Firefighters Charity

blueboy43

leveller2911 wrote: »

Very true and many will pay professional fundraising companies £millions ......I was shocked to find "The Dogs Trust" employ professional FR companies and thay also paid 7 staff over £130k a year and around 80 staff over £70k a year......

.

Are you sure ???

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/ScannedAccounts/Ends23%5C0000227523_ac_20091231_e_c.pdf

it seems more like 7 people over £70k

If the 80 staff over £70k was correct, the rest would be below minimum wage !

and I'm no fan of animal charities.

blueboy43

leveller2911 wrote: »

Very true and many will pay professional fundraising companies £millions ......I was shocked to find "The Dogs Trust" employ professional FR companies and thay also paid 7 staff over £130k a year and around 80 staff over £70k a year......

.

Are you sure ???

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/ScannedAccounts/Ends23%5C0000227523_ac_20091231_e_c.pdf

it seems more like 7 people over £70k

If the 80 staff over £70k was correct, the rest would be below minimum wage !

and I'm no fan of animal charities.

lisyloo

I think people need to do research before making generalisations about "big" and "small" charities.
I have done voluntary work for a small charity where there are NO paid staff.
Volunteers usually attend meetings at their own expense and don't even claim expenses.

So please do research and don't make generalisations.

Conrad

As a broker I've mentioned the point about remembering what firemen TRULY earn when the buckets come out.

ALL my firmen clients down the years now make about £33k + overtime and all have a second job on thier 3 or 4 days off per week, and some of these make a lot of money from the second job. One is a window cleaner and makes £6k pm gross just from that. Another owns a pond and pool cleaning business and drives an Audi Q8

Many have a partner who also earns.

Come on Brits, wkae up and dont get sucker punched.

inspector_monkfish

leveller2911 wrote: »

Very true and many will pay professional fundraising companies £millions ......I was shocked to find "The Dogs Trust" employ professional FR companies and thay also paid 7 staff over £130k a year and around 80 staff over £70k a year......

Many of our large "Charities" are no more than businesses......I would ask people who want to give donations/monthly DD etc to go for small local Charities where you know most of your money is spent "on the coal face"

I donated £10 per month via DD and was annoyed (to say the least but don't want my post deleted) to find that they paid between £80-180 to the fundraising company to sign me up.It took around 18 months for any of my donation to actually do any good apart from boost the account of the PFR company..

yeah,... see my sig ...


this is just a tiny charity run by 2 local women
they dont even charge stamps to the charity, and pay for all stuff like that out of their own pockets...

nickmason

StevieJ wrote: »

Didn't someone on here say that US charities spend around 95% of their income on expenses, (presumably mostly marketing) and think that is a good deal.

I think it was me - although that wasn't quite what I said. In the US, there are a number of charities who think it fine to spend 99c to raise a $1, because it has generated a net benefit to the charity of 1c.

In the UK, the basic rule is 20% is the maximum acceptable, although the charity commission is relatively toothless, and to be honest major sanctions don't kick in until around 40%.

There's not that much wrong with the US position, assuming that it is publicly known (and if it is, then it is unlikely that donors will give, so the charity would not be able to sustain the income), and assuming that there is no cannibalisation of other charities. The UK position is based on that point - that if it costs charity X more than £2 to raise £10, then somebody else could raise that £10 more effectively, so charity X shouldn't.

nickmason

blueboy43 wrote: »

Are you sure ???

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/ScannedAccounts/Ends23%5C0000227523_ac_20091231_e_c.pdf

it seems more like 7 people over £70k

If the 80 staff over £70k was correct, the rest would be below minimum wage !

and I'm no fan of animal charities.

Well done. Check the facts, people.

nickmason

nearlynew wrote: »

The last thing any charity wants is a solution to the problems that they are campaigning for/against.

Most are little more than lobby groups that spend most of their donations on staff wages.

Not true. It sounds credible, because it is true that most people don't want to do themselves out of a job.

So what actually happens is that charities do solve problems, but find new ones (for instance the firefighters charity seems to have diversified into burns care). Or, often as a product of people getting older, the number of people affected by the problems increase quicker than the charity can solve.

I work for the RNIB - and yes, a lot of our income goes on staff wages. So that we can provide services for the - surprisingly high, and growing - number of blind or partially sighted people in this country.

nickmason

leveller2911 wrote: »

I donated £10 per month via DD and was annoyed (to say the least but don't want my post deleted) to find that they paid between £80-180 to the fundraising company to sign me up.It took around 18 months for any of my donation to actually do any good apart from boost the account of the PFR company..

Why does that annoy you? You hadn't given without the charity investing in finding you. That figure was the sum of money they needed to spend to recruit you (and most of the PFR employees are on minimum wage, and no-one in them -including owners - has generated anything like 'banker' levels of wealth).

Most recruitment of charity supporters doesn't pay off for years. The thing is, the return on investment from legacy marketing can easily be 30:1. It's this that turns the net position into one that typically is about £5 income for £1 spent. But the legacy marketing needs a base to which to market - hence the use of a lower ROI, high volume activity that was used to recruit you.

nearlynew

nickmason wrote: »

Not true. It sounds credible, because it is true that most people don't want to do themselves out of a job.

So what actually happens is that charities do solve problems, but find new ones (for instance the firefighters charity seems to have diversified into burns care). Or, often as a product of people getting older, the number of people affected by the problems increase quicker than the charity can solve.

I work for the RNIB - and yes, a lot of our income goes on staff wages. So that we can provide services for the - surprisingly high, and growing - number of blind or partially sighted people in this country.

Would you like someone to find a cure for blindness?