could you give up 10% of your earnings?

[marley2580]

The NSPCC has 2099 employees and the top 28 employees earn, between them, £2.130.000.00!

But I have a bugbear about the NSPCC anyway. They're very against home education and their Full Stop campaign was proven to be less effective than the charity I work for's abuse prevention programme (with 10 employees), according to a report by the New Philanthropy Capital (https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/01/childrensservices.comment)

 

[PeanutBean]

Wow that IS a lot of employees!

 

[Hayley90]

HOW MUCH??!!!! that's exactly my point! Those figures get out to the public no wonder people like me don't want to donate! Whereas if the smaller charities posted their figures they might get more support!

 

[marley2580]

The problem is though, that the smaller charities are too busy doing the work to really make people aware of them. That's one of the ways that volunteers can really help.

 

[Hayley90]

Its a case of the vicious circle i guess.

Less people = more work = less time to raise awareness/ advertise = less people!

 

[Tasha]

The NSPCC has 2099 employees and the top 28 employees earn, between them, £2.130.000.00!

But I have a bugbear about the NSPCC anyway. They're very against home education and their Full Stop campaign was proven to be less effective than the charity I work for's abuse prevention programme (with 10 employees), according to a report by the New Philanthropy Capital (https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/01/childrensservices.comment)

Wow, that is crazy. Imagine what the whole 2099 earn.

 

[hopeandpray]

10% after tax I guess would be okay. Personally hopefully when I'm qualified I'll work in Africa for a summer and give some time as well as money. Right now I earn nothing so can give nothing

 

[PeanutBean]

I wonder what they all do at NSPCC. There could be 2000 people working as support workers directly with kids and social services or they could be running housing or anything. I think it's important to know what their roles are. If there are 1500 people doing marketing well then that would of course be ridiculous but if there are loads of people manning emergency telephones for kids then that would be different. The info must be out there somewhere; as a charity it has to be.

At our charity we have a couple of people in finance, currently no IT support (!), one HR person, about three fundraisers and one person dealing with membership. There is a Chief Exec, four directors and about four managers. Everyone else works directly on programmes. But then I don't suppose our income nor our impact is anything like as big as a charity like the NSPCC.

I think the RSPB is supposed to be the richest UK charity.

 

[marley2580]

I think it's the guide dogs that are the richest isn't it?

 

[marley2580]

I wonder what they all do at NSPCC. There could be 2000 people working as support workers directly with kids and social services or they could be running housing or anything. I think it's important to know what their roles are. If there are 1500 people doing marketing well then that would of course be ridiculous but if there are loads of people manning emergency telephones for kids then that would be different. The info must be out there somewhere; as a charity it has to be.

found it:


The average number of employees, calculated on a full-time equivalent basis, analysed by function was:

Activities to end cruelty to children 1,345
Generating funds 371
Support and governance 155
Total 1,871

 

[PeanutBean]

That's a lot of people working directly on activities then (and of course might be more people as that's full time equivalent). A lot of support people but perhaps it's fairly proportional. A lot of fundraisers though! Maybe we'd do better if we employed more fundraisers!

 

[marley2580]

The thing is though, what frontline activities do the NSPCC actually provide? They have childline, but that's mostly staffed by volunteers. A lot of their work is putting themselves up as 'experts' and running trainings etc. Tbh and imo, they're not a real part of the third sector any more, they're just another branch of the govt.

 

[PeanutBean]

I don't really know what the NSPCC do but in some ways you could say the same about my charity in many ways. We're about 50% government funded. One of our programmes came from government about 18 years ago. We are involved in policy making about science. Our school programmes could be something that would be acceptable coming from government as part of the curriculum.

I think it goes back to what I was saying a bit ago about the functions of charity being much broader than people realise. It's so variable and diverse but mostly people think of children, animals or cancer when they think of charities and donations. Our donations from individuals are not high I don't think.

I'm not saying I agree with the new government's strategy to outsource public service to charities by the way. They're trying to sell off all our forests and National Parks and assuming the big conservation charities will take them on without committed funding. I vehemently believe public services should come from central funding but I do think there is a role for charities in public service because of the expertise and independence many of them possess.

Sorry, I'm taking this thread very far from the OP.

 

[marley2580]

I totally agree, I think though, because I work with the likes of the NSPCC, I have a slightly jaded view of them. I do believe that they have become so big and full of their own importance, that the children they purport to help have been lost along the way. The amount of money that they get is incredible

 

[PeanutBean]

It's probably the equivalent to how I feel about the Royal Society!

 

[marley2580]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12102105

This is why my charity doesn't tend to apply for govt funds - too much risk of them being cut (as well as too many strings attached)

 

[PeanutBean]

Just read that now in the Guardian. I'm anxious about high up charity people suggesting anything that might support the nonsense of the Big Society though! There absolutely should be a bonus tax and it would be fabulous to see that going to charities.

Just can't see any good coming from Big Society. Capacity Builders and vInvolved are both going. There's some messing around with Compact. My volunteer management course I'm doing now is the last one to funded by Capacity Builders bursary and I don't know what will happen to Volunteering England's campaign - not sure if they have direct funding through CB.

Our government funding comes from BIS and the science budget has been comparatively protected for this year. You could argue a couple of our programmes are like consultancy work for the government's science in society work so could be totally scrapped or could be pretty safe. BIS has mentioned our programmes but we're still waiting to know what this year's budgets will be. In the same statement they talk of simplifying regional delivery which, as a regional post, terrifies me not a little! We have the different challenge from many charities which is that we don't get much personal donation. Other funding comes largely from science sector corporations and some trusts. Science isn't dying people or animals so is naturally unattractiveky to most. I suspect our organisation has been able to do a lot more for having had government support and we punch well above our weight.

Is yours a very local charity?

 

[marley2580]

www.18u.org.uk

We cover the whole country but mainly work in the tayside area, we do do a lot of work across the UK though, and we're actually applying for funding to take our vip programme internationally. We don't get much in the way of personal donation either, most of our funding comes from trusts and charitable funds

 

[PeanutBean]

Looks fab! Do you not get any better security through Scottish Government? I know our Scottish programme has received funding streams that are very proactive such as for engagement with rural communities. In Wales too we sometimes get Assembly money for quite small things but there is no English support for that sort of thing.

 

[sequeena]

I give and do my extra bit for charity, sometimes it's the money that's most valuable to them.