and supported the family.

The Coastguard is a charity.

Much of social care is delivered by charities.

Hospices are charities

The government shouldn't be able to outsource their responsibility for what is essentially public services.

Snaga, many charities campaign and run services. If it weren't for their campaigns, some life saving drugs wouldn't be available to patients on the NHS or would only be available in certain regions and be a postcode lottery. If you don't keep those charities ticking over at times like this then people will die due to policies not being scrutinised or patients not being advocated for. That's as black and white as it is.

Reserves are just that though - money that is 'reserved' for delivering the service. There are often conditions placed on reserves, for example the charity I volunteer for can't just switch all their reserves over to paying salaries. Some they can, but not others.

Most charities that fundraise will have forecast how much they expected to 'earn' this year, and will already be seeing the black hole ahead. They're right to raise the alarm about this before it happens, it's prudent management. If you, say, run a hospice and expect to earn £1m from the marathon season, that money is committed in staff and running costs so they know well in advance that they are going to run out of money and they're saying so now.

While there are charities that I won't donate for the reasons you mention OP, I don't think it's wrong for any charity to say 'we are going to run out of money, which means this service won't be provided, so how do we as a society feel about that.'

And if it highlights the many, many things that we, the public, pay for by donation that the government should pay for by taxation, then that's a silver lining.

Many charities fill in the gaps to provide services which should be funded by government anyway, but you don't realise until you or family need the help.
Sadly we lost quite a few local charities & projects during austerity as councils could no longer offer funding, so I think would have a huge impact on society if those left also collapse.

I work for a smallish cat charity they get no public funding, no funding from sources like the lottery as they fund human charities only, often a cat comes in ill and costs a lot more than the adoption fee at the moment they have four shops closed so no revenue and paid staff still entitled to pay, fundraising events that bring in a good amount of funding all postponed or cancelled, even online sales suspended as I cant run the ebay page from home as all the set up is my office in the shop which is now closed they fostered out as many cats as they could from the centre as that is in lockdown but the cats in their care still have to be fed and the person who said air ambulance they are privately funded they get no public funding

Many charities fill in the gaps to provide services which should be funded by government anyway

Yes! RNLI, air ambulances, hospices, Centre Point, etc, etc

My daughter has some pretty serious mental health problems - she was referred by CAMHS to our local Youth Trust which again is a charity

Some charities have lost their way, but a lot are out there providing frontline services that really should be provided by the government

[Virtue signalling and sidelining 50% of the population] has definitely coloured my opinion of charities, along with all the scandals that have come to light

Agree totally Knowhowyoufeel2. I have never given anything to Oxfam after the scandal of the sexual exploitation of local women emerged. There are also examples where CEOs of charities are paid way more than the Prime Minister or where there is a very toxic culture that would make anyone question the morality of giving them any public or private money.

What you are highlighting is actually bigger than this immediate crisis and raises questions about what is the responsibility of the state and also the challenges of treating all charities the same way, whether they are eg small animal shelters totally reliant on small donations and local fundraising to those that are really like large corporations.