Door to door charity fundraising...

qetu1357

AsdaSuck wrote: »

Sorry to rattle on, but another thing that bugs me is all the oney these charities waste.

My Dad supports the PDSA, Dogs Trust and other animal charities. He is forever getting pointless crap sent to him in the mail. Aside from the glossy brochures beggingg him to increase his already generous donations he is always getting sent crappy pens, fridge magnets, key rings etc. Add to this the postage costs and the charity must waste thousands of pounds of donations on this. It really gets my goat that they are wasting the money my Dad and others generously donate trying to guilt trip people into giving more.

If your dad doesn't want the stuff the charities send him then get him to tell the charities concerned.

Then they will stop sending him the stuff.

honey9

I told one last week I never give out my bank details on the doorstep and she asked me why!! All I could do was look at her in amazement - why does she think?!

Kieron_n_Stephy

For the first time in two years, I had a chugger from Action for children in africa came to the door, I opened it and signed to him (in British Sign Language) hang on and closed the door.... the idiot stood there for 15 mins before realising I wasn't returning!

I now play a game with them... the next one who came I shouted "come in" to which he tried to open the door.... the next one I barked at like an agressive dog bashing the door at the same time to see him running.

My wife is somewhat bewildered with my actions at the moment.....

Steer73

Kieron_n_Stephy wrote: »

For the first time in two years, I had a chugger from Action for children in africa came to the door, I opened it and signed to him (in British Sign Language) hang on and closed the door.... the idiot stood there for 15 mins before realising I wasn't returning!

I now play a game with them... the next one who came I shouted "come in" to which he tried to open the door.... the next one I barked at like an agressive dog bashing the door at the same time to see him running.

My wife is somewhat bewildered with my actions at the moment.....

Thats just sad and twisted. I mean, I dont like them calling at my door, but a simple "no thanks" and shut the door is enough.

fallen121

What gets me about a lot of these charities is that they pay their Directors very large salaries, supposedly because these people are masters at networking who bring large in donations from other companies etc. However I do think that some of the money these people earn is quite obscene.

The second thing I object to is expensive TV adverts scheduled at prime time which tell me that people will die if I don't give money. Yet these same charities have thousands and sometimes millions of pounds on deposit at the Bank. Giving the impression that people will die if I don't take out a Direct Debit is plain wrong. These charities could afford to feed whole towns in Africa, but that money stays on deposit year after year. And year after year those deposits get bigger. WHY???

I once requested the accounts of a large organisation which provides canine support to people with vision difficulties. The amount they had on deposit would have provided training and canine support for each person in this country, not just people with vision difficulties. When I saw the directors salaries, I was even more shocked.

I understand that dogs only live so long and there is a constant requirement to replace and retrain which must be maintained long into the future, and ongoing support costs for the network of individuals who provide the training and the homing and the feeding of such dogs before they are given to their owners. However, I felt physically sick that they didn't just use the funds they had NOW to provide a dog to everyone who needed one, not keep people waiting so their deposit account didn't fall below the minimum threshold.

No doubt someone from that charity will be along in a moment to tell me how unfair I am being, but I truly believe that ALL charities with significant surpluses must be required to spend some of that money or at least curtail their fundraising until these sums have fallen below a certain threshold. Look at charitable accounts over a ten year period and you will see what I mean. These surpluses run into millions and are growing year on year. How is this allowed?

I refuse the give to charities which behave more like businesses than welfare organisations. Huge salaries are wrong. Giving the impression that everything will grind to a halt unless we keep giving is wrong. Expensive magazines, leaflets and prime time TV adverts which cost more than the debt of a small third world country. I could rant forever. What I feel sorry for are all the people who work in charity shops or volunteer to take collections who do this for NOTHING whilst fat cat directors enjoy salaries which amount to more than us would earn in 15 or 20 years.

The information on these charities accouns is freely available. Most people just don't bother to read it.

qetu1357

fallen121 wrote: »

What gets me about a lot of these charities is that they pay their Directors very large salaries, supposedly because these people are masters at networking who bring large in donations from other companies etc. However I do think that some of the money these people earn is quite obscene.

The second thing I object to is expensive TV adverts scheduled at prime time which tell me that people will die if I don't give money. Yet these same charities have thousands and sometimes millions of pounds on deposit at the Bank. Giving the impression that people will die if I don't take out a Direct Debit is plain wrong. These charities could afford to feed whole towns in Africa, but that money stays on deposit year after year. And year after year those deposits get bigger. WHY???

I once requested the accounts of a large organisation which provides canine support to people with vision difficulties. The amount they had on deposit would have provided training and canine support for each person in this country, not just people with vision difficulties. When I saw the directors salaries, I was even more shocked.

I understand that dogs only live so long and there is a constant requirement to replace and retrain which must be maintained long into the future, and ongoing support costs for the network of individuals who provide the training and the homing and the feeding of such dogs before they are given to their owners. However, I felt physically sick that they didn't just use the funds they had NOW to provide a dog to everyone who needed one, not keep people waiting so their deposit account didn't fall below the minimum threshold.

No doubt someone from that charity will be along in a moment to tell me how unfair I am being, but I truly believe that ALL charities with significant surpluses must be required to spend some of that money or at least curtail their fundraising until these sums have fallen below a certain threshold. Look at charitable accounts over a ten year period and you will see what I mean. These surpluses run into millions and are growing year on year. How is this allowed?

I refuse the give to charities which behave more like businesses than welfare organisations. Huge salaries are wrong. Giving the impression that everything will grind to a halt unless we keep giving is wrong. Expensive magazines, leaflets and prime time TV adverts which cost more than the debt of a small third world country. I could rant forever. What I feel sorry for are all the people who work in charity shops or volunteer to take collections who do this for NOTHING whilst fat cat directors enjoy salaries which amount to more than us would earn in 15 or 20 years.

The information on these charities accouns is freely available. Most people just don't bother to read it.

Some charities keep money in the bank and it is called reserves. The purpose of the reserves is the same as the purpose of savings for you and I. During this "recession" you will find that most charities are calling on their reserves so they can maintain their services. Also a "recession" may mean that charities need to provide more services than usual whilst getting less income than usual.

If you ran a charity with a turnover of £250m how much reserves do you think would be prudent?

If the Charity Commision discover that a charity has too much reserves then they will tell them to stop or limit fundraising. Believe me there are only a few charities that have too much reserves.

And if someone is CE of a charity with a turnover of £250m how much should they get paid? You will find that these jobs are just as demanding as similar jobs in the private and public sector and the latest survey showed that, on average, charity workers are paid 20% less than private or public sector workers.

darkpool

qetu1357 wrote: »

If you ran a charity with a turnover of £250m how much reserves do you think would be prudent?

are you talking about guide dogs for the blind? their turnover is nowhere near that amount.

The CEO earns 90,000 pounds. I suppose if they pay peanuts they will get chimps, however i do feel uneasy when a charity pays that type of money

fallen121

qetu1357 wrote: »

If the Charity Commission discover that a charity has too much reserves then they will tell them to stop or limit fundraising. Believe me there are only a few charities that have too much reserves.

I am interested enough to request this information so I can see this for myself. Not doubting the information you are providing, you understand, just want to see who these organisations are. My own opinion is that the Charities Commission has a vested interest in keeping the threshold on these reserves as high as possible. Like self regulation by the Banks, one does not bite the hand that feeds it.

qetu1357 wrote: »

You will find that these jobs are just as demanding as similar jobs in the private and public sector and the latest survey showed that, on average, charity workers are paid 20% less than private or public sector workers.

I also feel that the "charity workers are paid on average 20% less than private or public sector workers" finding is skewed by the fact that a larger proportion of charity workers are temporary workers being paid just above the minimum wage - I think someone on here who worked for a charity mentioned £6 or £7 per hour? Plus these people are unlikely to have paid holidays, pensions or sick leave entitlements which all cost money. If you have a large amount of these people on your payroll and lump them in with salaried office staff and then compare this to what Bank staff (mostly salaried) are paid, for example, then it's not going to be very difficult to prove a 20% differential compared to average because you are not comparing like with like.

I don't think the vast majority of charity workers (street collectors, chuggers, shop managers) are paid very much at all. But I do feel that there are a large amount of salaried office staff at Head Office whose salaries, pensions and other benefits are consuming a large amount of the donations being made, so showing adverts on TV of starving children and convincing people that their money will go direct to these people when Bank reserves are accumulating year on year is misleading.

qetu1357

darkpool wrote: »

are you talking about guide dogs for the blind? their turnover is nowhere near that amount.

The CEO earns 90,000 pounds. I suppose if they pay peanuts they will get chimps, however i do feel uneasy when a charity pays that type of money

Nope not talking about any charity in particular...........

qetu1357

fallen121 wrote: »

I am interested enough to request this information so I can see this for myself. Not doubting the information you are providing, you understand, just want to see who these organisations are. My own opinion is that the Charities Commission has a vested interest in keeping the threshold on these reserves as high as possible. Like self regulation by the Banks, one does not bite the hand that feeds it.



I also feel that the "charity workers are paid on average 20% less than private or public sector workers" finding is skewed by the fact that a larger proportion of charity workers are temporary workers being paid just above the minimum wage - I think someone on here who worked for a charity mentioned £6 or £7 per hour? Plus these people are unlikely to have paid holidays, pensions or sick leave entitlements which all cost money. If you have a large amount of these people on your payroll and lump them in with salaried office staff and then compare this to what Bank staff (mostly salaried) are paid, for example, then it's not going to be very difficult to prove a 20% differential compared to average because you are not comparing like with like.

I don't think the vast majority of charity workers (street collectors, chuggers, shop managers) are paid very much at all. But I do feel that there are a large amount of salaried office staff at Head Office whose salaries, pensions and other benefits are consuming a large amount of the donations being made, so showing adverts on TV of starving children and convincing people that their money will go direct to these people when Bank reserves are accumulating year on year is misleading.

Charity Commission guidance on reserves

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Library/guidance/cc19text.pdf

Link on pay - I have seen research for 2011 and it hasn't changed much

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/10/02/52401/charity-bosses-pay-trails-private-sector-ones-by-a.html

And for every large charity you can go to their website, download their annual report and this will show a) how many people are paid more than £50k and b) how much the charity raises in income and how much it spent to raise that income.