Do you still give to charity?

WolfSong2000

dealsearcher wrote: »

If I give I make sure it is to a charity that doesn't waste it's money on admin, etc.. There have been a number of scandals of charity going to countries in Africa where money has been syphoned off to buy 4x4's and food sent by the UN ending up being sold in shops.

You must also be careful you are not being scammed. Old clothing pickup bags have sometimes been found to be going to people that sell the clothing for profit for themselves. I have received phone calls asking me to give money which are almost certainly scams. There are also scam type letters which people receive all the time asking for money which will not get anywhere near a charity.

I suggest giving to a local organization you trust.

My mother founded and runs a charity in Africa, and she is having problems regarding government corruption with another charity her father set up in the same country. As such, I am well aware of just how obscenely corrupt the continent can be. My mother had the benefit of being raised in the country in question, so she understands how the system works, but a lot of people who start up charities are so naive, they either end up getting ripped off, or the donations don't end up going where they're supposed to.

I'm also aware of how corrupt some British charities are. I wont name names, but it is sickening when you see how much money is wasted unnecessarily by some of these charities. Others, as you say, pester you and waste a lot of money on trying to make sure you continue to donate?!

This is by no means the case for all charities - my mother's charity for instance, prides itself on the fact that the vast majority of the work is undertaken by volunteers. My mother works 60 hour weeks for no wage, and people from the UK who wish to work for the Charity in Africa pay for their own airfare (including my mother). The amount of money that is spent on publicity, etc, is as little as humanly possible and I know for a fact that the majority of the money ends up where it is supposed to. As such, I regularly donate my time and money to helping out.

There are other charities, such as SPANA (an animal charity) who do absolutely fantastic work (no, I'm not affiliated with SPANA ) and I can't fault them.

I guess it all just comes down to researching the particular charities you're interested in. It's up to you to make sure that you know how much of your money is actually going where it's needed and how much is going on admin or inflated staff pay, etc. There are worthwhile charities out there, but in general they tend to be the smaller ones (there are exceptions, SPANA being the main one I can think of).

Castleman

dealsearcher wrote: »

I suggest giving to a local organization you trust.

Or a global organisation you trust. What people don't realise is the economy of scale that the larger charities get the benefit of when shipping/driving stuff or calling on resources. Or the difficulties local charities have when trying to deal with someone/something thousands of miles away.

IMO local charities should be for local charity, global charities should be for global charity - having worked for a number of charities and NGO's this works on the ground.

abaxas

I gave up giving money to charity, as it's usually a 30/70 split. 30% for the good cause, 70% for the management.

Now I actively buy and give to charity shops and only give them things I'd be happy to buy. That way everyone is happy, charity makes money, things get recycled and I get loads of new CDs to listen too :P

Castleman

WolfSong2000 wrote: »

I guess it all just comes down to researching the particular charities you're interested in. It's up to you to make sure that you know how much of your money is actually going where it's needed and how much is going on admin or inflated staff pay, etc. There are worthwhile charities out there, but in general they tend to be the smaller ones (there are exceptions, SPANA being the main one I can think of).

I'd say that some of the big ones can be much more effective - yes they have admin/salary costs that smaller voluntary ones don't have (to such a level) but they have the political clout (in beneficiary countries) to get in there and do something. Plenty of cases of smaller organisations being 'turned back at the borders'. Also, for the best information/knowledge/expertise, you normally have to pay or persuade their companies to provide their skills free of charge (i.e. that company pays - it still costs).

Doesn't excuse 4x4's when you can drive a motorbike, but it does explain why you need some level of costs if you're going to provide solutions and not just handouts.

As for the big organisations that have been accused of being inefficient - a lot of them are doing amazing work to improve efficiency at all levels (I know people who do this and the efforts they go to) and well, at the end of the day 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing!

People that claim waste of money often haven't worked in the sector (not saying you Wolfsong!)

chewmylegoff

abaxas wrote: »

I gave up giving money to charity, as it's usually a 30/70 split. 30% for the good cause, 70% for the management.

Now I actively buy and give to charity shops and only give them things I'd be happy to buy. That way everyone is happy, charity makes money, things get recycled and I get loads of new CDs to listen too :P

depends what the charity is. part of my job used to be auditing small charities, some of them were spending 90% on admin. completely put me off, that did.

large international charities are much better. normally looking at somewhere between 5-10% of income spent on admin costs. it might be higher at the moment because of the underperformance of investments.

WolfSong2000

Castleman wrote: »

I'd say that some of the big ones can be much more effective - yes they have admin/salary costs that smaller voluntary ones don't have (to such a level) but they have the political clout (in beneficiary countries) to get in there and do something. Plenty of cases of smaller organisations being 'turned back at the borders'. Also, for the best information/knowledge/expertise, you normally have to pay or persuade their companies to provide their skills free of charge (i.e. that company pays - it still costs).

Doesn't excuse 4x4's when you can drive a motorbike, but it does explain why you need some level of costs if you're going to provide solutions and not just handouts.

As for the big organisations that have been accused of being inefficient - a lot of them are doing amazing work to improve efficiency at all levels (I know people who do this and the efforts they go to) and well, at the end of the day 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing!

People that claim waste of money often haven't worked in the sector (not saying you Wolfsong!)

You're quite right in suggesting that a lot of the smaller charities can have problems. A charity can be naive or stupid regardless of its size. And all charities will have costs - my mother has had to buy a 4X4 (an old one, and after that broke down a new one at cost price), but that's because the roads are so appalling. The charity is doing something about that, though, and the local communities are helping with labour .

I also believe that some of the larger charities are doing amazing work, as you say, but I've dealt with some who are just unbelievable - one offered us a "grant" to help us, then later claimed it was a loan and demanded repayment, despite the fact we had paperwork stating it was a grant they were offering, and whenever they talk about work done in the country where my mother's charity is located, they take the credit for it. I don't like that kind of attitude.

As you say, though, other larger charities are pulling their socks up. I worked for the British Red Cross last summer and was impressed by the work they do. Can't say the same for the American Red Cross, though, as they refused a donation of a million dollars from a band called the Dixie Chicks as there had been issues with a comment the lead singer had made about (now ex, thankfully) President Bush. The way I see it, if they feel they can turn down a million dollars, they don't need any donations from me.

macaque_2

drc wrote: »

When out shopping today I noticed the Big Issue seller and it made be wonder how charities and things like the Big Issue have been affected by the financial crisis. I wonder if a lot of people have stopped giving charitable donations, as the crunch bites are these some of the first things to go? Are we as a nation as altruistic as we think and when push comes to shove do we stop giving to hold on to the 'pennies'?

I still give although I'm not keen on the Big Issue at the best of times, so prefer to give to my chosen charities.

On this general subject I have many concerns.

I find it difficult to understand why many charity workers travel business class on planes when normal companies send their staff economy?

Why do charity chiefs pay themselves so much?
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,,1042677,00.html

Why don't charities get out of Africa where many are doing more damage than good?

Why do many charities have such high running costs? The Samaritans ran an advert which gave the cost of a call. It was huge. The people making the calls however are usually paying for the calls and the people recieving the calls are unpaid volunteers.

Why do so many charities seem politically partisan? On this score deeply suspicious of Oxfam, The RSPCA and Amnesty.

There are good charities. I think the Big Issue is one the best of the lot. The thing I like about it is that it is transparent and it cuts out the middle man. I also retain a high regard for the Salvation Army.

wigglebeena

I didn't realise the American Red Cross was politically affiliated. One to avoid, then.

fran-o

wow people are so suspicious of charities these days.. im not entirely surprised as i feel the same way when I receive unsolicited requests for money!
But i work as an NHS fundraiser, bringing in money for equipment and research which is over and above what the nhs can provide and I promise you we do not live in luxury spending your money on admin! Our office is a crumbly victorian building at the back of a hospital, we pay for our parking, we don't get overtime for all the extra work we do- just time in lieu, all major spending is approved by trustees who can decide whether we go ahead so there is no unchecked spending... But you do have to spend money to make money!

Back to the original question - we expected a massive drop off in donations this year, in fact we have seen a number of direct debit cancellations, but the new sign ups have meant an overall increase in income. We are set to meet our targets for the end of financial year. But we are wondering what the next few years hold!

Castleman

wigglebeena wrote: »

I didn't realise the American Red Cross was politically affiliated. One to avoid, then.

They appear to be. However, not necessarily one to avoid as many charities that won't take funds for a particular reason will often point the donor to another charity that might be more appropriate. Nothing wrong with being politically affiliated IMO as long as the alternatives are made clearly visible and the charities with different affiliations have working relationships.

I guess that's just more reason for us all to do more research.