Should big corporate charities assist the Government with its cuts to public services

[Peckhamnearbe]

Should charities offer to take up the slack if public services are cut? The National Coalition for Independent Action thinks not:

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/13839/ncia_says_umbrella_bodies_have_signed_up_sector_to_privatisation

http://www.independentaction.net/2012/11/20/anger-grows-as-sector-leaders-ingratiate-themselves-with-the-government-open-letter-says-not-in-our-name/#more-9500

[silverfox]

Yes, where there's a need. The proliferation of charity food depots around the country demonstrates this need. I'm sure you agree rather than let people starve.

[BrandNewGuy]

"The National Coalition for Independent Action and 22 voluntary sector groups have attacked national infrastructure bodies who they say have signed up the voluntary sector to privatisation and the dismantling of the welfare state without its consent."

Don't think I need to read any further, given this woeful start...

[Marmora Man]

There is a more than a whiff of self interest in various charities laments about austerity and government cuts. Some while back the Charity Commission introduced a change that allowed charities to actively lobby and become involved in politics.

Since then a significant number of the larger and more high profile charities have appointed the well connected and politically experienced detritus of New Labour years in government. These individuals take exception to the, relative, dismantling of the Welfare State apparatus & benefits that Gordon Brown did so much to inflate. They now seem to form a chorus of informal opposition to the current government policy. This is driven as much by politics and a desire to protect their position and existing government funding / contracts as it is by a wish to protect the beneficiaries of various charities.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's not so much assiting, but filling the gap left by cuts.

I can understand why charities oppose government cuts though. Cuts mean increased traffic to those charities which means a need for more revenue to provide those charity services. SF's example of the increased need for food banks is a case in point. That food has to come from somewhere, which means someone is paying for it. Private compnaies are usually the donators, but who are the donators for services traditionally provided entirely by government funded departments? If the NHS can't afford free prescriptions anymore for example, will the pharmaceutical companies suddenly come forth with donations of drugs for free medical banks?

So for me there is also an issue regarding which charities and what they are expected to assist with. If government is intentionally cutting things it knows existing charities can provide in some form, then it needs to help them provide those services if it can.

[Huguenot]

Eh? It became ridiculous when you started talking about the end of the NHS.

Is it not possible to talk about a deceleration in government spending growth without invoking Armageddon?

You are aware, right, that the Tories are spending as much on public services as any government ever has?

[DJKillaQueen]

I am aware of that H yes, and my NHS example was just to make the point that governments pick and choose what they cut (for various reasons) and that the existence of specific charities might shape the decisions that goverments take.

[Burbage]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not so much assiting, but filling the gap

> left by cuts.

>

> I can understand why charities oppose government

> cuts though. Cuts mean increased traffic to those

> charities...

That's far from the case for many charities, which are effectively operating as contractors for government work. That may involve thinking up policies, delivering end-of-life care, training workless youngsters, rehabilitating offenders and a whole bunch of other stuff of more or less importance.

The advantages to the government of 'involving' the 'third sector' are clear. Or as clear as no tax and unpaid labour can be. The advantages to the charities are also clear, at least to the well-paid chief-execs and 'fundraisers' who, by tarting themselves out though large state contracts, have been able pocket their salaries without having to worry about raising money from the public. And it's those, together with the umbrella-bodies, think-tanks, foundations, consultancies, leadership groups and the whole self-serving bureaucracy that's grown like fungus on the backs of volunteers, who are now complaining.

They have good reason to complain. But to pay them any heed is to make the same mistake as the thousands who've been inadvertently funding Tuscan villas through their taxes, donations and freely-given labour.

Many years ago, charities were founded to deliver services that the state can't or won't provide, and they have always been busier when times are hard. But that's what they are for, and it's why the public give them money. Charities that only exist in economic boom times, or to facilitate tax dodges for former prime ministers, are a recent invention and the sooner they're dead and buried, the better.

[DJKillaQueen]

I can't argue with any of that Burbage. But then I don't consider anything with paid executives to be a charity....merely a company using the status of 'charity' to make use of free labour and other kinds of goodwill, and as you rightly say, to get rich on the backs of public funded contracts.

[reeko]

I have to take issue with you there DJ, I work for a large charity. We receive no money from government. Our chief exec is paid in six figures, but by god he earns it. He is in charge of pretty much three organisaitons, a fundraising arm , the research arm and the technology company we use to commercialise the results of our research (all profits ploughed back into the charity). He works ungodly hours and has 2-3 evening functions every week. He could easily quadruple his earnings by going back into the private sector, yet he has dedicated 10 years to the charity. If we were run by a bunch of people working purely on good will then we would fold in double quick time. I have experience of working for a smaller charity that was on a less professional footing and it was shambolic. Whatever money was raised was pissed up against the wall due to the inefficiencies caused by people thinking of it as somewhat of a hobby. Thankfully in my area this set up is dying out, largely due to the example set by organisations such as the one I work for. Do not tar us all with the same brush

[DJKillaQueen]

Six figures? Are you for real? You think there aren't highly skilled people working ungodly hours for far less? Our hospitals are full of them for example. I'll bet, the only way he can run three organisations is because of the staff he has beneath him who are are really running those organisations. And they probably deserve the six figures more than him.

[reeko]

Of course he doesn't run the show on his own, but he is a massive factor in our success. As I said, I have personal experience of a charity run on a less professional footing. Thousands of pounds were wasted on poor decisions and vanity projects conducted largely at the behest of unpaid directors who could not be properly held to account. Like any other organisations charities need to att ract top class people to survive, and the reality is the skills needed to do his job well come at a price. You can argue that this is unfair until the cows come home, but thinking that a charity can be well run on goodwill and string is naive.

[DJKillaQueen]

But I don't understand why anyone has to be paid six figures to do their job properly. In fact the country is full of people earning anything from min wage upwards who would be fired if they didn't do their jobs properly. So that is no defense of his salary imo.

[reeko]

I agree with you, we do not pay people in line with their overall contribution to society, we value footballers more than nurses etc etc. Never the less a jobs market exists, and to thrive charities must compete in it - you seem to be arguing that we should somehow conscientiously object and try and run our business on the good will of a few people rich enough to not want paying. This is unworkable and would result in millions of pounds going to waste for reasons I have already stated.

[DJKillaQueen]

I didn't say that.....What I did say was that it is immoral to pay those at the top so much when most of the people working for that charity are working for free. We could all easily make money running a business where we didn't have to pay anyone. I accept the ethos of competing in a jobs market though.

[thutu6]

More info:

http://adf.ly/2038788/http://www.storingbooks.com