Captain Tom Foundation spent more on costs than causes

[KerryWeaver]

This is a disappointing read.

"More than £240,000 of the registered charity’s expenditure went on the costs, while four grants totalling £160,000 were paid out to good causes. Of the foundation’s costs, £125,000, almost one-tenth of its income, went on fundraising consultancy fees, including to a firm run by Captain Tom’s daughter."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/captain-tom-foundation-spent-more-on-costs-than-causes-z3b9vw0fh

@SamphiretheStickerist

Huh? I didn't make it clear did I?

No, I work for a group of community charities, inlcuding a food bank and DV refuge. I do a lot of work on funding and often have various facts and figures supplied as part of our funding bids.

One of those figures is that we use c.10% of all monies raised on marketing ourselves, PR, to the other organisations that we work or would like to work with. For obvious reasons we don't use social media, public statements for some of what we do so our expenditure is lower than I expect many other organisations have.

Then I would think that is different. Or it is from outside the sector.

No one is really saying they should have costs. But when 100k have gone to 2 of their business.

In your situation that would be like Bob works for and is trustee of X Charity. X charity pays 100k per to 'really great PR company'. Bob also owns 'really great PR company'. Its not a good look wether technically OK or not.

Especially when Bob's PR campaign was 'oh I am just a son who loves my dad and wanted to help him keep active and raise a few quid. Because as a family we just love giving back to the community and doing it out of the goodness of my heart'.

I am guessing there wouldn't have been so much of an issue had the money not gone back to them.

Its really common in the business world. Director of company A decides a new IT suite is needed, provided by company B. He happens to be a shareholder of company B. Not usual, but looks bad when it's charities.

@Grenlei

The only charities I contribute to are run entirely by volunteers, no paid staff whatsoever. The idea that paid staff have to be involved is erroneous, there are plenty of charities particularly animal rescue where people are happy to work for free. One near me operates from donated land, they have built their own stables/ other animal shelters, and everything donated goes directly to the care of the animals. There's no one at the top creaming off a salary.

So how many hours a week do these people put in, and how do they pay their own bills? If they are all wealthy retired people with time on their hands that's all very nice, but is their pet charity a good use of resources? To run an organisation with more than a handful of longterm, trusted, competent staff takes time and effort and professional skills - and the people who do this have every right to a decent salary. One of the big problems with 'small local' charities is that they can be vanity projects who are getting in the way of established help organisations while delivering less useful services (because the founders are either grieving people who want to keep the memory of a lost loved one alive by putting up unnecessary park benches, or they have picked a beneficiary that is cute/glamorous/loveable but which has dozens of different litle charities caring for it (as all the charity workers I know say: fucking donkeys.)

My comment @AlDanvers was just to say that, in my experience, the 10% isn't unusual for PR etc.

Finagling between connected companies isn't either. And, as you say, it looks worse when it is a charity. But many charities are money making businesses these days, They exist to make money for those running them, with donations being part of their remit. Sad, and needs further legislation, but true.

@SamphiretheStickerist

My comment *@AlDanvers* was just to say that, in my experience, the 10% isn't unusual for PR etc.

Finagling between connected companies isn't either. And, as you say, it looks worse when it is a charity. But many charities are money making businesses these days, They exist to make money for those running them, with donations being part of their remit. Sad, and needs further legislation, but true.

Oh yes, I completely agree with that.

Its not the 10% for PR. Its how its done and how it looks. Definitely not unusual though.

@Wreath21 some volunteers are retired (though hardly wealthy - state pensions etc), others work and give up their free time at evenings/ weekends (or some who are self employed arrange their working day so they can volunteer in the daytime).

These absolutely aren't vanity projects, the one nearest to me rescues a lot of very sick animals that plenty of fancier rescues with bigger budgets and aspirations would probably turn their nose up at (horses dumped at the roadside by the local travelling community, cats/ dogs/ rabbits that haven't been neutered and left semi wild to breed unchecked with lots of illnesses resulting, livestock abandoned because of some injury or defect, and so on). They get the animals back on their feet - sadly some have to be euthanised as they are too far gone - and those who can be are rehomed, others live out their days in a peaceful environment. They have all manner of animals and try never to turn one away unless they simply don't have room.

I appreciate some charities do need to employ staff, but the larger the organisation the greater the overheads and admin costs, all of which eat into donations. Hence why I prefer to support small local charities instead.

Having briefly worked for 2 big name UK charities many years ago I became totally and utterly disillusioned with the "sector." Lots of money spent on "advocacy and advice" but little in the way of actual hard practical help. Nepotism and jobs for the old boys network and their wives and kids is rife. Long expensed lunches and days spent networking/chatting or complaining about au pairs and nannies was often the order of the day at the top.

I think small "personal"charities have big upfront costs for office space and services. They are usually started by families with good intentions to rectify holes in the care their loved one received but often become a vehicle for employment for family and friends and never have the funds to provide the service they were set up to deliver or are replicating something that aready exists that just needs better signposting.

The amounts spent on costs by CTF are small beer compared to these "vanity" projects:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9632867/Naomi-Campbells-charity-faces-questions-spent-1-6million-glitzy-Cannes-gala.html

£1.6 million spent, £5k donated to "good causes"

Remember this:
www.contactmusic.com/u2/news/bonos-foundation-gives-only-one-percent-to-charity_1167840
£15million in donations only £190k donated to "good causes"

It's wild to me that people think a CEO for a large charity shouldn't be paid the wage of a CEO. Considering they'll already be paid a fraction of what they'd be paid in the private sector.

I generally find those who can earn better salaries in the private sector don’t choose to work for less in a charity.

The audited CTF accounts and Trustees Annual Report are available to download from the Charity Commission website.

But not on CTF website, which they said they would do. I would assume if most were looking to donate, their website would be where they would go for information.

[quote GrendelsGrandma]@nettie434

I thought CelebrityPaper's post was interesting. Altruistic things like volunteering for a village fete, raising money for the village hall or local groups do suggest something about how they are motivated.

Yes, but for all CelebrityPaper knew, they could have been giving substantial amounts to another charity, or donating locally on an anonymous basis. It's not a fair thing to make out that they were wrong-hearted because they didn't run a stall at the village fete or fork out for church roof repairs or whatever.[/quote]
I know you are right GrendelsGrandma but I couldn't help reading it in the context of what has happened. As you say, the family could have done an awful lot as private citizens. However, they must have realised that they would always be under scrutiny because the original fundraiser for NHS Charities got worldwide attention.

I think some people just won't be happy whatever. The Charity Commission is the obvious place to look for a charity's account. The accounts are also available on the Companies House website. They were received on 4 Feb and published there on 7 Feb.

The Charity Commission is the obvious place to look for a charity's account

That suggests that people have to go and look for it. Being open and having the information on your own website so those who may not think to specifically seek it out is a far more obvious place to put it.

@BoredZelda

The Charity Commission is the obvious place to look for a charity's account

That suggests that people have to go and look for it. Being open and having the information on your own website so those who may not think to specifically seek it out is a far more obvious place to put it.

Well they are to be investigated now i read on the BBC news site

It does say in the FAQ that they will share audited accounts after the first year of trading. On the website (established in May 2020).
I didn’t like the whole mawkishness but I dislike the idea that a woman is always up to no good and driving the man or men in charge - see also Carrie Johnson; Meghan Windsor; Sally Bercow

@ENoeuf

It does say in the FAQ that they will share audited accounts after the first year of trading. On the website (established in May 2020). I didn’t like the whole mawkishness but I dislike the idea that a woman is always up to no good and driving the man or men in charge - see also Carrie Johnson; Meghan Windsor; Sally Bercow

Every woman you have listed is smart, savvy and focused. They are not likely to be dupes.

@Blossomtoes

They would have put in a hell of a lot of work to achieve the level of awareness they did. Why should they not be paid?

She wouldn’t. She contacted the local media and tweeted about it. It then took off and she sat back and watched as it became a massive story in a media vacuum. I watched it unfold as it was covered in the local news, then it was taken up nationally, then celebrities got in on the act. There was a bit of effort at the beginning, that’s all.

I would think the publicity they got on BBC Breakfast/GMB/Sky Breakfast show was worth a fortune.

@ENoeuf

It does say in the FAQ that they will share audited accounts after the first year of trading. On the website (established in May 2020). I didn’t like the whole mawkishness but I dislike the idea that a woman is always up to no good and driving the man or men in charge - see also Carrie Johnson; Meghan Windsor; Sally Bercow

Well the only person available to be up to no good in this case is a woman. I dislike the idea that someone would monetorise their centurion parent in the name of charity.

RoseRedRoseBlue

ENoeuf
It does say in the FAQ that they will share audited accounts after the first year of trading. On the website (established in May 2020).
I didn’t like the whole mawkishness but I dislike the idea that a woman is always up to no good and driving the man or men in charge - see also Carrie Johnson; Meghan Windsor; Sally Bercow
Every woman you have listed is smart, savvy and focused. They are not likely to be dupes.

I don’t follow your response. They are smart and savvy, they have also been blamed for their other halves behaviour / been accused of somehow influencing them. As if the men can’t make their own choices and live with the consequences

And blossom the daughter has a husband who is also linked to the businesses.

Andblossomthe daughter has a husband who is also linked to the businesses.

However, he didn't put himself front and centre like his wife did. She took on, in the story they were selling, the role as the person in charge. She joined her father on most interviews. Often talking more than he did. She is the one that positioned herself as driving force behind it. She ensure she, and by association, her business got the attention and made sure it was clear she was as a big a part of it as he was.

If he had been pushing himself forward as much as she was, then I could understand the point. But he didn't. She wanted to be the face of it with her dad. That comes with positives and negatives. The negatives being you will still be considered the one responsible when things go tits up.

I just don’t have an issue with it. I used to advocate a lot and support my grandparent, I just see it as a family thing. And maybe it’s her / their opportunity to make a mark and leave a legacy.

@ENoeuf this is not an argument about misogyny. It’s about opportunism and greed.

Well they are to be investigated now i read on the BBC news site

Likely why they never published them 10 months ago as they said they would.

@RoseRedRoseBlue in your opinion - on mine it’s another example of a woman’s role being given more scrutiny than a man’s.

I just don’t have an issue with it. I used to advocate a lot and support my grandparent, I just see it as a family thing. And maybe it’s her / their opportunity to make a mark and leave a legacy.

You don’t see an issue with taking charity donations to feather your own nest?

The legacy is one of suspected fraud.

Ok, I don’t hold the same suspicions. I get it’s a media storm right now but having looked at the accounts and the sums etc I’m just not excited by it. Plus her being front and centre is a different ‘crime’ to the money stuff.
We can disagree without falling out online.

a woman’s role being given more scrutiny than a man’s.

Charity commission audit all charities, not just those run by women.

And, it is her husband who is the trustee.

@AlDanvers puts it better than I do. She is being scrutinised as she should be.