A civilized country doesn't need charity

[Scot Dutchy]

Totally. How much reaches the target? From the very first big appeals how much reached those kids in Africa? Hardly any. THe geo's of the charities were paid six figure salaries.

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Perc ... to_Charity

Yes, people steal. I take it the two charities in your country aren't considered corrupt?

I never give anything to charity. Those charities have been under very strict scrutiny even so I would not trust them.

[Scot Dutchy]

Nice being a boss of a charity:

The average boss of the UK’s top 100 charities is paid £255,000 a year, according to analysis by Third Sector. Fourteen of those charities paid their highest earners more than £300,000.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... ood-causes

Charities With the Highest Admin Costs

BTW when did I claim this country does not have charities. There are just as many scams in this country as anywhere else.

[Rum]

From: https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-s ... s-research

Good charities spend more on admin but it is not money wasted

The popular idea that charities fritter money on unnecessary admin has been proven wrong. You must spend to be effective

Donors should not favour charities that have low administration costs as they are likely to be low performers, new evidence has suggested.

The research, conducted by Giving Evidence and Givewell, is the first empirical data to be published about what administration costs indicate about charities' performance.

It compared 265 charities from 2008 to 2011 and found that in 2011 recommended charities spent an average of 11.5% of their costs on administration. However charities that Givewell didn't feel confident to recommend spent less on their overheads, with an average of only 10.8% of their costs going towards administration.

A similar result was recorded in 2008 to 2009, as lower-performing charities spent 9.5% on overheads and higher performing charities spent 10.2%.

The cost of a charities' overheads were determined by a number of factors, including records produced by the Charity Commission and Charity Navigator, and from the charities' own filing. Charities were recommended based on an indepth analysis that took into account a number of factors, including a strong documented track record of impact, highly cost-effective activities and a concrete need for more funds.

Caroline Fiennes, director of Giving Evidence and author of 'It ain't what you give, it's the way that you give it', said:

"If we look at what is included in the admin figure, such as systems to record learning and to improve and reduce costs, we can understand the findings. Spending on those things enables good performance. Scrimping on them is often a false economy.

"Assessing a charity by its admin spend is like assessing a teacher on how much chalk they use, or assessing a doctor on how many drugs they prescribe. They're easy measures, but they don't relate to performance.

"This isn't to say that there isn't waste in charities. There is – masses, much of it avoidable, and good charities try to avoid it. But don't expect to find it clearly labelled in the financial statements."

The research comes as the Parliament's public accounts committee has considered limiting charities' admin costs. It also comes after philanthropists such as Gina Miller have suggested that admin costs need to be capped. The data suggests that such caps would nudge donors towards choosing weaker charities, at untold cost to their beneficiaries.

Susan Hitch, a trustee of various organisations including the Sigrid Rausing Foundation has said: 'I'm often worried if a charity claims very low admin costs. Either they're fudging it to try to please a funder, which doesn't promise much of a relationship, or their admin really is rock bottom, in which case they're unlikely to be well run. You can't run an effective organisation with barely any cost. Grants are usually more effective if the charity is spending a realistic amount on its core costs.'

Research pays off for primary pupils

[Scot Dutchy]

How much is Susan Hitch being paid?

[Hermit]

Totally. How much reaches the target? From the very first big appeals how much reached those kids in Africa? Hardly any.

11% of Oxfam's income gets sucked up by administrative costs. Another 22% is spent on campaigns for more donations. The rest goes into digging wells, building schools and so forth. It's one charity I donate to periodically.

Another is the Wikipedia. It is said that it does not need my money, but I have not seen any figures supporting the assertion. Server costs alone must be running into eight-digit territory.

The Dutch, of course, donate to neither on principle. Their government takes care of all that.

[Scot Dutchy]

Totally. How much reaches the target? From the very first big appeals how much reached those kids in Africa? Hardly any.

11% of Oxfam's income gets sucked up by administrative costs. Another 22% is spent on campaigns for more donations. The rest goes into digging wells, building schools and so forth. It's one charity I donate to periodically.

Another is the Wikipedia. It is said that it does not need my money, but I have not seen any figures supporting the assertion. Server costs alone must be running into eight-digit territory.

The Dutch, of course, donate to neither on principle. Their government takes care of all that.

I dont know about that. I dont and that I know.

[Rum]

The nature of what a charity is has changed over the years here in the UK. The so called 'third sector' is part of the mix for delivering public services. The job I held at the time I retired was as a so called commissioning manager. We had to measure the need (in my case kids who had difficulty accessing education for a range of reasons like disability, behaviour issues etc.) and then establish a service to meet that need. Government policy, developed paradoxically during the Blair/Brown years requires that the charitable sector should be allowed to bid for such projects. One project, the so called 'parent support project' which I commissioned was run by Bernardos who brought about 25 staff in on it. They had to present their costings and budgets too, in order to meet a range of criteria, including overheads.

So it ain't all that straightforward.