Vent - Charity Shops Again -'are spending less than half of cash on good work'

Towser

One in five of the UK's biggest charities are 'spending less than half of public donations on good causes' (and some spend as little as ONE PER CENT on charitable work)
UK's biggest charities 'are spending less than half of cash on good work'
Nearly 300 allegedly spent just 10% on charitable activities in three years
And Lloyd's Register Foundation used only 1% of money on such causes
Other accused charities include the British Heart Foundation and Age UK
They have been branded 'utter disgrace' following release of new report
Many of the organisations have disputed the 'totally misleading' figures


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3357458/One-five-UK-s-biggest-charities-spending-half-public-donations-good-causes-spend-little-ONE-CENT-charitable-work.html#ixzz3u94yLGx8



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/12/18/2F4FE4E800000578-3357458-image-m-2_1449946473940.jpg

anamenottaken

Even the Mail included, "The Charity Commission agreed that the analysis was 'flawed'.".

And, of course, it's not just about income received by charity shops.

SnowTiger

Towser wrote: »

One in five of the UK's biggest charities are 'spending less than half of public donations on good causes' (and some spend as little as ONE PER CENT on charitable work)
UK's biggest charities 'are spending less than half of cash on good work'
Nearly 300 allegedly spent just 10% on charitable activities in three years
And Lloyd's Register Foundation used only 1% of money on such causes
Other accused charities include the British Heart Foundation and Age UK
They have been branded 'utter disgrace' following release of new report
Many of the organisations have disputed the 'totally misleading' figures

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3357458/One-five-UK-s-biggest-charities-spending-half-public-donations-good-causes-spend-little-ONE-CENT-charitable-work.html#ixzz3u94yLGx8

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3357458/One-five-UK-s-biggest-charities-spending-half-public-donations-good-causes-spend-little-ONE-CENT-charitable-work.html#ixzz3u94yLGx8:

A spokeswoman referred MailOnline to a blog on its website, where it says 'for every £1 donated... 80p is used to beat cancer.'
Meanwhile, Age UK said it had used nearly 95 per cent of its cash on such causes.

And a spokeswoman for Guide Dogs told MailOnline: 'We believe that the figures in the True and Fair Foundation’s report are inaccurate and misleading. What the report has deemed as non-charitable expenditure can be linked to trading, fundraising, sales of assets or building reserves, which generate additional income and help donations to go further.

I don't doubt some charities aren't well run and waste money.

However, looking at a few selected figures can give a misleading view.

Take charity shops as an example. A charity might receive £1 million income from its shops, but spend £800,000 on rents, utilities, insurance, etc to keep them going.

On the face it only 20% of the income would go towards charity work.

However, if the charity didn't spend £800,000 on its shop network it wouldn't have sales of £1 million and not have the £200,000 profit to spend on doing its good deeds.

As the saying goes: you have to spend money to make money.

paddyrg

Journalists will ignore moderate analysis in exchange for hyperbole and outrage to sell papers. Some newspapers more than others (some papers for instance will lead with 'x causes/cures cancer' every few days, despite any modicum of analysis showing that headline is wild extrapolation from a marginal experiment in the lab. Frequently, the researchers involved will debunk the exaggerated claims themselves. But by then the paper has found a new sensation to sell papers.

It's particularly safe to assume that anything involving any statistical analysis it even comparison of any kind will be misreported by most news sources. They are in the eyeballs on adverts business, not facts business. They will regularly, habitually, and willfully retort correlation as causation despite it being simplicity itself to disprove.

As such, when The Mail reports any scandal, it's usually safe to assume it's not worth getting excited about - whether weather, financial, medical, anything statistical, any stories about numbers of people doing anything, etc. Their journalists aren't stupid, they know exactly what they're doing.

The-Truth

paddyrg wrote: »

Journalists will ignore moderate analysis in exchange for hyperbole and outrage to sell papers

Kind of funny really in a hypocritical way. At least some money goes to charity, all Journalists do to make money is stir things and make up !!!! about people!

donnac2558

Oxfam is one of the worst, for every £1 you give only 10p goes to good causes.

A friend used to volunteer in one of the shops and she said it was real eye opener. The managers arrive in shiny new 4 x 4s leased by Oxfam read the riot act if the shop is not performing well enough. Its all targets targets(this is women and men working for free) whilst the manager are on top salaries. A number of ladies who had been there a long time, decided how to price items. Picked over stuff before it hit the shop floor and helped themselves to anything really nice for a few pounds. If they let it go into the shop the price was 3 or 4 times more than they paid for the same. Perk of the job.

Pollycat

I disagree with the title of this thread:

Vent - Charity Shops Again -'are spending less than half of cash on good work'

anamenottaken wrote: »

And, of course, it's not just about income received by charity shops.

I wouldn't automatically take this report as gospel.
And it does seem that a number of charities and organisations have refuted the report:

The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations also criticised the True and Fair Foundation's report, accusing it of excluding campaigning in its description of 'charitable activity'.

The Charity Commission agreed that the analysis was 'flawed'.
It added that the report had not 'considered basic information in the charities’ accounts'.

In a blog, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations referred to the report as 'neither true nor fair', explaining how charities add public donations to their trading to boost the amount of money they have to spend on good causes. It described the study as 'misleading in its analysis'.

I wouldn't 'vent' about this report unless I'd done some serious digging into exactly who the authors/sponsers of this report are.

SailorSam

The BHF and Oxfam always look as if they're run more like a business, with brighter and more modern shops. Disappointed to see Age Uk mentioned they're one of the ones i drop stuff off at. The other charity shop i give unwanted things is for a local hospice, i feel that more there goes towards the charity.
You just don't know though.

Pollycat

SailorSam wrote: »

The BHF and Oxfam always look as if they're run more like a business, with brighter and more modern shops. Disappointed to see Age Uk mentioned they're one of the ones i drop stuff off at. The other charity shop i give unwanted things is for a local hospice, i feel that more there goes towards the charity.
You just don't know though.

All my unwanted items go to my local hospice.

I don't discriminate where I spend my money though - I don't mind which charity shop it comes from.

LadyDee

Over 50 years ago I can remember a newspaper printing an "expose" of the way in which Oxfam spends its income - I think executives flying first class, staying in top hotels around the world was just an example, and at that time about 10% was actually spent on what people donated. Apparently nothing changes.

And don't get me started on the ridiculous prices I sometimes see being asked for some items, and so-called "designer" clothes. I did query a price marked on a garment recently, the assistant pointed out that it's "designer". Mr. Primark would be proud :-)

hollydays

I'd be interested to know though, if mse'ers managed a charity shop, how would people do better?
I do very nicely out of charity shops .
I do actually prefer them now that they look clean and welcoming.