Do you ever feel some big charities don't actually do anything?

[Cinderellaspumpkin]

Do you ever feel some big name charities don't actually do much more , when scratching under the surface, than signposting, ( often to other organisations that signpost), and "raise awareness," of the cause.

Any in particular you are thinking of?

I see your point, although I find it hard to know which fit this catagory. It's hard to tell which make a meaningful difference & which don't.

I've heard mixed reviews about Macmillan for example, but would be interested to find out more.

Which do you mean exactly? Some charities are lobbying organisations and research funders rather than service providers. I agree sometimes their communications are not clear about exactly what function they service.
Eg if you want to support practical cancer support then donate to MacMillan or a local hospice rather than SU2C

*function they serve

Definitely. Even more so since having worked for one and knowing people who’ve worked for similar ones.

I rarely give to big corporate charities

Yes. They haven't actually done very much in the last 50 years have they? Any of them.

Like which charities? I assume you’ve gone on the charity commission website, read their governing documents which sets out their charitable objective, their accounts & annual reports to reach this conclusion?

You sound fun at parties…

I've recently left a small charity.

Their high % of funding spent of causes sounds good, but in reality masks a dreadful lack of safeguarding, and a completely backwards means of operations.

And their success rates were completely bunk too, because I was the only person in the organisation who knew how to measure their performance. After I quit, a lot of the frontline staff said to me privately that they thought we we're barely making and effect.

I cringe when I see small charities praised for the mere virtue of being small. I don't think there's any sort of correlation between size and competence.

She does actually. I’d rather be stuck in the corner with the intelligent speaker backing up her views for an interesting discussion, than the person just saying, “yeah but no but what do they dooooooo” who just likes the sound of their own voice and doesn’t actually want to know 🤷🏻‍♀️

No don't think that, occasionally wonder if their advertising is too much or poorly targeted.

I recently looked through the websites of Mind, and the Energy Saving Trust. Both websites felt like signposting alone and for Mind it then said that the "local Mind" which seemed like it actually provided support groups and counsellors was financially independent of Mind. So as far as I can tell the national charity Mind is just a shop front, directing people to local groups (financially separate) and providing info on the website. Energy Saving Trust was even more explicit about being a signposting site.

I think there are a few causes that are superfluous - sort of 'fur coat and no knickers' - that receive millions in funding from the public, simply because they're a household name and they're very good at marketing or known for an event (Comic Relief, I'm looking at you).

However, from working many years in the third sector, what really irks me is the number of non-roles in charities. Long role titles and almost always in management; there are a lot of people doing nothing for their healthy pay packets (front line charity workers are often poorly paid in comparison). People happy to hide in the sector and hold their hands out without needing to give a rat's arse about the cause they work for. Maybe this isn't the case in your charity, before I get shouted down, but I've seen it a lot. Some cases could almost be considered fraud, in my eyes.

It annoys me because they're roles that appear to be necessary on paper, but this is rarely the case in practice (in one household name charity, my boss's boss spent all morning with his feet up on the desk reading the daily paper. He was on more than 40k 20 years ago). The sad outcome is that they drain money that could make a real difference to the beneficiaries or end service user.

I actually don't have a problem with the wages of charity CEOs, for a number of reasons - the responsibility on their shoulders is huge, and often life or death outcomes rest in their lap. It's middle management that are the leeches, in my experience.

Rant over. Apologies, I've gone off topic.

MIND is a franchise model so each local MIND is affiliated to national MIND (I used to work for a local MIND) National MIND focuses on information, policy, research & campaigning at a national level and working with other national charities on issues affecting mental health. They also give advice, training & guidance to local MINDs. Local MINDs provide the direct services because local services based where people are work much better for people. They compliment each other - local MINDS so not have the money, time & skills to embark on large scale research or campaigns, national MIND know that localised services run by organisations based locally with a trustee board of local people are far better for people with mental health difficulties.

'She does actually. I’d rather be stuck in the corner with the intelligent speaker backing up her views for an interesting discussion'

YES!! I hate that saying 'you sound fun at parties' as if anyone who can think critically is automatically a fun sponge. Give me a knowledgeable person at a party any day.

If you do have a quick look at their accounts, it's shocking how much money is wasted on admin and middle management and not much is actually 'done', with the money given.

I think a lot of charities do stuff which isn't visible so it may seem like they're not doing much. I volunteer at an adoption centre for a national animal charity and the staff have to deal with so much crap from the public so these people are generally the ones who bad mouth us or those who can't adopt a particular cat because their home clearly isn't suitable.
I have had dealings with Macmillan recently due to breast cancer. The Macmillan information and support woman at the hospital is fantastic; so knowledgeable and helpful. She has secured funding for courses to help cancer patients. I wouldn't be fully aware of what they did had I not accessed their support. They do need to pay the top people decent enough wages to manage the charities and they can't run entirely on volunteers alone. In an ideal world not all charities would be necessary and more support would come from the state.

I work for a small local office of a large, well known advice charity. They've recently had a massive fundraising drive in a well known newspaper, and local offices will see none of that money. It's all going to their national phoneline, who are the public face of the organisation but who, 9 times out of 10, signpost people to their local office. So we get 9 times the work but none of the funding. We're staffed mostly by volunteers, managed by paid staff (me included). We raise all our own funding from local sources, so it's galling seeing the newspaper articles about the charity and hearing how many millions have been raised for 'us' to help people through the cost of living crisis, knowing that we will never see a penny of it.

No actually. There may be exceptions but by and large I think they are far more effective than the little ones that either have no reach or no internal auditing or evaluation processes so you never really know what impact they have.

I have recently had my eyes opened to absolutely mind blowing AWSOME, over and above work by a couple of charities with dedication and commitment only seen previously in specialists in the NHS.

I felt very tiny in their presence.

These influence national policy, future research and evidence base, their mission is to find cures and do everything that they can to ensure a good life for sufferers.
Focussing on education and raising awareness.

Patient charities run by patients themselves are an inspiration.

You can’t lump them all together. There are some brilliant organisations out there.

Money on admin isn't wasted. The charity can't run without the admins and managers. You need someone to take the referrals, assess them, supervise the staff, be a designated safeguarding officer, track (and spend) the money, and the funders want to see outcomes in return for their money. The admins and managers gather all that information and present it to the funders. If you had a load of project workers with no admin and no manager the place would be chaos.

Having worked in the sector for 15 years I now only give to large charities and organisations. They are so, so much more effective and efficient. They properly train people and the much maligned ‘admin and middle management’ make sure that everyone is working hard, efficiently and using donations in the best way.

I Would never give to a charity with a turnover of less than £5m a year as they will be often be trying their best but not able to have the impact big ones do.

one of the best things to happen was the merger of three small breast cancer charities into breast cancer now which makes so much more sense than three small inefficient ‘competing’ charities.

https://www.mind.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/

MIND are a national campaigning, advocacy and research organisation that run national advice lines and provide resources and training to smaller scale, local franchised organisations.

OP, it's hard to answer your question without knowing which charities you mean and in what sector, and what you expect them to "actually do".

Big organisations can be corrupt and slow to react, yes. But they can also have the advantage of being full of experienced people who are good at knowing where resources are best directed in order to forward that charity's aims.

For example look at the people who as soon as the war in Ukraine broke out started filling up vans with baby blankets and phone chargers and tins of beans and driving them over to the Polish border "because we just need to do something". It actually ended up being a hindrance as many of those items weren't needed and had to be sorted through and stored somewhere, and those that were needed could have been bought much more cheaply locally.

On the other hand organisations like UNICEF and the Red Cross have the expertise to acquire and direct aid efficiently and get the resources into the hands of people who actually need them, minimising corruption along the way. Or at least that's the theory.

@MeinKraft
I'm not disputing that some admin is needed. But lots of donation money is wasted. I believe there is a lot of waste. Most donators would be unhappy if they realised how little of their donation was actually going to 'help someone'. You know what I'm trying to say here.