charities to be significantly worse off

lemonjelly

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/press-releases/15705/cuts-are-likely-to-hit-charities-harder-than-expected.aspx

The study shows that almost 70 per cent of third sector organisations working with socially excluded or vulnerable people receive public funding; and 60 per cent of those working with offenders, victims of crime and people with mental health needs also receive state support. Furthermore, over 50 per cent of voluntary organisations whose work includes helping the homeless and asylum seekers also rely on government funding.
What is concerning about these figures," says Professor Mohan, "is how much these organisations rely on public expenditure, and that many of them work in fields that, historically, have attracted little charitable funding."
The study also finds substantial regional variations in the extent to which third sector organisations receive public funding. Part of the reason for this Professor Mohan suggests, is that voluntary organisations have played a significant role in regeneration and welfare programmes run by the previous government which have targeted the more disadvantaged regions.

"The picture is complex," admits Professor Mohan. "And there is no straightforward answer as to how public expenditure reductions will affect individual charities or localities. The particular impact, and the responses of individual organisations, will depend on a set of influences which are difficult to predict."
Professor Mohan also acknowledges that while the study emphasised reliance on public funding, voluntary organisations do have other sources of income. Among the 36 per cent of organisations that receive state funding, a fifth described donations and fund-raising as their most important source of income.
Nevertheless, the study concludes that policymakers need to take particular care in judging the effects of government cuts over the next few years as the organisations that rely most heavily on public funding at present are those working with the most disadvantaged people and in the most deprived areas.

A lot of good work, and some good organisations are at risk.

We're all in this together remember...

It amazes me. Many of these organisations will be extremely cost effective, and a great number of their staff will be volunteers. The contributions such people and organisations make to society and the economy is constantly underestimated.

Kohoutek

Very shortsighted, I agree.

If you withdraw money from organisations that help vulnerable people manage their lives, then the financial costs to the state of these people may increase, e.g. through the criminal justice system, healthcare system, benefits system, not decrease.

Obviously that's just the financial cost - the human cost is also potentially very great.

akitabow

I agree that the "good" organisations need as much help as they can get and do provide a really great service however if the directors and board members of some organisations gave up their prestige cars and plush london head offices then i might be more sympathetic. ( i speak from experience as I took my mother to british heart foundation (i think it was) to discuss leaving her estate to them in her will and upon entering the chandelier covered hallway and going into a special designed office we both knew that she wouldn't be leaving it to them)

Brallaqueen

How many charities are there out there - and how many are working towards the same end?
Would merging them together (like Age Concern and Help the Aged did) give them a better chanced at keeping going?

vivatifosi

Anecdotally jelly, we are continuing to deal with the effects of this. For example, what do you say to people with learning difficulties who don't actually comprehend that they have learning difficulties but who you can tell are not accessing the right services or getting all of the money they are entitled to when its not your job to get involved? If nobody acts as an advocate for these people they just disappear beween society's cracks.

B_Blank

I dont think the cuts are a bad thing. We need charities to stand on their own two feet and not be reliant on hand outs from the government because it will make the quality of their work and their efficiency better than if they know they are going to get their money every month regardless of how they perform (from the government).

However, the speed of the cuts is wrong imo. If they are cutting 4% per year then they should cut charities funding slowly across the board. Rather than just yanking it all away before the charities can transition.

leveller2911

Hopefully Charities will cut some of the £millions they pay to professional fundraisers and also the high wages they pay to the board members.The Dogs Trust for instance who pay some members of staff between £70-£130k a year.

Having said that I think we can all help out more either giving up some free time or donating monthly ,especially to many of the small charities.......

This is one I would recommend ............http://www.theolivercurdtrust.co.uk/

grizzly1911

Kohoutek - makes the valid point re unforeseen consequences.

I agree that chuggers , expensive advertising,highly paid execs in their Ivory Towers need to be sorted but I am not sure arbitrary cuts will actually do it.

B_Blank

leveller2911 wrote: »

Hopefully Charities will cut some of the £millions they pay to professional fundraisers and also the high wages they pay to the board members.The Dogs Trust for instance who pay some members of staff between £70-£130k a year.

Having said that I think we can all help out more either giving up some free time or donating monthly ,especially to many of the small charities.......

This is one I would recommend ............http://www.theolivercurdtrust.co.uk/

Yup, this is espicially true of socialists. They dont give any money or time to charity. They just want everyone to pay more taxes so their 40k a year teachers job is protected. They dress this up as "progressive" and "helping the poorest". nahhh, nothing about labour paying 40k to teachers and 120k to doctors is about helping the poorest. Its about buying votes. So whose fault are these charity cuts? Labour and their voters, and public sector workers who dont give a penny to charities because they want to live like a king.

Shambles

lostinrates

akitabow wrote: »

I agree that the "good" organisations need as much help as they can get and do provide a really great service however if the directors and board members of some organisations gave up their prestige cars and plush london head offices then i might be more sympathetic. ( i speak from experience as I took my mother to british heart foundation (i think it was) to discuss leaving her estate to them in her will and upon entering the chandelier covered hallway and going into a special designed office we both knew that she wouldn't be leaving it to them)

did you tell them why you decided not to?

I agree, we don't want:
a; people falling through crack
b: to recycle costs to other, funded systems with no positive outcome.

but I don't think that excludes all cuts. I've mentioned before an acquaintance here who spends min 12 hours a week in support groups (publically funded) and helps with voluntary things too, but can't get a job because the time spent in support groups and volunteering leaves them too tired/exhausted to get a pt job. (but who can go out with friends when tired). I think one, really good support group would leave LESS room for this person t fall down a crack (all be it a nicely padded crack) but rather to have a little support and then reintergrate into a working, law abiding lifestyle, while cutting admin by...well, upto five sixths! (I doubt all are members of all the available groups, charity schemes etc.)

wanting ''rationalisation'' doesn't necessarily mean wanting to be heartless or cruel.

grizzly1911

B_Blank wrote: »

Yup, this is espicially true of socialists. They dont give any money or time to charity. They just want everyone to pay more taxes so their 40k a year teachers job is protected. They dress this up as "progressive" and "helping the poorest". nahhh, nothing about labour paying 40k to teachers and 120k to doctors is about helping the poorest. Its about buying votes. So whose fault are these charity cuts? Labour and their voters, and public sector workers who dont give a penny to charities because they want to live like a king.

Shambles

Paying for talent maybe, the going rate like all those clever bankers:rotfl::rotfl: