How do you choose?

VickyA_2

I donate to charities which have helped family/friends. For example, Age UK does a great job in our local area and supported an elderly uncle to remain at home. Similar reason for Macmillan and Breast Cancer Care - my mum was thoroughly supported by both charities to get through her treatment.

I stopped giving to one charity when one of its workers said "We've got so much money, we can't spend it fast enough!" If they've got so much money then I'm not going to give to them.

So, it's all very personal.

cherryblossomzel

Babbawah wrote: »

none of these . . . so called charitable organisations . . . take kindly to be examined closely.

Not sure I agree entirely with that. There are certainly charities who spend a lot on admin etc, but all charities have to publish their financial records (anyone can read them), and they do get audited.

Plenty of charitable organisations are very transparent.

TBagpuss

I tend to give to charities where there is a personal connection with something which has touched my own life.

I tend not to give to animal charities as they are so popular, I normally look for the less 'photogenic' causes, on the basis that they need the support more

PlutoinCapricorn

Have a look here: OldToolie's post is of particular interest:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3612519

cherryblossomzel

Thanks, Pluto. That was helpful. I ended up going with the small charity only. I was going to split my donation between the two, but then it turned out that the larger one had a minimum donation requirement, which I think is a bit of a cheek. It's not that much, only £5 a month, but I don't want to support someone who apparently thinks that they shouldn't be bothered with small donations. I understand that it costs money to process donations, but I prefer to give smaller donations to several different charities.

PlutoinCapricorn

From Babbawah:

"I don't know anyone who still donates to Children In Need & anyone who still believes that the RSPCA is all about the animals is no friend of mine. Be carefull where you chuck your money. Be very, very carefull.

Be especially carefull about promoting where your £money is chucked because none of these . . . so called charitable organisations . . . take kindly to be examined closely."

cherryblossomzel wrote: »

Not sure I agree entirely with that. There are certainly charities who spend a lot on admin etc, but all charities have to publish their financial records (anyone can read them), and they do get audited.

Plenty of charitable organisations are very transparent.

I think that both posters have good points. I would say that many charities appeal to the heart rather then the head, and reply on the fact that large numbers of their donors do NOT think of checking the accounts on the Charity Commission Register, nor do they realise that some charities get huge governmental grants. Typical individual donors do not ask about outcomes and whether huge increases in income result in huge increases in positive results. I am thinking of charities such as the NSPCC here.

Children, animals and disasters do press people's buttons.

Katiehound

I give money to certain animal charities- some help the animals pure and simple and some help working animals in the third world like The Brooke. (where possible with Gift Aid so that they get more.) I also support the work of Christian Aid.

I also make doggy duvets and sell them for assistance dog charities- these have included Canine Partners & Medical Detection Dogs because they harness the abilities of dogs to help people who are either disabled or have life threatening diseases.
Currently I am fund raising for Dogs for the disabled because they train dogs to assist children.

I donate items to the local hospice shop and give them Gift Aid. I also shop in charity shops.

At Christmas I packed 6 shoe boxes for Link to Hope- which went to eastern europe for folk who have nothing

I used to be an education volunteer for Blue Cross and took my dog into schools and youth groups talking about animal welfare.

there are lots of ways of supporting a charity, I am pleased to do my bit.
If you can't give money perhaps you can give something else?

Savvy_Sue

I'd like to quietly suggest that just because a charity receives government grants doesn't mean it's not worth supporting.

Government and local authority funding nearly always has strings attached. Individuals CAN attach strings to their giving, but the unrestricted funding which comes in is really helpful: it means the charity can respond to situations which perhaps were unforeseen, or changing circumstances, or just do something because it's the right thing, rather than because the government of the day sees it as the right thing.

PlutoinCapricorn

I agree Sue, it is just that some people do not understand this and feel cheated when they find out, just as they do when they learn the costs of face-to-face fundraising and that money raised in this way does not usually go to the cause but towards the general funds.

rochja

I think most people will make the decision about who to support mainly on emotional attachment and I am fine with that. It is surely always better to do something rather than nothing even if the something is not the most efficient way of getting things done. However, when I want facts I tend to follow the twitter links provided by Bill and Melinda Gates at the Gates foundation So for instance: emotionally I love the work off riders for health and will support them. Intellectually I am impressed with efforts to eradicate polio and will support that too.

Oh, and I love this site:
https://www.goodgifts.org/