To think children in need is out of touch?

[Tictocrobot]

It’s the idea that we should all be inspired by the tragic story of disadvantaged children. Sad music, celebrities visiting groups where disabled children are paraded so that all us at home feel thankful for our lot in life. We give £5 then thank our lucky stars and wash our hands of it.

I know that’s a sweeping statement but really? Disabled children aren’t tragic and why is it up to them to be inspiring?

Disabled children are people. They shouldn’t be marginalised. To only have an opportunity to go to an after school club because of a handout that could be removed at any time. The government should be making sure that all people can do all of the things.

I know, I know, budgets. But maybe just tax Amazon a bit more and stop scrimping at every turn.

In my county there is a waiting list of 400+ children to get a place at a SEN school. I have one child who I can sign up for music lessons, Cubs, swimming lessons, football club, drama club etc at the drop of a hat. I have another child who is not able to access any of those things.

I’ve gone off on a tangent. But I guess my main point is. Being disabled isn’t sad. It’s just another way of living. What is sad is the lack of funding and one night of celebrity culture and tear jerking videos isn’t going to solve that.

George Michael…

Donated to lots of charities

Are there no charities in Germany? Would all the services provided by the charities supported by CIN exist in a country where the Government provide services. Many of these charities are quite niche

I worked for a charity that provided free at source counselling for young people in a very deprived London Borough. Since NHS MH services are so overloaded they work with many very damaged young people, victims of rape, incest, DA, violent assaults, homelessness, homophobia, racism, failed suicides, slavery and much more who would otherwise be unsupported. They also ran a support service for young refugees and asylum seekers and another division supported young careers and their families.

All of this is done without government funding. CiN grants are a vital source of income to that charity as they are to hundreds of other charities across the country. That money isn't just helping young people, it often saves their lives.

Why shouldn’t people give to charity?

Yes in an ideal world charity wouldn’t be needed.

But our world is far from ideal and I think it’s great that people come together to help others.

"CIN have been a massive donator to the Salford Lads Club

Nothing stopping those anti cin donating directly to good charities

I donate when I can to charities I know and trust and have even benefitted from directly myself in the past. Generally speaking smaller local charities tend to get more done per £ donated than the large national ones, several of whom have in recent years been found not only wanting in terms of their charity work but actively involved in highly dubious behaviour"

I never said people couldn't donate to charities they chose themselves and if you look at my post I also said there are a lot more charities that I support over CIN. I was just trying to point out that some of the larger money donations on offer to local groups/charities from the fund can be quite a huge difference from staying open or having to wind their function down. I certainly know that has been true for Salford Lads Club, which is why I mentioned them in my post. If local support had been dropping in left, right and centre - then CIN wouldn't have been needed would it?

The thing that gets to me is whole sphere about giving to children less fortunate than you. You are lucky look at these poor kids crap they do.

I do think they have toned it dots bit in recent years but there is a disabled child in every class. There are kids in every school in poverty or who have had a bereavement or who are you caters. These kids are not other they are us.

It is awful that in 2021 children have to appear in films highlighting how vulnerable they are to have their basic needs met. Or in the case of young carers we won’t meet your parents basic needs so you need to care for them but here is a weekly art class.

However if it wasn’t for charity a lot of kids would be going without and we can’t expect this awful government to do anything about it. I just wish they would do it in a way that was less humiliating for children. I am disabled and have been since childhood this stuff does affect children it also affects people’s attitudes to disabled people.

Its nice to hear some of the succesful projects funded.

The cricket club in my very affluent village got a £70k grant from CIN to make a children's playground.Not my idea of 'in need'

@Justajot

Henning Wehn said "We don't do charity in Germany. We pay taxes. Charity is a failure of governments' responsibilities." I completely agree with this - it is a government failure that CiN is necessary.

This explains what I was trying to say perfectly.

What annoys me is they don't know what to do with the money. Something ridiculous like £60 million is still in the kitty from previous CINs.
Why not stop for a few years until they've spent that money. No point giving more when it's not being spent.

@therebeccariots

The one that gets me is 'young carer's'. The celebration of these children taking on enormous responsibilities way beyond their developmental age with often massive impacts on their own lives is galling. It should be a source of national shame that a child has to give their mum their insulin or look after a disabled sibling. Society and the state fails those children and should step up to give them their childhoods back. I don't watch. My kids do whatever dress up/non uniform that school do and we pay our pound. That's it. We support charities in our own way and I don't need 'entertaining' for hours on end interspaced with a tear jerking story.

Completely agree with this

@KatherineofGaunt

My Dad has always had a dislike of these big charity days/evenings. He says that he thinks charity should be an everyday thing, not just something thought about on one or two days a year.

But he appreciates they do raise money and raise awareness. He just wishes that people who are financially able to would choose a charity or two to support year-round with £1-3 a month.

I do - lots more than that. So do the people around me. It'll never be enough though.

It's just the BBC pretending that they love and protect kids, to cover up for the fact that they let JS abuse them for years and did nothing to stop him.

I agree. I have a child with Down Syndrome and she isn’t in any way tragic or a sob story to be used for donations. It’s a shame because lots of children really benefit from projects funded by CIN but the yearly show just ruins it.

@earsup

I read they are sitting on millions of pounds...why not spend it...dont support or give them a penny.

The money raised previously is probably not spent because it will be making more millions in interest every year. There is likely some loophole that the interest can be taken by the trust. Cynical? Yep!

I'm always interested to look at costs v amounts raised. These big charities raise a lot of money, but that comes with the fact that it costs a lot to run them.

The last Annual Report for BBC Children in Need is for the year ended June 2019 (so pre COVID times). Total costs for that year were 18.1% of total income. It was 16.2% the previous year.

The last Annual Report for the Comic Relief Group (which includes Sport Relief) is for the year ended 31st July 2020, so includes some COVID effects, including the loss of the new CEO after barely a month, as she returned to Seattle to be with her family. For each £1 raised, 76p goes to projects, and 24p (ie nearly a quarter) goes on everything else (allocating / monitoring, awareness raising and the actual fundraising.) COVID led to a bumpy year - less income / more spending. The Board made the decision to transfer 75% of liquid investments into cash, to protect reserves. Hence there will be less investment income in the future.

Whether or not such large and complicated organisations are good value for money is for each individual donor to decide. They can't be run on a shoe-string, like most small local charities - they are different beasts altogether, so if we support them , we accept the running costs that go along with them. And they do raise lots of money. I've been part of a small local charity that benefited from a C-I-N grant. It would have taken us years to raise that amount of money. Personally, I think the Children in Need costs are (just about) acceptable. I have more doubts about Comic Relief.

@EmKayEm

It is the Left-wing saviour complex. From an organisation that has enabled more child abuse than the Catholic church and the teaching profession combined.

Well I think that's a slight exaggeration! Yes Saville was allowed to get away with abuse for years, but schools and the Church have abused for centuries!

@Rosebel

What annoys me is they don't know what to do with the money. Something ridiculous like £60 million is still in the kitty from previous CINs. Why not stop for a few years until they've spent that money. No point giving more when it's not being spent.

If that really is the case it's shameful when there are so many good causes looking for cash.

But I think Help for Heroes also has money it doesn't know what to do with?

In Germany they pay church taxes so I assume the Churches do a lot of the work charities do here.

@AppleKatie

You are right OP. A mother of a severely disabled child properly put in my place when I explained our project and she concisely pointed out how impracticable and actually potentially harmful it was to promise these things we couldn’t possibly deliver. I’ve never forgotten it.

There should be a better way!

AppleKatie could you explain this a bit more for me please? I’m sure she was right but I’m struggling to understand the sort of thing you were offering that could be harmful? I’m full of cold and probably being thick but I’d like to better understand.

All those people saying 'I give to my local charity'. The point is that CiN and others like them enable smaller less well known organisations to get money via an application system. Say £20k for 3 years. It brings them stability.Many could never get that from fundraising within the community. Local primary school will happily fundraising for some causes but not others. How are you going to explain a project that supports children fleeing from sexual abuse or domestic violence to 6 year olds ?!?.. CiN bit easier sell with pudsey. And then those organisations get the funds too.
Popular round here is the children hospital charity but they have reserves of millions. They only support a small number of parents a year. I'm not saying it's not worthwhile of course it is, but why does everyone support them. Its virtue signalling to do a fundraiser for them....meanwhile there are many other organisations scraping by. They don't put on many activities (like the OP said) because they don't have the funds to and a lot are volunteer run as you need steady funds to hire people.
Of course young carers should be getting proper support. CiN aren't supposed to fund things that government should provide though. Although government definitely wants that to be the case.
If you're looking for blame. Point it at government, local and national..and voters who want low taxes. They are providing less and less year by year.
Another example is homelessness. Everyone sending in hats and wooly socks at Christmas but not thinking that the bulk of homeless people are those insecurely housed, including plenty of children.. perhaps even in their own school community. I've noticed in the last few years though there's been a lot more awareness of food poverty for example with schools doing that. CiN do need to update their approach when considered to some other campaigns to try and capitalise a bit on this increased understanding.

I don't watch it, but Children in Need the charity funds really necessary, inspiring, important things. So by all means slag off the BBC, but the fact remains that CIN funds lots of incredible project and charities that really need the money. That disabled and other children really benefit from it.

And yes, it might (and probably is) be that the state should provide this, but it doesn't. It just doesn't.

They have a lot of money in the kitty/bank/ reserves as projects they award funding to generally get multiple year funding (say 3 years)... so if CiN stopped tomorrow (for some reason) they can continue their financial commitment to the organisations they've already promised money to (actually the grants are kind of legal like loan agreements that you don't pay back). They are obliged to do this. If they didn't then if they stopped then lots of organisations would end up closing overnight. If grants stopped how would they pay their staff who work on the funded projects and their rent, what happens to the children they work with. Hope that explains.CiN is run as an entity so isn't part of BBC finances.
No one is forcing anyone to give. Even schools can't and don't. So don't if you don't want to. But I don't get the resentment.

I will not now donate to children in need as I do not support some of the causes that they give to.

Charities are a crap way to fund what should be essential public services. One of the things "people in need" (no matter the cause: disability, abuse, poverty, ...) need the most is stability. I.e continuity of service, predictability, long term support. Uncertainty is the single biggest source of stress for anyone whose basic needs are not properly met.

Charity funding is precarious by nature. Sustainable support requires government involvement. Imagine if the NHS or schools were funded through charitable donations? They'd have to just close shop and lay off staff when funds are low, only open for random special events... It'd be madness. Yet that's the state of disability support for children in this country!