To hate it when major national charities don't actually do anything but boast about signposting ? ?

[koalakate999]

I really like the idea of supporting a charity.

But for goodness sake, you need to have an actual purpose.

E.g the Samaritans may not be perfect, but they provide a 24/7 phone line for lonely people to actually chat/ share worries/ get human contact, ( could be pretty useful at 3.00am on xmas day if feeling very low).

But so many of the other "big ones, " e.g. Age U.K, Macmillan, Mind etc seem to take a lot of money just to "signpost," people to local services they likely already knew about, e.g their local Citizen's Advice.

In fact, a lot of them all just seem to signpost to each other !?

Am I unreasonable in thinking the big charities should actually help individuals more, e.g. grants, services etc.

If anyone could suggest big charities that are providing tangible help I'd be very grateful.

Why shouldn't senior executives of a charity be given fair compensation for their work? The vast majority would earn tons more in the private sector. You say you want to help people, do you not think providing an attractive package to recruit experienced leaders is going to help do that? Or should charities just be run by whichever random bleeding heart volunteer you can manage to get to run an entire organisation on a pittance?

If you wouldn't work for below your market rate, don't expect charity workers to do so (although they mostly do).

I have never seen a charity 'boast about signposting' so don't know what you're actually referring to. However, no one is obliged to support any charity. But equally there's no need to justify it by trying to damage their reputation on flimsy anecdotal 'evidence' of the odd poor experience; or worse, supposition based in ignorance.
Large charities are typically subject to rigorous monitoring by regulatory bodies, so its unlikely any serious or ongoing failure to fulfil their duties would pass unnoticed until flagged up in a thread on MN.

I’m a bit confused about the comments about Macmillan. You can phone them for support at any time 8-8. I wouldn’t expect to see someone in person - they are a phone or email or online organisation. Are people talking about something different? Why would you expect to see a real person, or have someone turn up at your house?

I don't completely agree with the OP. I have found Macmillan to be fabulous, not just signposting. Their support lines have been a major source of help for me during my cancer journey either as a friendly listening ear when I haven't felt able to vent to my family any more or when they helped me during a job application process and how to broach the subject of cancer. Each time they checked if I needed any additional support i.e. financial advice or medical advice.

Just looking at Scope's accounts. Don't think it's an issue for the chief exec to be paid £150k when it's a £40 million turnover company with over 2,000 staff.

Only looked at Scope as it really winds me up that they really do appear to have put as much distance between themselves and people with cerebral palsy as they possibly could. Campaigning being a damned sight easier than providing physical support I guess.

Anyway, I've got no problem with the top people earning a half decent amount especially in the larger charities as frankly you put people in charge who haven't got a clue of running multi million pound organisations you may as well burn money.

However, I do have a problem with expansion for expansions sake and you're spending more on the bureaucracy than the operational delivery.

The shift to retail empires also annoys me because the proliferation of charity shops is not helping the high street one bit.

OK, so rather than turning on the OP, maybe consider WHY this is the view they have of those charities?

I agree. I think if charities are doing more than signposting or raising awareness then they need to be more effective in communicating exactly what they deliver and how much it costs to deliver it, and what proportion of that cost comes from donations as opposed to central grants.

I still don't really know what the NSPCC does. Maybe amazing stuff! But they haven't told me.

Charities are just a form of business. Like any business they exist to make money. As with any business, some charities provide a more valuable service than others. Some have more integrity than others.

This is not correct. Charities do not exist to make money. Charities are 'not for profit' organisations. They do however, obviously need to acquire sufficient funds to carry out their charitable aims, as their work has a cost, and typically this cost is not covered by the service user.

Just semantics. They exist to "make" money, it's just that they don't make "profits" as the money they make should be ploughed into service provision rather than shareholder pockets. They need to "make" money to pay for the staffing, management, premises, and other overheads.