Which charities are most efficient?

phonoplug

A friend recently mentioned about a family member used to work for a large international charity which will remain name-less for now. The family member was quite high up in the organisation and had a big company car and lots of generous benefits. Essentially he had said that only a small percentage of donations actually go to the good causes, while the vast majority is swallowed up with 'admin' or 'operating costs'.

That got me thinking about the charities I support and I would like to know whether my donations are really helping good causes or mainly keeping their executives in nice cars!

I've found a couple of websites that give ratings of charities, but they all seem to be for those in the USA. http://www.charitynavigator.org/ seems to be pretty good.

So the question is, is there such a website or organisation for charities that operate in the UK?

PlutoinCapricorn

https://www.philanthropycapital.org

I myself have worked for household name charities: it is the large amounts rather than the percentage spend on administration, marketing etc. that concern many people. The accounts show these figures.

little_busy_bee

best thing to do it is check the charity commission website for the charity accounts, from here you can see how much is spent on staff costs, admin, etc. and how much actually goes on projects.

it is pretty shocking....even allowing for the fact that many larger charites employ more staff for research and lobbying on trade, etc.

After doing this I ended up cancelling my support for some charities and switching to other smaller charities which had very significantly smaller operating costs as a lot of staff time was volunteered, they were based outside London, and trustees were not claiming travel costs for monitoring projects (the amount that some charities were paying out to trustees really horrorified me!).

it took me a few hours to research the charities but was well worth doing, and i wrote a letter to the charities i withdrew my support from to advise that this was the reason why.

hope this help.

PlutoinCapricorn

This is a complex subject. Those huge charities may have a bigger impact overall: you need to spend money to make money and reach large numbers of beneficiaries. Many corporate and trust & foundation donors require their money to go to a specific project and not be spent on general running costs. They also want the projects to be monitored, so that they can be sure that their donations are well spent.

On the other hand, I was appalled by the NSPCC's £1 million "Full Stop" campaign and the huge payoffs by Amnesty International, and I am not happy to see large payments made to trustees.

It is really up to the charities to justify their non-project expenditure and to demonstrate that without it there would be less money for the actual cause. For example, a well paid professional application writer can bring in some huge grants whereas in my experience amateurs and volunteers do not obtain good results.

Savvy_Sue

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

This is a complex subject.

Indeed. And worth saying that charities have to care for their staff, comply with legislation and pay for recruitment expenses just as any other employer does. So paying minimum wage and providing a small budget car for someone who then spends a lot of time travelling in it may not be cost-effective.

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

It is really up to the charities to justify their non-project expenditure and to demonstrate that without it there would be less money for the actual cause.

However, it is also a 'no-brainer' to me that if you are handling large sums of money, you pay qualified / professional people to account for it. I think this is especially true if overseas transfers are involved. And while it may not be popular, good admin is essential.

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

For example, a well paid professional application writer can bring in some huge grants whereas in my experience amateurs and volunteers do not obtain good results.

Writing good fundraising applications is certainly something you get better at the more you do!

JohalaReewi

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

www.philanthropycapital.org

I myself have worked for household name charities: it is the large amounts rather than the percentage spend on administration, marketing etc. that concern many people. The accounts show these figures.

That website doesn't show charity ratings like the USA one does.

PlutoinCapricorn

There was a website called "Intelligent Giving" that rated charities. They lost their funding, and are now diverted to New Philanthropy Capital. I am not sure what is going to happen now. As others have said, the Trustees' Annual Report (TAR) on the Charity Commission Register is one of the best sources of information.


http://www.philanthropycapital.org/about_npc/about_us/intelligent_giving.aspx

oldtoolie

It is difficult to come up with a single number to rank charities just as it is with many other things. What's the best car? What's the best washing machine. What's the best newspaper?

One thing for sure is that a successful charity must have effective administration and management as well as efficient management, otherwise resources will be wasted.

So you have to do your own research and make your own decisions. If I'm making a small donation, I might just look at the website. If I was making a large donation, I might download the annual report from the Charity Commission and even call up to ask questions.

I support a tiny charity run by people I know that helps a few primary schools in Nicaragua. I might give them £100 or even £1000 but I wouldn't give them £10,000 because they would not have the administrative capability to ensure it was well spent.

I also support a very large charity. I know they spend a lot of money on fundraising (they raise a lot too) I know that the chief executive draws a salary as big as a head teacher at a large secondary school or a successful GP and gets a family saloon to drive. I think that is a good idea because the CEO is running an organisation with thousands of staff around the globe and spending over £100 million @ year.

I looked up another large charity I heard about and found they nearly 70% of their income on fundraising. I won't be supporting them. I looked up another local charity and could see that they are essentially a family business mainly devoted to providing employment to themselves with a small amount going to charity. I won't be dropping any coins into their collection tin.

The best thing to do is to put your charitable giving into your annual budget. Then have a think about what you want to support and do a little research. Make your donations (Gift Aided if you are eligible.) Then you can walk by tin-rattlers and street fundraisers with a satisfied smile, saying no thanks, I have already given.

WhiteHorse

The RNLI. The administrative tail is very small and its frontline staff put their lives on the line for others. A more deserving cause would be difficult to find.

All_things_bright_and_beautiful

I volunteer at Holton Lee and from what I've seen the majority of staff (If you can count 6) get paid from outside organisations, so the money that comes in to Holton Lee is used for Holton Lee and not company cars etc etc etc

Bella56

Searched for just this and found this thread, thank you.

I just read Bill Bryson's book about his trip to Kenya with Care Int'l, and was interested in setting up a DD with them. Had a hard time finding the UK website as their main website is for the US, and it was a nightmare finding the UK link. Now, what has annoyed me, is that I clicked on the Job Vacancies and read what their benefits for staff are. I'm sorry, but £500/year for gym membership???!!!

But then again, if I understand correctly from Charities Commission, they use almost all income for charitable purposes and 8% on fundraising, which seems fair enough?

Do all charities use so many staff (86 and only 12 volunteers) and is 8% for fundraising quite good?

I hope I don't sound too stingy (sp?), its just that our family makes under £13K per year so I'd feel funny about subsidizing someone's gym membership instead of actually helping even poorer people!