8.4.14 In The Name Of Charity

It comes as no surprise that there are some anomalies in the charity world. For so long I have questioned the sense (economic and moral) in having so many of the fucking things, all rattling buckets or touting for completed direct debit mandates.  There is simply no sense to the massively high costs in keeping so many thousands of separate entities going.  They all have running costs that mean wastage is ludicrous.  In the commercial world, they would fail unless consolidation was undertaken.  However, whilst a company selling double glazing may well buy a smaller company doing the same thing, and have as a result a bigger company that consolidates costs while benefiting from a better and more efficient presence in general, charities don't work in this way.  Thus, the inefficiency of charities is maintained - and paid for out of money that should really be directed at the good cause.

I see that investigations into Afghan Heroes have revealed some details on how much was raised and what good was done; it makes interesting reading, and is as disheartening as fuck.

In 2012, the receipts were about £550,000.  This level of income, you'd suppose, would mean that much help for soldiers and their families was possible.  However, the amount spent on them was about £15,000.  I have not missed off a zero (which would have been bad enough!) and yes, you're right, that is a pathetic end result for income at 36 times that amount.  How come? Simple - costs incurred!

In round numbers -

With one hand, the charity received donations of £550,000
With the other hand the charity managed to spend £475,000

Other details emerging confirm that there were 8 full-time staff and 16 part-time staff, and wages ran to £190,000.  This is all a shocking example of how so much money can be wasted, through totally counter-productive efforts.  What is the point of spending £234,000 on fundraising events, and a further £241,000 on encouraging people to donate?  These two elements meant there was fuck all left.  So, all that 'giving' by those wanting to help was pointless.

I am not in any position to comment specifically on any charity, but I do believe that there is so much wrong with the whole sphere of charitable efforts in the UK.  We are supposedly one of the top nations in the world for giving, but I suspect that we are not at all as high in the rankings when measurement is based on those receiving.  The above example is probably rather worse (well, I'd fucking hope so) than most, but nevertheless, the principle holds true. Wages and running costs, and the speculative efforts to try and prize more money from the public all diminish the amount that gets anywhere near the cause for which money is being raised.

Some merging is essential, but this is unlikely.  People in this sector want to defend their entities, and protect their incomes.  If money is tight, and donations drop, then the 'spare money' that can be passed to the intended beneficiaries is reduced.  What a joke of a basis to operate.  When I see repeated adverts on TV o sponsor children, and the pleading for £2 per month, £5 per month or £10 per month, I get frustrated at the costs being incurred.

If you want to do good, then go direct.  Do a good turn or give someone something without going to a charity as the interface, and see the percentage drop from 100% to - who knows what?  Sadly there is no real check on what costs might be 'reasonable'.

When you give £10, does it matter to you that £5 goes to the cause, or £7, or £2?  Even with the recent Sport Relief efforts, where I heard that "100% of your money goes to Sport Relief", I thought that was misleading, because that simply means no one is taking a cut before it gets to Sports Relief.  Once it's there, of course, normal rules apply.  Comic Relief needs to receive a fortune just to break even.  Staff costs are about £15million.  I am sure I've read somewhere that the running costs total over £50million a year - or maybe it was £97million. Who knows?  Who actually cares?

Charities commonly hoard money to protect themselves from 'peaks and troughs', and so money is in banks, shares and who-knows-where, while further touting for money proceeds at pace.

Sorry to be a spoilsport but when something is "For Charity", that is NOT a basis to blindly believe anything at all, and certainly not a basis to believe that money will definitely get through the system.  Even if just one person wants to do good, and ride a mountain bike along a high ridge in Peru while grooming baboons, and throwing food to starving kids on the way, it is NOT much good if the bike rider pays out £2500 for the fundraising trip, and raises £2550 in sponsorship.  In essence, the benefit is £50.  The people who all chipped in would not be best pleased, I feel.  Big charities operate in the same way, simply hoping that the scale of donations far exceeds the costs that will be incurred.

Mad world.

...