|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 20:54:15 GMT
Capital Theatres, Edinburgh is a charity which brings disadvantaged people eg disabled or ill into the theatres, and they run the Festival and King’s theatres in Edinburgh. I always feel guilty for not donating at the end of a performance but I never really have any change on me TO donate. All I really have on me is my debit card which I use to pay for most things.
|
|
1,250 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by joem on Nov 1, 2018 21:26:17 GMT
This may be tangential but as we move to a cashless society I wonder what will happen with the "spare some change please" brigade? The sarcastic, faux-helpful questioning of Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho" (the novel) to the blind beggar as to whether he took American Express suddenly takes on a new meaning.
|
|
19,795 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 1, 2018 23:41:01 GMT
As it's the time of year once again when people are collecting both for the British Legion Poppy Appeal and (in theatres) for Act Up, the theatrical charity, I've been reminded how awkward I feel when volunteers ask for cash of any sort, as I don't carry change and only a couple of larger-denomination notes which can go untouched for a couple of months because I use contactless methods for day-to-day expenses and book my cinema and theatre tix online. Going back to the OP’s original point, no one should feel awkward at not putting cash into a collection box. We all give or don’t give to charity as we see fit. Some of us do it and some don’t. Personally, putting money into a box is the very last option I’d use to donate. And no I don’t feel awkward walking past people shaking a tin. I very much doubt whether the people with the tins are making value judgements about people either. |
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Nov 2, 2018 6:27:57 GMT
Indeed, BurlyBeaR - my sense of guilt and shame is my own and resembles the furtive feeling I have when walking through the green channel at Customs, even though I have nothing to declare. NB: and if there were Act Up collectors after Trial By Laughter at the Yvonne Arnaud yesterday afternoon, they certainly lost out as far as I was concerned as I fell asleep in the first half and escaped at the interval - but would have made a donation had that been the price of leaving! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 9:47:31 GMT
Well, I recently passed the Air Ambulance people in the street and took out my purse to give them some cash. They refused it, saying that they weren't allowed to take it on the street any more and would I mind signing up so they could hassle write to me for a donation Otherwise, I now only give to charities where as near 100% as possible goes to the cause and not on the admin team's wages and marketing. Serious question: but how do you expect the charity to get any work done without wages? My current job is for a charity, while technically 'admin' and 'social media' my day to day work is also literally opening up and keeping the building running so people can come in and, well use the place, which is at least half the point of the organisation. A lot of my friends work for a well-known cancer charity here in Cardiff. To give another example, they run choirs, for people affected by cancer. But of my 2 friends who do that job only 4 hours of their pay is running the choir so, stuff directly going to people using the charity, the rest of the working week is generic admin AND marketing of the choirs/charity in order to get more money to, well run the charity. I don't agree with ridiculous director salaries in Charities, but also wages should reflect the job done. Nobody works in 3rd sector for the money, but if you need expertise, and frankly the hours putting in (which everyone does above and beyond) then wages need to be decent enough that people can live on them. But also charities don't run on thin air, they need admin and marketing. |
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Nov 2, 2018 9:57:50 GMT
Yes, I work for a famous children's charity helping to run one of their charity shops. I could be earning a lot more in mainstream retail but I feel that I would like to use some of my experience for some good, having spent 25 years in mainstream retail and the last 5 in charity retail.Yes I do get paid but I was being paid more than double what I get now 10 years ago.
|
|
8,163 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Nov 2, 2018 10:40:25 GMT
Maybe it's an age thing but I panic if I don't have a bit of cash/change in my pocket. I use cards for most things but always need cash for small items like a packet of wine gums (my preferred choice of sweet at the theatre) or for a public loo (as they all charge in London).
I did read recently that a Big Issue seller in Bristol had invested in a card reader so people can pay for the magazine with contactless.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Nov 2, 2018 11:53:05 GMT
or for a public loo (as they all charge in London). Was at a station recently, can't remember - maybe Paris? maybe Marylebone? - where they only took card payments to get into the loo. my sense of guilt and shame is my own and resembles the furtive feeling I have when walking through the green channel at Customs, even though I have nothing to declare. Oh I'm with you there. I have just returned from lugging 3 bags of stuff to my usual charity shop after having spent 10 minutes attaching my poppy onto a thick coat, with only 2 lots of blood to wipe off my fingers. The Air Ambulance people actually approached me "Have you got a minute for the Air Ambulance Madam?" and I said no to them. I hate it as I feel so bad. They should not be allowed to approach people. We cannot give to everything. I also knew that they would be attempting to sign me up (see above) and would have been a lot happier if I could have just lobbed a coin into their tin. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 12:19:25 GMT
They should not be allowed to approach people
Frankly, yes, I am against those who consider a paid fundraising career in the "third sector" a viable life option. And I know two people who do it.
Yes, you do. And it's a skilled job. Incidentally I've done it for pay and not for pay (as a board member/chair). The reality is to keep a charity going these days you need a combination of grants, donations and supporters schemes and yes, also corporate sponsorship (if you're lucky). You could not run a charity of even the tiny sized one I'm chair of, on 'donation tin' or legacy alone. Writing a funding application is skilled, time consuming work. You need to pay staff to do that. So for, let's say 30k a year, a skilled development person in the big organisations will bring in millions in grants. That's standard investment in order to get 'profit' in this case, the profit, so let's say 2 millions minus that 30k gets put back into the organisation. Honestly, and again genuine question: Do you think Cancer Research UK, to pick a huge organisation, could do its job with nobody paid to run its funding campaigns? do you think Comic Relief would have the reach/impact it has without full time staff doing the job. There are facets of the charity sector that are incredibly corrupt. But there's also masses of legislation cracking down on that. But the reality is, we need big charities as much as we do small ones. And rattling a bucket at Christmas won't bring in the money. EVEN your monthly donations need someone to administer them. They need someone with financial and legal expertise at the very minimum. They also need strategic management to see that the money does indeed go to the right people, where needed and when. I'm sorry but it's a ridiculous notion that people shouldn't be paid for charity fundraising as a job, without it, and indeed without the whole system of third sector employment our charities big and small would cease to exist. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 2, 2018 12:52:17 GMT
I have to differ with you there. Charity is about helping people, you help as many people as you possibly can as efficiently as you can. I don’t care about the state of mind of the people doing the helping, I care about the end result.
It’s not about the person doing the helping it’s about the people who need help.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 13:01:13 GMT
Do you think Cancer Research UK, to pick a huge organisation, could do its job with nobody paid to run its funding campaigns? do you think Comic Relief would have the reach/impact it has without full time staff doing the job. Both began that way, so yes. Again, those with the skills used to donate their time. That is how it should be, and remains in the charities I do support. Charity is a state of mind, it is not a career option, in my view. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, @emicardiff . Again out of interest, what charities have you found that have zero paid staff, zero overheads that require the money going to things that aren't directly to 'the people' (ie. a landlord getting rent). Because I struggle to think of one that could fulfil that. I'm with Kathryn as well: it's the ends and morally corrupt means aside, I just want the work to be done. I'm keeping coming back to cancer research because it's one I know inside and out and is fairly black and white in terms of morality: we want to treat cancer, and help people with cancer. It costs money to research cancer treatment. It takes experts. Those experts can only do that effectively if its their full time job. If it's their full time job they need to be paid. In order to be paid, people need to fundraise. The sheer size of fundraising needed for a cancer charity to do anything, requires full time jobs to do that effectively. We pay both sets of people, more research, more support for people with cancer. Seems fairly self explanatory. The world has changed, and just because we did something one way in the past doesn't mean we should continue to do so. Similarly theatres, the NT has a substantial members scheme that is essentially a fundraising department. Should the people who look after that, from admin to Box Office to the strategists not be paid? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 13:02:07 GMT
Do you think Cancer Research UK, to pick a huge organisation, could do its job with nobody paid to run its funding campaigns? do you think Comic Relief would have the reach/impact it has without full time staff doing the job. Both began that way, so yes. Again, those with the skills used to donate their time. That is how it should be, and remains in the charities I do support. Charity is a state of mind, it is not a career option, in my view. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, @emicardiff . I work in a fundraising organisation (not technically a charity) and we also work a lot with orgs like CRUK. My office is staffed with reasonably well-paid professionals - fundraisers, communications, events and marketing people, researchers, stewardship officers, etc. We have an ROI of approx 14 to 1 - ie for every pound we spend on fundraising including salaries we get a return of £14 in donations. These are highly skilled professional jobs and you need the best people to be successful. There's absolutely no way we would raise the millions and millions of funding you need to, for eg, make advances against cancer or dementia (which does not come from the government however much you might wish it would), by getting 90 year old Lady Henrietta Poshlady to do a bit of lunching and tin shaking. Fundraising is a profession - the shops, the marathons, the regular giving helps (and very much have to be professionally managed - how do you think the big campaigns get publicity without seriously good PR people?); however the real money comes from major global philanthropists and trusts, and they need detailed, evidenced, bespoke proposals, ongoing reporting and relationship management, and a lot more. Philanthropy is seriously complex and has multiple layers and channels. It's a profession that pays for itself many many times over. Fundraising organisations do it this way because it's the only way that works if you seriously want to raise philanthropic income to make a difference to the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 13:03:58 GMT
Frankly, yes, I am against those who consider a paid fundraising career in the "third sector" a viable life option. And I know two people who do it. I'm old enough to remember when charities were just that. You had your unpaid fundraisers and administrators, and what they raised was spent on employing the people needed to carry out the tasks. Oxfam was an example. What you didn't have was those fundraisers taking a slice first. And that is how it should be, if it is charity. If you care about a cause you donate your time for free so that it may benefit. [/p][/quote] Yes, let's do that and let's see how many charities fold in super quick time. Then let's work out how we tell all of those people who benefit from those charities that they're up sh*t creek because various governments have mercilessly stripped not just services but dignity from people for years and they certainly won't help them. Services and dignity (and without being dramatic, life) that charities provide. And quite frankly, if that means paying someone more than the Prime Minister then it's money well spent. Do you honestly believe that Macmillan for example could run on 7% of its total donations? How many nurses would they have to stop funding if that were the case? |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Nov 2, 2018 13:10:54 GMT
Just saying - again a gremlin - that quote immediately above from Ryan attributed to me isn't from my pen, especially the bit that says "I'm old enough to remember....." 😬😉
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 13:14:03 GMT
Just saying - again a gremlin - that quote immediately above from Ryan attributed to me isn't from my pen, especially the bit that says "I'm old enough to remember....." 😬😉 What's going on?? Why is this happening? How queer! |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 2, 2018 13:19:35 GMT
Just saying - again a gremlin - that quote immediately above from Ryan attributed to me isn't from my pen, especially the bit that says "I'm old enough to remember....." 😬😉 What's going on?? Why is this happening? How queer! That's been happening for ages! Happens whenever you try and edit a post with multiple quotes in it to just quote the bit you are responding to. It normally takes me a few tries using the BB code tab to fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 13:53:11 GMT
what charities have you found that have zero paid staff, zero overheads that require the money going to things that aren't directly to 'the people' (ie. a landlord getting rent). Because I struggle to think of one that could fulfil that. The Tymes Trust. 100% goes to those who need it. What was formerly known as "Youth Return." Every local Rotary and Round Table club. Next question. Firstly, slow clap for organisations that didn't admit women in their own right until 1980. Every penny? are you sure? what about the landlords for each and every building that hosts a meeting. Or what about venues that hold their events? or even the servers for those fancy websites? Also Rotary International take match funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which pays it's staff. So that's one off your list. Also it's about reach. It's all very well a bunch of nice middle class people giving a bit of money to help the poor (deserving) poor. But to actually make a difference, charities need to be larger. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 14:00:33 GMT
To go back to a point of how much money it takes to do ANYTHING these days; my friend spent a month fundraising for a cancer charity, by wearing pink (Breast cancer awareness). To put into perspective how much her month's hard work of getting donations did in 'real terms': it paid for 4 people to have a phone consultation with a nurse. One person working pretty damn hard to get donations, raised enough to make a difference to four people.
If I (or some other editorial you) spend a month working in fundraising strategy, either in grants, or getting donations, we could even minus our (usually pretty meagre) salary, raise enough for enough phone consultations across an entire year. It's a no-brainer, invest to recoup. It's incredibly naive to think that charities are above business planning and strategy, when in fact, a charity run like a business will in fact directly help more people than some cute idealistic charity that thinks it's above that.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Nov 2, 2018 14:06:47 GMT
I rarely have cash and my partner and I had to run past the bucket at Wipers Times, shamed up. I don't think we will ever be cashless, theatres still haven't found a cost effective way of using card machines for Ushers for example and there are a generation like my mum who haven't embraced contactless due to trust issues (She thought a shop could just take money from her account via sensors in the shop)
|
|
3,352 posts
|
Post by Dr Tom on Nov 2, 2018 14:09:40 GMT
They knocked on my door - bloke dressed in a "flight suit" and everything, and said the same to me. I'm afraid I struck them off my list of causes I'll give to for that. First, I refuse to give to charities that want to hassle me forever after and second, that bit of theatre just annoyed me. I've just had David from Barnado's at the door. I wasn't rude to him, but he seemed miffed that I wouldn't even let him plead his case for the poor children living in poverty (although he must get that reaction multiple times a day). He's now stood in the car park, putting information into his tablet and staring up at the apartment block windows, presumably trying to work out who is at home. It's a very slick commercial operation. First one I've had at my door for quite some time, although I'm mostly at work during the day. Barnado's are now off the list of causes I would support for the same reason at TheatreMonkey. Interestingly, reading their website, they claim this is one of their most cost-effective ways of raising funds. I've nothing against charities paying people. The whole legal definition in UK means that charities and non-profit organisations are almost indistinguishable to the general public. Charities have admin costs, have to employ professionals to prepare accounts, pay rent etc just like any other business. But I do mostly prefer to support small charities, often local or for a cause I believe in, where I know that they're staffed by people who are passionate about the charity, mostly volunteers and where the money will more directly do some good. I have very little time for the face-to-face street fundraisers, desperate for a direct debit and their commission payment, who you know next week will be raising funds for whatever completely different charity is offering best commission rate that week. (still waiting for one of the charity fundraisers to take three steps to follow me - at which point they are breaking the law and you can perform a Citizen's Arrest on them) I don't mind the theatre collections. Like many others, I rarely carry loose change, but the theatre demographic must be such that many theatre goers still do. But I hope the joke about "folding your donation" gets retired soon. It was relatively funny the first 50 or so times I heard it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 14:19:45 GMT
I should clarify, lest anyone come baying for my blood, that of course I support and love local shoestring charities and i'm not advocating for everyone to become giant corporate beomouths. Just that they aren't inherently evil.
My choir for example, which i help run, prefers to support local small charities, because we get a sense of a) keeping the money in the community b) can say 'we did that' in terms of say buying supplies for someone, or funding an event etc etc.
Similarly the charity I'm chair of (UNPAID don't get your knickers in a knot anyone) operates on, well frankly thin air and yes VOLUNTEERS at times too. But also, well needs money to do its work.
It' about a balance of both. A huge charity couldn't do what the one I'm chair of does- it needs that small scale touch. Equally we know realistically we don't have the reach of a larger organsation.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Nov 2, 2018 14:40:43 GMT
I'm finding all these different view points fascinating. I'm not entirely sure where I sit.
When I first began volunteering in a charity shop I was amazed that I wasn't asked to pay for my coffee after never, ever being allowed a free cup as a teacher - even on supply I got tins rattled at me before I escaped at the end of the day. A straw poll amongst my friends told me that they all thought it was absolutely fine for some of their money (if spent or donated) went to provide coffee for volunteers. I still felt so uneasy about it, so I brought in jars for everyone to use.
I volunteered for 2 different charities. I left the first one because I couldn't bear the money wastage (the story above about paying someone £60 to change a light bulb for example) and the charity was far too personal to me to watch this waste of money going on. The second charity I volunteered for didn't even pay for the volunteers' car parking expenses. I was OK with that, but some volunteers really couldn't afford to pay. Once I was half an hour late back to the car because I had been left on my own in the shop and, therefore, couldn't leave and I got a parking fine. I battled with the council and even offered to pay the fine to a charity of their choice, but was constantly given reply-by-numbers answers from people who had obviously been trained not to actually read what was being asked of them. I paid up, but was very angry. And no, I didn't ask the charity to reimburse me.
People knocking on my door also make me very cross - how can that be allowed if, like Monkey says, they are not allowed to approach you in the street?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 15:58:40 GMT
what charities have you found that have zero paid staff, zero overheads that require the money going to things that aren't directly to 'the people' (ie. a landlord getting rent). Because I struggle to think of one that could fulfil that. The Tymes Trust. 100% goes to those who need it. What was formerly known as "Youth Return." Every local Rotary and Round Table club. Next question. Blimey - the 1990s called and they want their website back! That is truly dreadful. I hope the Information Commissioner never sees it because, even as a non-expert, I can spot at least two ways in which they are breaking the new GDPR legislation. That's another thing employing professionals does - keeps you legal and stops you being fined up to 20 million euros. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 16:19:59 GMT
Do you honestly believe that Macmillan for example could run on 7% of its total donations? How many nurses would they have to stop funding if that were the case? Spending on nurses is what they do, they are where the cash should be spent as that is the point of the charity. Well it isn't just that actually but I'm not really sure we'll get anywhere by going further with this discussion. We just see charity and charities in different ways I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 16:33:06 GMT
I'm finding all these different view points fascinating. I'm not entirely sure where I sit. When I first began volunteering in a charity shop I was amazed that I wasn't asked to pay for my coffee after never, ever being allowed a free cup as a teacher - even on supply I got tins rattled at me before I escaped at the end of the day. A straw poll amongst my friends told me that they all thought it was absolutely fine for some of their money (if spent or donated) went to provide coffee for volunteers. I still felt so uneasy about it, so I brought in jars for everyone to use. I volunteered for 2 different charities. I left the first one because I couldn't bear the money wastage (the story above about paying someone £60 to change a light bulb for example) and the charity was far too personal to me to watch this waste of money going on. The second charity I volunteered for didn't even pay for the volunteers' car parking expenses. I was OK with that, but some volunteers really couldn't afford to pay. Once I was half an hour late back to the car because I had been left on my own in the shop and, therefore, couldn't leave and I got a parking fine. I battled with the council and even offered to pay the fine to a charity of their choice, but was constantly given reply-by-numbers answers from people who had obviously been trained not to actually read what was being asked of them. I paid up, but was very angry. And no, I didn't ask the charity to reimburse me. People knocking on my door also make me very cross - how can that be allowed if, like Monkey says, they are not allowed to approach you in the street? My job now and previously involves 'looking after' (I prefer that to managing) volunteers, and as a former teacher as well I feel equipped to answer that (instead of getting mansplained about dinosaurs of charities elsewhere). I have no problem either as a donor, or as a charity employee (Again string me up and burn me at the stake for taking my income that way) in giving volunteers coffee/tea and/or lunch and/or free parking/travel vouchers etc. Because the way most charities (and indeed the charities commission) sees it is that volunteers shouldn't be monetarily out of pocket by the act of volunteering. Because some people might be volunteering time because they are unable to give money. Either way anyway, it's a nice thing to do, to say 'have a biscuit' or 'have a cuppa' on the charity, because you've given time. The point being, that realistically nobody can give literally every penny thrown in a box to the 'deserving people' that box is intended for- frankly the box itself even costs money. The 'petty cash' fund that fuels tea and biscuits isn't really taking from the main earnings, and it's a way to make volunteering a nice experience that people want to repeat. BUT I feel like the opposing view is that charity is a Biblical (I'm guessing literally) obligation that somehow should engage suffering. When actually supporting charity can even should be enjoyable as well. On the parking issue, I mean council parking enforcers are first class dicks at the best of times. As it happens, my current work has an arrangment with the private car park across the way for 4 free spaces a day for staff and volunteers. Which in itself is a nice way of a profit making organisation giving 'in kind' support. I also see the money I give to charity as a means of supporting those doing the work if that makes sense. ETA: What I think I mean in all the above is the 'man hours' volunteers give are worth more to the charity, than a few quid a week to keep them in cups of tea, so it's a fair deal, because actually those getting the help get more out of it if a team of volunteers are happy to give their time and kept happy with a few biscuits. |
|
