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.

I think the thing is with franchise models is that most contracts & grants are local & decided locally by local authorities & ICBs and many local areas have their own big charities so generating income locally makes sense

using MIND as an example again. local MINDS are generally quite big local players with incomes between £500,000 - £1 million. There are around 100 of them. I can’t see that national MIND would ever raise enough money to fund them too that extent year on year

I worked for a big animal charity years ago & the amount of donations spent on team building days & frivolous rubbish was insane plus the ceo used to rock up in Bentley which I couldn’t fathom & the salaries of some of the staff was enormous, but the kind staff that actually cared for animals daily got treated appallingly don’t get me started on the expenses that staff put through. I doubt much has changed tbh

Used to work for one.

Go have a look at the car park.

Pull down the accounts from companies house
question the level of financial reserves.

it’s a bit sickening.

IMHO - it’s the biggest con of the 20th century. From the smallest charities to the largest - none are immune from drawing a living most would consider excessive. They aren’t all at it - but do your research first. Alas, the scale of the charity tends to assist in the level of obfuscation in their accounting practices.

id never work for one again.

If it's about checking accounts, you end up just not giving, who is going to check accounts?

Oddly enough, mum has someone from Age UK or whatever visiting soon. I have a feeling they will just tell us to do the things we've already done.

At the small charity I worked for, there was huge resistance to admin expenditure - either in dedicating the time or the money. This led to issues such as:

• Unfair dismissal case because a manager didn't cross check the process with HR, and didn't have any management training. The appeal consumes hours and hours of multiple staff's time because they didn't do a half day course and a ten minute phonecall when the original situation arose.
• Using the database incorrectly to record case notes and report successes. Our service users are highly vulnerable, and tell us very sensitive things about past abuse. These records need to be held securely. Some frontline staff are uncertain and won't engage with training. Half of them record too much, half of them nothing at all. Both are bad. If management would invest the time in sorting out what's needed, they could spend less time more effectively.
• There is NO central network of folders/files. Every staff laptop is completely separate to the others. Staff lack basic knowledge such as searching emails, or filing important documents. Staff are continually emails each other copies of files, including going back to old versions of forms and spreadsheets.
• Staff have no knowledge of basic cyber security. Day one, I'm handed a word document of logins for ALL secure systems, including highly sensitive data.

These are just a few examples.

I have actually sorted out a few things for them, but the list is endless. In my previous company, I invested time, effort and MONEY over a sustained period to improve issues like this. And productivity AND staff satisfaction went through the roof, for a fraction of the cost of the time lost to these issues daily.

I think some cynicism can be attributed to middle age, where you simply find things are not to be taken at face value. That's been my experience with Surrey's Social Services - thoroughly untrustworthy - and of course care homes who are all smiles before you admit your parent and a different story once they've got them. You have more direct experience of stuff but whether one should generalise on the back of that is another thing.

Not sure about the whole buying a Poppy thing any more. I mean, that must draw in millions because they look so good and it's an annual thing, people join in because they like to join in for a good cause, nothing wrong with that.. But there aren't many survivors from World War II these days sadly, and you read stories about veterans of more recent campaigns such as the Falklands and Iraq having real trouble and not getting the right therapy - so where does our Poppy donation go? I think millions were spent on a rehabilitation unit in Hedley, Surrey - it didn't seem to get used. What happened there?

In some ways charities are the new Church - you aren't meant to question it, it's not the done thing. Havens for groomers, bullies and abusers according to reports of overseas operations by UNICEF, the Red Cross, Medicines without Frontiers, though those stories are falling off now. You can say that not all their members are like that and you'd be right of course, but they say that about the Met Police.

I wouldn't donate to the RSPCA after it did that thing of killing a family cat then did the usual State protocol beloved by the NHS suits, Post Office, South Yorkshire Police and so on - engaged in victim-blaming and harassment of the family in question, the famed 'It's not us, it's you!' tactic.
That said, Cats Protection League sound jolly nice, no horror stories there.

My late mother had Parkinson's and I got good advice on the forum of Parkinson's UK and their helpline. However as her condition advanced, I found their tone to change a bit, it got a bit assertive, a bit nasty and I should have noticed but thought I was just being judgemental or unlucky. This was round the time when we got Mum a PEG because her swallow had deteriorated. Later, after her death, we got hold of her medical notes (not having LPA in Health and Welfare we were not permitted to read them before would you believe, we are allowed to after she died which is a fat lot of good). Via the notes I found to my discomfort that Parkinson's UK had been going behind my back to discuss my mother with the local Central Surrey Health. It felt like phoning a domestic abuse charity only to late learn they've been in secret talks with your abuser. That said when the State had put your parent on secret end-of-life care i.e. killing them off, you can expect all kinds of skulduggery - your phone and email might be hacked or tapped and so on, you're in another world suddenly.

Whisteblowers UK is an all party Parliamentary group that is very dodgy - I phoned them for advice and the woman in charge seemed to know my situation already and again, you just picked up she wasn't on your side. Wanted to know how much money I earned, seemed to be a case of 'Can you afford our fees?' or maybe to know my financial situation so the info could be fed back to the powers that be? Phone conversation ended with a bit of acrimony, a bit of a stand off. 'So you're just going to carry on with what you're doing then?' she wanted to know. 'Yep, I said.' Again, as with regulators like the CQC and NMC they seem to the the opposite of what they're meant to be - working for the firms they claim to be regulating, carrying out surveillance on their behalf on complainants, whistleblowers and potential litigants - and getting paid a fortune to do so!

@stbrandonsboat I guess the idea is to get more nurses up to the standard of half decent? I've spent a lot of time in hospital with ds this year and have found there was a truly amazing variation in the standard of nursing care - from absolutely superb to barely adequate. As for palliative care, it took my father 3 months to die at home this winter and we could barely get a gp to him let alone a nurse. Thankfully he could afford carers who were amazing and thankfully his passing was largely pain free because there was Jack Shit support out there.

none are immune from drawing a living most would consider excessive.

There is this really weird attitude to charity that people working for charities should preferably all be paid minimum wage. Even though the chief exec of somewhere like Cancer Research is managing a multi-million pound budget, hundreds of paid staff and volunteers and could be earning ££££ more in the private sector.

You know that old saying - you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. I've certainly seen it in the chain where I work, there are some absolutely excellent shop managers but they have a nightmare recruiting for new managers as the salary is much lower than an experienced retail manager would get in M&S or Primark and the responsibility is much more.

Charity salaries are disclosed and published. It's a bit of a tired trope that all senior management are driving Bentleys and being paid £250k a year, because they're not. The charity where I volunteer closed its regional office during the pandemic, it's not reopened and all regional meetings take place in the basement of the biggest shop in the region. Managers buy their own lunches from the Gregg's next door.

I do, yes.
If they solved the cause they campaign for they'd all be out of work and those at the top would have to look elsewhere for their gigantic salaries.

Example, water aid. I just took a look at their figures and it seems in 2018-19 alone they raked in over 113 million. In one year. You should be tripping over boreholes all over the place by now. They cost around £10,000. I know because I've done 2. And a big organisation could definitely get a cheaper price based on volume.

I think big charities are actually big businesses in disguise.

MIND has to be the worst offender for this. Our local office is appalling. They come onto meeting saying how wonderful they are and everyone thanks them for their hard work and they get yet more contracts but the harsh reality is, they never get back to people, they run a shitty little group at the homeless place which no one turns up to but they say it’s invaluable! They have a drop in weekly but it’s the same 10 people that have been going for 6/7 years that bounce around different support groups because generally they can’t cope with life. They do fund some active monitors at the moment but the service is so overrun the appointments are already at a 6 month wait list.. because it’s one person one day a week for the county!! I’ve yet to have a patient with a good outcome from mind.
Age uk is another offender, signpost basically, a social prescriber could do that, they cut so many service after covid they are effectively pointless.
must partly due to how the councils commission these groups to be honest, they just accept what they are told by the charity on face value and statistics that are artistically done!

I work for a small to medium sized local charity and rarely donate to big nationals - some of whom are better than others
many people misunderstand the role of an individual charity - either talk to them or do your research - some provide direct services, some provide goods, some do research, some campaign etc etc
Im very happy to have an in depth discussion about our income and expenditure - the aims of the charity and the outcomes and impact of our work - it’s all on our website, annual report and reported to charity commission anyway
DM if you wish to donate or find out more!

A very interesting thread. Several horror stories, but tales of some great outcomes too.

I used to work for a small charity that supported the NHS. We would provide a direct service to our clients, throughout the region and also offer home visits. It was a cracking service run by a committed team of staff and volunteers.

We did the usual sign-posting stuff too. But then the terms of the contract changed and we had to provide a more holistic approach and offer social groups etc.. This is not what our clients wanted or needed!!

One of the problems with the franchise model is that it means that things aren’t equitable. Where I used to live we had a fantastic Age UK that did loads of things - hospital discharge, transport, shopping, handy person scheme whereas the one where I live now is frankly a bit rubbish

however charities are also subject to what they can get funding for. Atm the NHS is in love with social prescribing which does my head in frankly. All social prescribing has done is take something that charities did very well - signposting - & turn it into something ridiculously over complicated. The NHS is throwing literally millions at social prescribers whilst not bothering to fund any of the actual services that people need signposting too causing long waiting lists at all the services run by local community groups.

Where I live local charities have gone for social prescribing contracts because that’s the only money that’s available and it contributes to their core costs. That’s the downside of chasing local money

Having previously worked as a paid staff member in a charity, they do FAR more than the general public is aware of.

Are you seriously that stupid? You think the solution to providing clean water everyone, everywhere is a borehole? I'm embarrassed for you.

It costs a lot to train, support and recruit volunteers.
Charities need to grease along nicely so if there is one whose clients are people over 65 or escaping DV then it makes sense to refer because they all have targets to show funders how many they have helped and they are more likely to see the client sooner and know more about helping them and have more links and connections. It creates tension and resentment when one charity takes over and dominates because when it's funding time they are likely to ask for more money.
If I have a client with a complex housing issue why wouldn't I sign post to shelter? If they are in hospital and need help with benefits application why do I send a volunteer of CA there when there is MacMillan already there. If they need pension advice, it's the best for the client to speak to a pension specialist. But people get so bitter with unrealistic expectations, it's not that we don't want to help it's a question of resources and it's actually doing the client a favour to send them to someone who is more appropriate than give them half arsed advice.. but people see it as we're just not bothered or useless. If we had the funds to recruit more specialist we would but we don't so rather than tell you sorry we can't help, we actually leave you with a next step that you can take. We don't have the resources to handhold every enquirer. We see many vulnerable people but everyone thinks their situation is more important or urgent. We see evictions, DV, vulnerable older people and children all the time... it's impossible to help everyone due to lack of resources and the public seem to expect too much.

Oh, and a quick thing on signposting.

Unless you have worked for a charity, you have no idea how many people show up with the vaguest connection to what your charity does, asking for your help.

It's horrible turning people away, but I could easily fill my days doing the research people ask for when they aren't a fit for our work.

Mind you, the people who tell GCSE and A Level students to bother charities with homework queries can flat fuck off.

I loathe Shelter for this reason. Always getting adverts for them on FB too - they always portray situations as if their help was invaluable to the homeless person but in reality they don't offer anything. They merely signpost or advise people on getting what they're entitled to. If you're entitled to nothing, they wash their hands of you. It particularly rankles when they use people in their ads who they probably wouldn't help in real life.

When I was homeless, a local charity was far more helpful - they actually convinced the council I should be allowed a hostel place temporarily, and offered things like somewhere to wash clothes for people sleeping rough.

Oh God, people's expectations.
I work for a wildlife charity that delivers nature conservation projects and does some advocacy and offers advise on managing green spaces foe wildlife.

We don't deal with animal cruelty (except wildlife crime).
We don't collect roadkill.
We don't do pest control.
We are not an animal sanctuary .

Yet we are routinely approached for all these things, then criticised because "we won't help". Were criticised on Facebook this week because a heron in the local park has eaten a duckling.

We signpost where possible but it's really not our fault your neighbour doesn't look after her cat properly.

This might be helpful:

http://www.charitychecker.net/

Yes, I did, a fox was stuck in our fence. They asked if I knew a farmer that could shoot it to put it out of its misery.
In the end we donned the motorbike gauntlets, cut it free and got it to a local wildlife centre, where it received treatment and recovered.

the charity commission is the most comprehensive guide to charities in the UK.

Charity commission

🙄

No. And I think the fact I've done 2 should suggest that perhaps I have a bit of an understanding of what is needed to give people access to clean water.

I do need to point out that when aiming to give people access to clean water, accessing a source of clean water is rather a large part of it.

I've also sent computers into a rural school in Kenya and I'm currently part of a group setting up a programme to identify and help children who are struggling to achieve in primary school in my in-laws village and support them to continue in their education.

I'm sure you personally do many similar things but don't assume I know nothing about it.

Another slagging off charities thread 😳

Always filled by wild inaccuracies and Daily Mail prejudice.