Charities in Trouble

[andy the hammer]

Saw the report below from the BBC last night

 

 

 

Charities 'fear closure' due to cuts and donation fall A quarter of charities questioned said they had already been forced to cut frontline services Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

Charity donations 'down a fifth'

Third of charity shops may close

Charity jobs go as budgets shrink

 

One in six UK charities questioned for a survey say they fear they may have to close in 2013 due to public spending cuts and falling donations, the Charities Aid Foundation has said.

 

The poll of 252 senior charity workers also found just under half of their organisations have been forced to dip into reserves to stay afloat.

 

Over a third have said they may be forced to cut services or jobs.

 

The Cabinet Office said the charity sector "cannot be immune from cuts".

 

There are more than 160,000 charities in the UK.

 

Almost all of the 252 charities questioned for the CAF said generating more income was going to be their greatest challenge in the coming year.

 

The survey was completed online by charities of differing sizes by polling group Research Now.

 

Some 40% of those questioned worry that they will be forced to close if the economic situation does not improve

A quarter have already been forced to cut frontline services and staff cuts

About 80% believe that the economic situation is the greatest threat to UK charities

Nearly three quarters believe that charities are unable to fulfil their goals due to a reduction in donations or government funding.

The foundation are calling on the public to support charities through regular giving, regardless of how much time or money they can give.

 

The group are also lobbying the government to modernise and promote the Gift Aid scheme and Payroll Giving, so donations go further.

 

John Low, chief executive of CAF, said tough economic times mean the public has less money to donate to charities.

 

He added: "This combined with significant public spending cuts and increased demand for charity services is having a shocking effect on many charities, calling into question their very viability.

 

"Many organisations are having to dip into their reserves, cut vital frontline services and some are even concerned about whether they can survive in these toughest of times.

 

"Charities of all sizes play an essential role in our society, providing social care and education as well as helping some of the most vulnerable people in our communities."

 

Meanwhile, a Cabinet Office spokesman said "We know it is a very challenging environment for charities, especially for those previously dependent on taxpayer funding, but the sector cannot be immune from cuts

 

The spokesman said the government was "committed to strengthening the sector through programmes such as the £10m Investment and Contract Readiness fund and the £65m Advice Services Transition Fund".

 

"We have introduced new ways for the sector to finance itself through Big Society Capital, capitalised with £600m, giving charities access to affordable loans and investment to grow, so they can do more," he added.

 

This dont look good for CRT.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[kevinl]

I give in private, but I will admit that when, as ones incomes go down you end up giving less. We had the choice at work: work less hours and get less pay or some of you will go, we picked the first option so we all work between 3-4 days a week with a pro rata pay cut. Three days mean you get 60% of your previous pay, it's not easy but some of my workmates would have lost their home if they lost their jobs. Do I see that happen or take a bit of the pain and walk past the charity collectors where before I would have dropped some cash in. Fact is charities will be the first to suffer in times like these, it's wrong but it happens, and I do feel guilty, if that helps.

[lynalldisocvery]

Old saying, charity begins at home.

 

 

Lynall

[cheshire~rose]

It is sad of course but I think as people feel the economic pinch they will still give when they can but will ensure their giving is "smarter"

 

Many people who used to pop some coins in a can when it was rattled under their nose will not do so now, they prefer to give in a more organised manner, maybe by clicking a "donate now" button on their computer or by direct debit if they give regularly. This means they have the time to ensure they know that;

 

a: The charity they are giving to is making best use of the funds they are giving

 

b: The money is going directly to the charity and not ending up in the bucket of a rogue collector who was never actually collecting for anyone but themselves

 

c: They have the opportunity to add gift aid.

 

People also still need to furnish homes and clothe themselves and so they will also see their purchasing in Charity shops as a valuable donation that they are actually getting something back for. The problem is that now people can get money for their CD's and old clothes more people are choosing that option or selling stuff they no longer want at a car boot rather than donating it so it does mean the quality and number of goods being donated is also falling.

 

People will also look carefully at what a charity achieves when they decide whether to give or not. They expect charities to also be working smarter and not wasting the money they have been given. It is a sad fact that some charities will close. Equally it may be in some cases there is an overlap in what charities are working towards and so if one of those charities closes it should mean more funds end up directed to the other so the same amount of work can be done with less overheads - I know it is not always as simple as that but in many cases it is what happens.

 

People who can still afford to give need to ensure they are giving to charities that get the best value from their donations. It hurts to hear a charity is closing but, just as some businesses will always fail in hard times like these, it is often (but not always) those businesses who were not strong and healthy to start with - the same applies to charities

[jelunga]

It is sad of course but I think as people feel the economic pinch they will still give when they can but will ensure their giving is "smarter"

 

Many people who used to pop some coins in a can when it was rattled under their nose will not do so now, they prefer to give in a more organised manner, maybe by clicking a "donate now" button on their computer or by direct debit if they give regularly. This means they have the time to ensure they know that;

 

a: The charity they are giving to is making best use of the funds they are giving

 

b: The money is going directly to the charity and not ending up in the bucket of a rogue collector who was never actually collecting for anyone but themselves

 

c: They have the opportunity to add gift aid.

 

People also still need to furnish homes and clothe themselves and so they will also see their purchasing in Charity shops as a valuable donation that they are actually getting something back for. The problem is that now people can get money for their CD's and old clothes more people are choosing that option or selling stuff they no longer want at a car boot rather than donating it so it does mean the quality and number of goods being donated is also falling.

 

People will also look carefully at what a charity achieves when they decide whether to give or not. They expect charities to also be working smarter and not wasting the money they have been given. It is a sad fact that some charities will close. Equally it may be in some cases there is an overlap in what charities are working towards and so if one of those charities closes it should mean more funds end up directed to the other so the same amount of work can be done with less overheads - I know it is not always as simple as that but in many cases it is what happens.

 

People who can still afford to give need to ensure they are giving to charities that get the best value from their donations. It hurts to hear a charity is closing but, just as some businesses will always fail in hard times like these, it is often (but not always) those businesses who were not strong and healthy to start with - the same applies to charities

It is also a factor that you can now find out more about how charities spend their/your money.

I will never give another penny to Help for Heroes after reading their accounts. The amounts they pay their staff are ridiculously high and their charitable spending low. Usjng tgeir fugures they pay all of their staff an average of over £25,000 p a. AVERAGE. That seems like the charity is being run for the staff not any service benefictionaries.

[Athy]

Help For heroes is a fairly recently founded charity. It has, as far as I know, no shops (at least, I have not yet seen one). Yet its name is known throughout the land and its efforts attain a high profile. Could this be connected to the fact that they pay to employ experienced and energetic fund-raisers who know what they are doing? If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

The type of charity which is run by old Mrs. Brown from down the road and Major Buffy (ret'd) when he isn't on the golf course is laudable, selfless and blameless but is less likely to make a significant financial contribution to its chosen cause.

[twbm]

One Charity that will survive is Children in Need, given the disproportionate amount of free publicity it receives from the BBC, an organisation that otherwise is quite anal about not advertising.

 

I'm not knocking the charity, and I know it's BBC lead, but from late September to mid November it pushes all other fund raiaing efforts off the radar. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Poppy Appeal is losing ground, although that may be a generational thing.

[Athy]

. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Poppy Appeal is losing ground, although that may be a generational thing.

 

Is it? I would say that it's stronger now than it was, say, 20 years ago. Then, as the WW2 generation started to fade away, it began to look almost an anachronism. Even "the silence" was cut from two minutes to one for a while. Nowadays, with British forces involved in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan etc., the plight of many former servicemen is much more obvious to the public. It is worth noting that just about everybody who appears on BBC telly programmes in early November wears a poppy, thus publicising the Appeal. I am not sure that that was the case 20 years ago.

[jelunga]

Help For heroes is a fairly recently founded charity. It has, as far as I know, no shops (at least, I have not yet seen one). Yet its name is known throughout the land and its efforts attain a high profile. Could this be connected to the fact that they pay to employ experienced and energetic fund-raisers who know what they are doing? If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

The type of charity which is run by old Mrs. Brown from down the road and Major Buffy (ret'd) when he isn't on the golf course is laudable, selfless and blameless but is less likely to make a significant financial contribution to its chosen cause.

If you look at their annual review here.

http://issuu.com/helpforheroes/docs/120712101000-84eed01185284015acd575c3f416d414?mode=mobile

 

You might be surprised by their high salaries and low charitable spending. Some of the ex Armed Forces groups I belong too are very suspicius now of this organisation.

[Athy]

If you look at their annual review here.

http://issuu.com/helpforheroes/docs/120712101000-84eed01185284015acd575c3f416d414?mode=mobile

 

You might be surprised by their high salaries and low charitable spending. Some of the ex Armed Forces groups I belong too are very suspicius now of this organisation.

Well, I tried your link but found the site difficult to use, so I am none the wiser - I chose the "Auditor's report" page but when I tried to magnify it to read it, it flicked on to a "Search this publication" page. I tried twice but the same thing happened. So, how much of their income goes to provide support for needy ex-service personnel?

[alan_fincher]

I chose the "Auditor's report" page but when I tried to magnify it to read it, it flicked on to a "Search this publication" page.

 

I suspect you may be clicking on what looks like a magnifying glass, but is actually a search tool at the bottom of the page.

 

If you just click on the area of the page it will magnify, or you can use a slider at the top.

 

2011 Wages and Salaries show as.....

 

(For the "Group) £2,638,000 - Average no of staff as 101 .

 

(For the "Charity") £1,570,000 - Average no of staff 49.

 

I make that.....

 

Average slaray ("Group"), £26,119

Average Salary ("Charity"), £32,041

 

Or

 

Average Salary (Overall), £28,053

 

I have no idea how that compares to other charities.

[andy the hammer]

The problem is that now people can get money for their CD's and old clothes more people are choosing that option or selling stuff they no longer want at a car boot rather than donating it so it does mean the quality and number of goods being donated is also falling.

 

 

I was in Daventry yesterday and there is a shop just opened that was purchasing old clothes in any state and it was doing a roaring trade.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Wanted]

If you look at their annual review here.

http://issuu.com/helpforheroes/docs/120712101000-84eed01185284015acd575c3f416d414?mode=mobile

 

You might be surprised by their high salaries and low charitable spending. Some of the ex Armed Forces groups I belong too are very suspicius now of this organisation.

 

 

But what is your comparable? What are the Job specs?

 

I have worked in the charity sector for years and the bottom line is that you have to deliver what you do in a highly competitive market at the best price to quality ratio. The successful ones do this whilst remaining true to their mission.

I see no problem with decent wages providing the mission of the charity is being met. Often low wages are not attractive to skilled workers, no matter how committed they are to the cause.

 

What worries me most a about the cuts is that the larger charities will be able to undercut the smaller ones in the tendering market and drive the quality down.

[churchward]

Is it? I would say that it's stronger now than it was, say, 20 years ago. Then, as the WW2 generation started to fade away, it began to look almost an anachronism. Even "the silence" was cut from two minutes to one for a while. Nowadays, with British forces involved in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan etc., the plight of many former servicemen is much more obvious to the public. It is worth noting that just about everybody who appears on BBC telly programmes in early November wears a poppy, thus publicising the Appeal. I am not sure that that was the case 20 years ago.

I agree. I don't have any figures but it does seem to me that the Poppy appeal is very strong these days, thankfully. Although I wish it didn't have to be.

 

It isn't surprising that people may be being more careful generally about giving these days of economic constraints. I find it's a surprising trick of human nature that it is often the people with the least who are proportionately more generous and those with more, less likely to be.

 

I also agree with others the tin rattlers are less likely to get money from me these days. I prefer other means to support charities I favour. I particularly like using "Gift Aid" methods as this gets the taxman to contribute.

 

But what is your comparable? What are the Job specs?

 

I have worked in the charity sector for years and the bottom line is that you have to deliver what you do in a highly competitive market at the best price to quality ratio. The successful ones do this whilst remaining true to their mission.

I see no problem with decent wages providing the mission of the charity is being met. Often low wages are not attractive to skilled workers, no matter how committed they are to the cause.

 

What worries me most a about the cuts is that the larger charities will be able to undercut the smaller ones in the tendering market and drive the quality down.

I am not concerned about the level of wages specifically as I agree you need to employ the right skilled people. However, what would concern me is how large or small the proportion of the donated amount is spent on the cause in question. I think it is about efficiency and if I could see a charity was being inefficient with the donation and not much gets through to where it's needed then I would not give.

[Athy]

I suspect you may be clicking on what looks like a magnifying glass, but is actually a search tool at the bottom of the page.

 

If you just click on the area of the page it will magnify, or you can use a slider at the top.

 

2011 Wages and Salaries show as.....

 

(For the "Group) £2,638,000 - Average no of staff as 101 .

 

(For the "Charity") £1,570,000 - Average no of staff 49.

 

I make that.....

 

Average slaray ("Group"), £26,119

Average Salary ("Charity"), £32,041

 

Or

 

Average Salary (Overall), £28,053

 

I have no idea how that compares to other charities.

 

Thank you Alan. That is indeed what I was doing. So, HfH salaries amount to over £4 million per year. But that is a meaningless sum on its own. If the charity's income is £5 million, you could say that the salaries are excessive proportionate to income, but if it's £50 million, you could say that these are professionals ably earning their corn.

[Wanted]

I agree. I don't have any figures but it does seem to me that the Poppy appeal is very strong these days, thankfully. Although I wish it didn't have to be.

 

It isn't surprising that people may be being more careful generally about giving these days of economic constraints. I find it's a surprising trick of human nature that it is often the people with the least who are proportionately more generous and those with more, less likely to be.

 

I also agree with others the tin rattlers are less likely to get money from me these days. I prefer other means to support charities I favour. I particularly like using "Gift Aid" methods as this gets the taxman to contribute.

 

 

I am not concerned about the level of wages specifically as I agree you need to employ the right skilled people. However, what would concern me is how large or small the proportion of the donated amount is spent on the cause in question. I think it is about efficiency and if I could see a charity was being inefficient with the donation and not much gets through to where it's needed then I would not give.

 

 

Absolutely, and I agree, but I think that some people see that somehow charity workers should work for less money because it's charity. It could be argued that a well run and organised charity would improve its efficacy by paying a skilled workers top dollar.

[Guest]

But what is your comparable? What are the Job specs?

 

I have worked in the charity sector for years and the bottom line is that you have to deliver what you do in a highly competitive market at the best price to quality ratio. The successful ones do this whilst remaining true to their mission.

I see no problem with decent wages providing the mission of the charity is being met. Often low wages are not attractive to skilled workers, no matter how committed they are to the cause.

 

What worries me most a about the cuts is that the larger charities will be able to undercut the smaller ones in the tendering market and drive the quality down.

 

This is a good point - there is the perception in some quarters that because you work for charity that you should somehow give up the notion of a decent salary for altruistic reasons, my view is anybody who is good at the job they do in whatever sector deserves to be paid appropriately.

 

It used to be like that in my former profession but sense over the years has prevailed.

[Wanted]

There are two strands here, money collected from charitable donation and work tendered by the government or private sector.

 

The cuts will effect the latter more as I still think the giving public will still keep their favourites.

 

The Government want more for less and a way of achieving this is to tender at a lower price and promise more. (this is happening all over the sector)

The bigger charities can go in at cheaper prices and ride the difference, but also pay really low wages, introducing 'trainee' roles and 'support assistant' roles where they didn't have them before. Naturally this drives down the quality and the end user is the one to suffer.

 

This I believe is a short term strategy that has its routes based more in business than in charity.

 

I am personally only interested in charity that holds its values somewhere near the top whilst working hard to remain value for money. This is done by paying well and expecting everyone to work blood hard!

[BlueStringPudding]

I work in the charity sector. When the current government came into power, they triggered a number of things that impacted on mine and other charities. They reduced larger funding bodies (like London Councils) which funded charity activities that benefited wider communities - in the case of London Councils, work that benefits the whole of London rather than one borough. The government cut back funding to Local Authorities and then encouraged local authorises to take control of these smaller budgets themselves, that would have once benefitted pan-London activity. This meant that charities with a wider remit than the very local lost funding and either made staff redundant or closed altogether. Also the reality was that the boroughs did not always fund similar charity activity and instead spent the money differently, impacting on smaller charities significantly.

 

The current economic climate means there is less peotential for comemrcial revenue fo organisations, including charities who are encouraged to diversify their income streams. So more commercial organisations are turning into chairities to open up wider pools of funding they can apply to, such as trusts and foundations. However there is less funding to go around too. So now there are more charities, applying for a portion of a smaller pot of money. This increased competition has led to small and mid scale charities reducing in size or closing altogether.

 

Lately governement funding bodies, such as DCMS have had their own cutbacks including staff redundancies. The reduced pot of cash in governement has also caused some of the charities my current employer has worked with in the past, to now close, such as DaDaSouth. Also parts of the British Council has undergone major internal changes, half their London building had been rented out, presumably for income generation, and the permanent staff are now hot-deskng and working from home when they can.

 

Whether CaRT had remained just a government body or become a charity, it would be facing massive cutbacks and problems over the next few years either way. It will all be about revenue and over reliance in unqualified volunteers from now on; not about system maintenance, quality service or best practice; which i can say from experience will not be good for the organisation or for the key stakeholders (boaters)

 

Edited to add: I've not even touched on the subject of charitable donations (individual giving), community fundraising or corporate social responsibility here, but suffice to say all three revenue/services in kind areas are being negatively impacted by the present economic austerity.

Edited December 9, 2012 by BlueStringPudding

[carlt]

 

Average Salary (Overall), £28,053

 

I have no idea how that compares to other charities.

Around about the UK national average salary then...

 

Is there any reason why charity workers should be paid less than the rest of us?

[BlueStringPudding]

There is no "rest of us", if there was there'd be a universal single pay scale. I know from my own experiences that the heritage and arts sector pays less than the education sector. The charity sector is very variable with salaries and generally pays less than all the above.

[carlt]

There is no "rest of us",

I know that but suggesting that charity employees should be earning less than the national average is somehow demeaning their work, in my opinion.

[Little Else]

Around about the UK national average salary then...

 

Is there any reason why charity workers should be paid less than the rest of us?

 

Splutter, splutter, I wish I earned that much.

[Guest]

Splutter, splutter, I wish I earned that much.

 

Ok -

 

but how much do you earn,

 

what job do you do,

 

and how many hours in a week do you work?

[BlueStringPudding]

Programme director for a charity

 

Six grand less than I earned in the education sector

 

60-80 hours per week