Most over subscribed.........

[MeMe]

.....charity - my bloody company has once again donated a rediculous amount of money to Guide Dogs for the Blind - yes a worth couse but in my opinion there are far more charities who could benefit. Now somewhere I recall seeing a list of the richest charities and I believe G.D for the bloody blind was the richest - does anyone have similar such information ? Why do I ask - well next year I want to be able to promote something that would assist the more needy.

[codprawn]

Thought the RNLI was the richest charity???

More to the point the MAIN question you should be asking is

"How much of the money gets to the people who need it"???

Most of the big charities are like big companies - they spend on their staff and expenses first and anything that may be left over goes to the needy - some charities swallow up 90% on running costs!!!

Cherie Blair was a classic example in Australia recently - she received £17,000 for speaking at a charity dinner - the charity only got £6700 - out of a total £81,000!!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...843465,00.html

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

Most of the big charities are like big companies - they spend on their staff and expenses first and anything that may be left over goes to the needy - some charities swallow up 90% on running costs!!!

Can you back this up with some sort of evidence? If you are implying that 90% of income is spent on administration - this is simply not true, if you mean that 90% is spend delivering the "services" the charity provides then what else would you expect? I have been a trustee of one of these big charities and most charities aim to spend >80% on operating costs and <20% on admin costs.

What do you think the staff are doing - helping the "needy" - so most of their costs are legitiamite direct expenditure.

Here are some examples - the British Red Cross (one of the UK's largest charities) spends >75% on its direct front line services, and <2% on pure admin and management. The remainder goes on other costs such as volunteer training, fundraising etc.

RSPCA spend > 75% on direct animal welfare and < 2% on pure admin costs.

The RNLI spend 79.3% on the direct costs of saving lives, and only 3.3% on "support" which is what they call their Administration.

Guide Dogs for the blind spend 82% on actually providing dogs, and just 2% on pure admin.

These 4 organisations have reserves of:

BRC 108m (against annual opperating costs of £150m)
RSPCA 158m (agains annual opperating costs of £82m)
RNLI 481m (against annual opperating costs of £120m)
GuideDogs 99m (against annual oppertating costs of £33m)

All these organisations need your money. All are highly respected at the role they play. Looking at the reserves they appear to be cash rich, but it won't last long without ongoing income support.

This information was obtained from the published, audited, annual reports of each organisation for 2004.

NEIL

[hard1]

Good info Neil, thanks.

[codprawn]

Depends on how the figures are worked out.

This is an article from 2000 but it illustrates the point

http://society.guardian.co.uk/fundra...397912,00.html

"Another Oxfam volunteer claimed that Bryer had presided over a culture of rising costs, with the result that less than 20p of every £1 earned in Oxfam shops was going to aid projects. The correspondent wrote: "This is a great charity, to which I have always been deeply attached and worked for as a volunteer for 10 years. I am very distressed to see the growth of bureaucracy and lack of financial control that has gone on now for a number of years."

The asian Tsunami appeals raised massive sums of money - very little actually filters down to the people who need it - by the time consultants and experts are called in to see how to spend it there isn't much left!!!

[hard1]

That must have taken some searching for....

Codders, you are truly the Search King, unfortunately however, the Grauniad is rarely accurate (it is alleged).

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by hard1

That must have taken some searching for....

Codders, you are truly the Search King, unfortunately however, the Grauniad is rarely accurate (it is alleged).

Of course other people keep all the figures in their heads!!!

It strange for ME of all people to quote the Guardian - pinko commie left wing subversive paper that it is BUT I am sure they aren't the only ones to mention this!!!

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

Depends on how the figures are worked out.

Not really all charities report there accounts in fundamentally the same format to the Charities Commission. They all are audited to broadly the same standard. What might vary is how important the work actually is in YOUR perception, or whether ALL the work is going to help the people YOU think are most needy.

Originally Posted by codprawn

Thought the RNLI was the richest charity???

That DOES depend on what you mean by richest - I haven't managed to find a table of reserves for charities, and that is what I would mean by it. Although in fact I think it would be more relevant to take into account the expenditure/reserves ratio.

The magasine Charity Finance does produce an "index" (which the papers usuall twist and call "rich list") but this is actually just based on Income not reserves.

In terms of income they list (in 2005) the top 6 as "Nuffield Hospitals" "Cancer Research UK" "Welcome Trust" "National Trust" "Salvation Army" and "Oxfam". It was the same 6 last year but in a different order.

The RNLI is ranked number 14. And guide dogs for the blind no 55.

Originally Posted by codprawn

less than 20p of every £1 earned in Oxfam shops was going to aid projects.

Charity Shops are a notoriously expensive way to raise money. They have to pay rent, heating lighting (Rates?) etc the same as anyone else. Many of them struggle to get enough volunteers and so most will now have a paid manager. However, that said, if you think of 20p / £1 going to aid projects as being the charities NET "profit", its actually not that bad a "profit" margin. Charity shops also raise profile as well as being income generators.

Originally Posted by codprawn

The asian Tsunami appeals raised massive sums of money - very little actually filters down to the people who need it - by the time consultants and experts are called in to see how to spend it there isn't much left!!!

Are you going to support that claim?

The Disasters Emergency Committee raised £300m for the Tsunami.

Here is how it is being spend and by who...

http://tsunami.dec.org.uk/page4.asp

I am sure that it is sometimes relevant to use "consultants" to assess situations. BUT I doubt that they could spend £300m on them! The experts at disaster relief are the big NGO's/charities. I quote from the DEC web site:

"The initial relief phase

This has been managed so that the beneficiaries have their dignity respected, receive the basics to support life, and prevent outbreaks of disease.
Support appropriate temporary solutions especially for shelter while permanent solutions are agreed.

Within hours of the tsunami, staff from DEC member agencies were on the ground assessing what was needed and sharing this vital information with other DEC member agencies.
The donations received were immediately put to use, to meet the needs of the millions of traumatised and desperate people of the region - people who survived the tsunami, but who were now in imminent danger of succumbing to disease, dehydration and exposure.
In these first few days and weeks DEC member agencies helped to clear debris, provide clean water, latrines, temporary shelter, medicines and household items. "

And on the title of this "thread" I don't think any of the charities discussed here are actually "over subscribed" - they just do work on a bigger scale than the some of the smaller organisations. Most charities retain a very small amount of their income to bolster the reserves (i.e. they raise slightly more than they spend) - this is normal and is all part of planning for the future and sorting out the problems caused by the stock market crash.

NEIL

[hard1]

Cod, you have clearly been out- factated by superior knowledge presented in a clear non hysterical fashion. As I do a lot of charity work for Music Therapy these details are fascinating and a source of motivation for the many thousands of people tirelessly raising money for those less fortunate than us.

It's good to see these efforts do make a difference.

[ollyit]

interesting read, i hope the ££ i donate gets to the people that need it..

[Richard B]

Originally Posted by ollyit

...hope the ££ i donate gets to the people that need it..

Yes, always the concern.

Good input, Neil.

[Nick Thompson]

Originally Posted by Polwart

Charity Shops are a notoriously expensive way to raise money. They have to pay rent, heating lighting (Rates?) etc the same as anyone else.

Not rates, that's why High Streets are full of charity shops, normal businesses can't afford the Business Rates, which can often be the highest fixed overhead.