Charities reap the whirlwind
Posted on July 7, 2010The National Council for Voluntary Organisations are up in arms today at the prospect of charities facing cuts in the amount of taxpayers’ money they receive.
Did they seriously not see this coming? Even if all of these charities were blinkered enough to believe that public spending would never have to fall, they broke fundamental rules of good sense by becoming so reliant on the state in the first place.
Apparently, the taxpayer is now the source of a staggering 1 in 3 pounds going to charities.
That raises serious concerns about the co-opting of charities by the state - like when the NSPCC, which receives EU money, decided to back the Lisbon Treaty, for example.
Worse, this reliance on Government has poisoned the whole mindset of many charities. There’s no doubt that they are faced by a crisis, but what is the NCVA doing with today’s media exposure?
They’re complaining about the inevitable spending cuts, rather than trying to make things better by appealing for donations. As well as selling their independence, they have abandoned their initiative.
It’s time charities returned to being charities, rather than being just another arm of the state.
Tags: charity, public spending, sub-prime, voluntary, whirlwind
Categories: Local Government, Public spending
[...] This post was Twitted by wallaceme [...]
17.07.2010 14:50
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Wallace, paul perrin. paul perrin said: RT @wallaceme: CrashBangWallace: State-reliant charities reap the whirlwind http://bit.ly/bJpeLC [...]
17.07.2010 14:58
There’s going to be a lot of screaming by the leeches before the year is out. Something that I am going to relish and look forward to.
Ampers.
17.07.2010 15:05
Some might take £1 in 3 but some are far far more reliant on the government than that eg The Terrance Higgins Trust is now far more than 50% funded directly through taxation plus lottery. I welcome those charities that refuse to take any taxpayer moeny through the government bu they seem to be a dying breed.
You highlight the NSPCC but there are many others that now do the EU and Westminster governments’ bidding
17.07.2010 15:18
Fundraising seminar – top North American fundraiser says British charities have forgotten how to raise funds. Public funding has crowded out philanthropy. And that’s organisations that actually think of themselves as charities. You need to meet those that see being a “charity” as a bad thing – some extension of middle class patronage or something. They’ve adopted the nutty tern “third sector” and go about spending public money as if it was theres by right!
17.07.2010 15:53
Yeah too bloody right, charities, scrounging off hard working taxpayers. Get a job. layabouts! As for having opinions about the organisations which regulate them, like the EU, preposterous! What part of “know your place, big society init”, don’t they understand!? I for one am outraged about them getting lottery money as well, I mean, a tax on people that don’t understand math being siphoned off for good causes? It makes me sick.
17.07.2010 18:20
When half of these charities spend a significant amount of their time lobbying Gov’t. using Gov’t funds. you have to think what is the point? e.g. Alcohol Concern!!
17.07.2010 18:21
Yeah, Dave, too fucking right. Half, like 50% of charities spend a significant, as in…well fµck the numbers, you’re right, yeah, bunch of lobbying, spending my money without my consent, know nothing, useless, left wing, layabout, fµckwits these charities.
Oi, Wallace what’s with dropping my fcuking swearing from the last post as well? You sensitive little creature you!
P.s “Apparently, the taxpayer is now the source of a staggering 1 in 3 pounds going to charities.”
Also, we all pay tax in some way or another, so technically, “the taxpayer”, i.e “the people”, are the source of 3 in3 pounds going to charities. Which is *even worse* isn’t it?
17.07.2010 19:57
Perhaps they should change their name to The National Council for Government Subsidised Organisations.
17.07.2010 20:18
I agree Mr wallace. It’s sad that charities appear unable to raise money from the public but instead rely on the state. they not charities, they’re outsourcing agencies.
17.07.2010 20:23
I have been involved in charities’ finances, both large and small for many years. From my own experience I believe that smaller charities better fulfil the concept of ‘charitable purposes’ – mainly as in my experience they were more tightly focussed on a relatively narrow set of objectives. I was involved in larger charities as well – they appeared to be at least as bureaucratic as the (private sector) organisations that I worked for.
Personally, I think that challenging the extremely large vested interests in the large charities and the Charity Commission(ers) is a bridge too far. By all means remove taxpayer funded ‘consultancies’/service funding – if a charity is carrying out government responsibilities on behalf of the state then they should be equally accountable to the taxpayer. Similarly, charities should not be allowed to lobby/ or to pursue political objectives. If they want to do that then they should surrender their tax exempt status.
But most of all I’d like an upper limit to the size of charity that qualifies for tax exempt status. There may be an argument for charities to merge where they have similar objectives (eg Cancer research charities ~15 years ago), but the majority of charities are not organising academic research. Encourage them to split up into regional organisations, that are more locally based, locally focussed and (hopefully) locally accountable.
17.07.2010 20:53
Great blog Mark, but can we please have black print on a white background rather than white on black? It would make the text much easier to read.
17.07.2010 22:06
You make a fair comment. But where a charity can do the job better and cheaper and with more expertise than the local authority then I’m quite pleased to see the work subbed out to them. Much better that a nominally private organisation do the work than a public one for all the normal common sense reasons.
Some charities do very important work. Work that, otherwise, the local authority would have to do itself anyway. Cut costs and the work either goes undone, or goes back in-house to the authority and bloats the state all over again.
It’s not quite as clear cut as you state it. Each charity needs considering on its own merits. Is the money only to make a political statement? Then cut it. If its genuine outsourcing of public sector work – think twice.
17.07.2010 22:51
The bulk of the charity industry is overdue for a cull away from the public teat after the years of ZaNuLab at the public purse strings. There will, as a consequence, be drop in the number of charities as reality bites and the public retain their money to spend on more worthy close at home causes.
Welcome to the world of blogging Mr Wallace, and, keep the white text on the black background as, I for one, find it quite soothing on the eye. For the rest of the whingers, get down to Specsavers and get an eye test!
17.07.2010 23:21
Is Mr Tierney a charity employee? I think we should be told.
Thank you, Mr Wallace, for the post. Looking forward to the end of this so-called ‘charity’ work.
18.07.2010 00:31
I’m the chairman of a charity which receives NO public funding and isn’t looking to and a trustee for another (Homestart) that gets some. I get paid for neither post, I’m voluntary. In case you think this makes me biased I’m also a business owner and Conservative Libertarian. I think I have a pretty balanced view on this issue. I’m not a big fan of ANY money being donated by the authorities from the taxpayers purse as I feel its beyond the remit of the State. However, if a charity is merely doing outsourced work the authority would have to do anyway – but doing it better and cheaper – then it seems like common sense to me to go that route.
09.08.2010 14:33
I resigned as Trustee and Director of a small local charity last year, having been one of its founders twelve years ago. The main reasons I gave up were two. First, the charity had stopped fund raising, except for tiny efforts like a few collecting bottles in pubs, relying instead on grants from major national charitable trusts where available, and government and local authority grants. Second, in order to obtain the grants we had to jump through all kinds of politically correct hoops, which I found tedious and infuriating.
I am pleased to say that the charity which gets the major part of my voluntary effort now is one of the few, as said above, which do not take money from the government. It is the RNLI, and we are immensely proud that the huge cost, £380,000 every single day, of providing the lifeboat and lifeguard service around the coast of Britain is raised entirely from voluntary contributions and legacies.
18.07.2010 00:31
Steve, that’s too rational an approach to take with these fuckers. Your logic doesn’t work on charities, because they’re basically run by commies right: they think they have a right to our money, no right thinking person could possibly agree to them getting one penny from the central coffers! You call them “nominally private”, but in reality as Wallace is pointing out, they basically *all* have this “poisoned mindset”. We’ve gotta fuck ‘em, cut ‘em off completely, and after we’re done, of course we’ve got to make sure not one bit of their poisonous work is done by their friends in the bloated local authority! What on earth are you thinking?! The market will short this shit out – invisible hand, big society init.
18.07.2010 01:15
I understand where you’re coming from, Tony, and I’m sure in some cases you’ve hit the nail on the head. But tarring them all with the same brush is counterproductive. Perhaps you think I’m trying to shield charities from the necessary cuts? No way. I’m just pointing out that amongst the baddies and signed-up Looney left there are some really good charities doing really important work – cheaper and better than the Big State ever could. Yes, charities should raise their own money. Yes, if the State got out of the way then private individuals would probably do more and donate more. But – I’d much rather a charity doing something that a bunch of officials in a council office – particularly if its better value and better outcomes.
09.08.2010 14:39
47% of charities in the UK have a turnover of less than £10,000, are mainly run by volunteers and often receive no government subsidy.
There has been a growing bifurcation of the charity sector – between the larger, ‘third sector’ organisations that the Centre for Social Justice suggest in many cases have become ‘an arm of the state’, and the smaller, local charities who are mainly run by volunteers.
There is a huge diversity amongst UK charities, and it’s worth bearing this in mind when having this conversation.
18.07.2010 12:54
Fat chance we have got of the Condem government of doing anything to reform the charitable sector remember Dave Cameron’s speech about Charities “They should be regarded as the first sector not the third sector”.
In fact come to think of it the proposed Big Society Bank is anything but a libertarian solution to funding problems facing charities.
There is too much overlapping in the sector which the need to address first
18.07.2010 16:16
I think we need to get this so called government support into perspective. Surely 20% of that 33% ( “1 in 3 pounds”) comes from tax relief on donations from those who pay income tax. Is the proposal to abolish this relief? Of the other 13% that government apparently shells out; does this include money paid to not for profit organisations such as housing associations who provide care home accomodation for elderly people who can not care for themselves at home?
As a member of the largest voluntary organisation in the world (The Society of St Vincent de Paul), I can confirm that no government money has ever been given to our particular charity; to my knowledge. We draw our inspiration from christian spirituality and of course, our goverment does not fund faith based charities unless, it appears, that faith is Muslim.
Our main objectives include the relief of poverty in it’s many guises. From my experience, all too often we are picking up the bill for the failure of government agencies to provide the most basic help that most people assume the state is providing.
The category of people the state will help became more and more restrictive under the last government to the point where only the most incapacitated, “Category A”, people are now helped.
Personally, I’ve been hearing these noises about “harnessing” the voluntary sector from politicians for years but they are misinformed if they think the voluntary sector can fill the void they appear to be creating. Reliant as the SVP are on voluntary donations, our financial resources are constantly stretched as it is. I think we need more than a wishy-washy policy statement to see what they actually intend; sector by sector.
19.07.2010 15:37
Apart from the sheer amount of money that heads their way, I am sure a fair bit of the thinking towards cutting money to charities comes from the existence of the “fake cahrities” – the likes of Alcohol Concern and ASH who are funded to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds by the State whilst receiving next to nothing in the form of voluntary donations. I feel sorry for the smaller charities who do genuinely good work but really, perhaps it’s in their best interests to distance themselves from the likes of ASH who really do give charities a bad name and I am sure are behind much of the desire to see funding to such organisations cut.
19.07.2010 20:46