Charity begins at admin

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/harry-meghan-charity-spent-half-54571...

"A charity set up by Harry and Meghan spent half of its funds on administration costs.

A report on The MWX Foundation by the Charity Commission cleared it of misusing money.

But it has been given regulatory advice, and it has been revealed half the charity's funds were spent on administration and legal costs.

The Commission has found that decisions on spending were not adequately documented"

Wasteful I'd say. Is it a charity or do we call it his media company ?

AP

4
 Bottom Clinger 26 May 2021
In reply to Archmagos_Dominus:

Wasteful: yes

Charity: yes

The article appears to be more about the pressure group Republic apologising for being out of order. 

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> Wasteful: yes

> Charity: yes

> The article appears to be more about the pressure group Republic apologising for being out of order. 

In a sort of misdirecting way helpfully for his highness and wag.

2
In reply to Archmagos_Dominus:

"The Commission noted that trustees took a decision to close this charity just 12 months after it was established, doing so during difficult and unexpected circumstances"

why was it not making them enough money or media airtime ?

Post edited at 09:11
6
 Luke90 26 May 2021
In reply to Archmagos_Dominus:

It's easy to point fingers but I struggle to imagine how you could set up a new charity without spending significant sums of money on admin. 50% would be bad in the long run, yeah, but I'm not sure it's self-evidently unreasonable in the first year.

2
 rj_townsend 26 May 2021
In reply to Luke90:

> It's easy to point fingers but I struggle to imagine how you could set up a new charity without spending significant sums of money on admin. 50% would be bad in the long run, yeah, but I'm not sure it's self-evidently unreasonable in the first year.

Exactly. From the story it appears they had income of c£295k so spending c£150k on setup doesn't seem especially profligate. If their income had been, say, £5m then 50% would seem excessive, but that's how reporting on percentages work. Even the report had this to say;

"The Commission noted that trustees took a decision to close this charity just 12 months after it was established, doing so during difficult and unexpected circumstances. It considers that the spending itself was not unreasonable given the unexpected events and unique circumstance which surrounded this charity and as such does not consider that further action is required."

The fact that the headline refers to just Harry & Megan, ignoring the fact that the charity setup also includes St. William & Kate rather suggests the story is trying to entice the anti-Harry/Meghan brigade and has succeeded.

 Cobra_Head 26 May 2021
In reply to Archmagos_Dominus:

I'd imagine trying to set up any charity in covid times would be hard work, but I can't see why £150K is deemed excessive, for a start-up.

Percentage figures quoted are designed to enrage the enragable, in this case it seems to have worked.

It would also depend who who was getting the £150k, they might well have been paying  30 needy people to do the admin. who knows.

Post edited at 09:52
In reply to Luke90:

> It's easy to point fingers but I struggle to imagine how you could set up a new charity without spending significant sums of money on admin. 50% would be bad in the long run, yeah, but I'm not sure it's self-evidently unreasonable in the first year.

https://www.royal.uk/charities-and-patronages?name=&mrf=2918&field_...

Well he's a head of and patron on all those above so I'd expect them to be a little wiser considering their (the royals) involvements with charity.

Admin , maybe that equates  to having lunch or evening dinner at some fancy swanky dig.

Post edited at 09:52
10
 rj_townsend 26 May 2021
In reply to Archmagos_Dominus:

> Admin , maybe that equates  to having lunch or evening dinner at some fancy swanky dig.

Considering they've been audited by the Charity Commission and that the story is about Republic having to back down from their claims of impropriety, this stance just comes across as churlish. If you've an axe to grind it'd be worth finding a stronger example than this - I suspect there are plenty.

1
In reply to rj_townsend:

> Considering they've been audited by the Charity Commission and that the story is about Republic having to back down from their claims of impropriety, this stance just comes across as churlish. If you've an axe to grind it'd be worth finding a stronger example than this - I suspect there are plenty.

Nah I'm just a bit grumpy probably .

He's a top chap , and Megan too. 

5
 profitofdoom 26 May 2021
In reply to Archmagos_Dominus:

I regularly donate to charity - one where 100% of donations goes to those they support: none is spent on administration

I am highly aware that charities need to fundraise, and also pay costs and salaries. However, I refuse to donate to a charity where any of my donation is spent on fundraising, or on directors' salaries. That's my choice and preference. Everyone can make their own choices (just be aware that that are there are charities where 100% of donations goes to those they support, and none is spent on administration)

I will not name the charity I support, as I don't want to be accused of pitching for it

4
 yorkshireman 26 May 2021
In reply to profitofdoom:

> I regularly donate to charity - one where 100% of donations goes to those they support: none is spent on administration... I refuse to donate to a charity where any of my donation is spent on fundraising, or on directors' salaries. 

I get the sentiment, and I'm genuinely not questioning your motives - but charities, especially big, effective ones, don't run themselves with zero overheads. In theory if you pay for talented fundraising staff you potentially get more donations to use but of course its a gamble and some I'm sure just take the pi$$.

I'm sure most charities would rather take 70% of £1MM in donations than 100% of £100k.

> I will not name the charity I support, as I don't want to be accused of pitching for it

Go ahead. I'm sure nobody would object to you telling us.

 Cobra_Head 26 May 2021
In reply to profitofdoom:

> I will not name the charity I support, as I don't want to be accused of pitching for it

Seems a bit weird why wouldn't you want them to get as much support as possible?

 Bottom Clinger 26 May 2021
In reply to profitofdoom:

Just a general point, and not meant in a pedantic way, but the Directors of a Charity are also the Trustees (when the charity is a company, which most medium sized upwards are) and hence don't get paid a salary.  Some charities help confuse the matter though by calling their employed boss a Director (when Chief Officer would be a better term).

Andy Gamisou 26 May 2021
In reply to profitofdoom:

> I regularly donate to charity - one where 100% of donations goes to those they support: none is spent on administration

> I will not name the charity I support, as I don't want to be accused of pitching for it

Really?  Why on earth not?

 Ridge 26 May 2021
In reply to Luke90:

> It's easy to point fingers but I struggle to imagine how you could set up a new charity without spending significant sums of money on admin. 50% would be bad in the long run, yeah, but I'm not sure it's self-evidently unreasonable in the first year.

Yes. It seems to be the implication that everyone employed to set up or run a charity and associated offices etc. must do it for nothing otherwise it's some sort of scam or mismanagement.

 Luke90 26 May 2021
In reply to Ridge:

Quite. I'm sure some small charities can get by with an entirely voluntary workforce (and even then your volunteers are surely going to have some expenses so they'd better be willing to cover those themselves as well). But any charity that wants to work at scale and with significant impact is surely going to need to give proper pay to professionals at some point, or at the very least cover some expenses.

I've been looking for charities to donate to recently* and the large ones I've found that say 100% of donations go directly to their cause have only achieved that by having a separate income stream covering their admin.

*Suggestions welcome, by the way. Though no animal welfare charities. I like cute fluffy things too, I just think they get entirely too big a slice of charity giving. People first for me.

 SuperstarDJ 26 May 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Can I nominate Treetops Hospice if you're looking for a local charity (depending whereabouts in Derbyshire you are). They do outstanding work and are an excellent employer. I'm a trustee and director and have been amazed and humbled by their dedication and creativity over the past year. They're a brilliant team and have responded wonderfully to a set of circumstances that could have finished them off.

https://www.treetopshospice.org.uk/

 SuperstarDJ 26 May 2021
In reply to yorkshireman:

Fundraising is a real skill. You can only get so far with jumble sales and when you need hundreds of thousands of pounds in income a month to pay the salaries of your staff (for example nurses delivering care in a Hospice) you have to have professionals running the show, you can't mess about. There are also hundreds of charitable trusts around the country that have money to give to good causes. Applying for these grants is a big job and can't be done in the evenings. Plus you might be running a lottery, a number of shops, large annual events...

 Luke90 26 May 2021
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

Thanks. They're not entirely local to me but location isn't high on my list of concerns so I'll certainly give them a look.

Removed User 26 May 2021
In reply to Archmagos_Dominus:

https://www.charitynavigator.org

A useful tool.

I've been around some of the large ones like RC etc and been shocked by how resource-wasteful they appear to be, running helicopters pointlessly, fat cat staff, palettes full of useless junk, empty buildings etc - but upon research they still (apparently) only spend single-digit percentages on admin (not to say program costs are efficiently spent though).

 Blue Straggler 26 May 2021
In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

> they still (apparently) only spend single-digit percentages on admin 

But what are the AMOUNTS spent? 

2
 Bottom Clinger 26 May 2021
In reply to Luke90:

> Quite. I'm sure some small charities can get by with an entirely voluntary workforce (and even then your volunteers are surely going to have some expenses so they'd better be willing to cover those themselves as well).

The vast majority of legally defined charities are small with no paid staff  

> But any charity that wants to work at scale and with significant impact is surely going to need to give proper pay to professionals at some point, or at the very least cover some expenses.

Spot on. 

Removed User 26 May 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> But what are the AMOUNTS spent? 

No idea but that link might help.

 Bottom Clinger 26 May 2021
In reply to SuperstarDJ:

> Fundraising is a real skill. You can only get so far with jumble sales and when you need hundreds of thousands of pounds in income a month to pay the salaries of your staff (for example nurses delivering care in a Hospice) you have to have professionals running the show, you can't mess about. There are also hundreds of charitable trusts around the country that have money to give to good causes. Applying for these grants is a big job and can't be done in the evenings. Plus you might be running a lottery, a number of shops, large annual events...

Spot on. I’m a qualified fundraiser ( was a member of the Institute of Fundraising until my membership ran out) but have raised loads of cash through grants and trust funds etc. It’s a skill and involve lots of hard work. 
And well done on your trustee work. Much (all?) of the work done by trustees is the boring behind the scenes stuff that comes with lots of responsibility. 

 The New NickB 26 May 2021
In reply to profitofdoom:

I’m a trustee of a small charity. Nobody gets paid, nobody claims expenses other than those directly relating to the charitable objectives and often not those either. We still wouldn’t claim that 0% of donations gets spent on admin. Maintaining charitable status costs money, establishing charitable status costs more.

Removed User 27 May 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I did a quick look and 2019 looks like 3,7% of $3billion on admin / 89.8% on programs.

I don't hold either the RC nor Harryghan particularly in much regard and assume both to be fiddling the numbers somehow based purely on the idea that more dollars makes that more likely.

2

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...