The Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?

[DadOf4]

OK, first I accept that this isn?t strictly an EAST Dulwich subject ? but this seems the best place to discuss this.

At some point in the 17th Century, Edward Alleyn created a charitable foundation and bequeathed to it his estate and other property. The original benefices were ?12 poor scholars, six poor brothers and six poor sisters?. Roll forward a few hundred years and that organisation has now become the registered charity ?The Dulwich estate?. This charity owns the freehold of 1500 acres of prime South-East London and has a gross income (2013) of ?9.4M [3]

I?m a big believer in sport. I?m a big believer in making sport accessible to as many people (especially Children) as possible.

The Dulwich Estate is the landlord of many local sports clubs & facilities. Its my understanding that their approach to the velodrome a few years ago nearly caused it to close [1], I understand that the rents charged to many local sports facilities are hefty to say the least[2].

So, if you live in this area and your kid wants to play football, cricket or rugby, its likely that a % of the money you have to pay is going indirectly to The Dulwich Estate.

I also know that local state schools have to pay rent to use sports fields owned by the estate (indirectly via the clubs that have the leases)

But they?re a charity right ? ? they?ll take that income and redistribute it to the poor scholors and brothers?

Wrong

The Dulwich Estate gives 85% (yes eighty-five percent) of its generated income to 3 organisations: Dulwich College, Alleynians School and James Allens Girls school. All good schools I?m sure, all schools with fees of about ?15k per year, educating a privileged elite (yes, I know there are many ?normal people? round here who scrimp and save to get their kids into these schools ? but even they are a lucky few in the grand scheme of things)

Last year it gave over ?2M to Dulwich College [3]. That?s a school where Roman Abramovich sends his kid, that has a county standard cricket pitch.

Now, I?m sure that they?ll say the money is partly used to create bursaries for kids to attend these fine institutions who wouldn?t go otherwise.

It also gives relatively small amounts of money to a couple of state schools, the alms-houses in Dulwich and the chapel (near the park). But 85% goes to the 3 private schools

I?ve got no moral objection to private education and I?d be very happy for my kids to attend those schools - but what really bothers me is this:

a) How on earth can this organisation claim to be a charity? - what is ?in the public good? about giving money to organisations that provide education to a very small & select privileged few?

b) Specifically, this organisation IMO is taking money from sports clubs and giving it to these elite organisations. My kids go to a number of clubs in the area and I know the great works that many of them are doing (usually by volunteers) to make sport as accessible as possible to kids in Southwark.

I know one club that provides free membership to kids who otherwise wouldn?t be able to play their sport ? that same club made a loss last year. But they still have to keep shelling out to Dulwich estate.

I?d be interested to hear what others think of this.

[1]

http://www.urban75.org/london/velodrome1.html

[2] https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdsc.mycourts.co.uk%2Fnews_downloads%2F4062_Presidents_Report_2012.doc&ei=yOwfVJyoCsif7gaYyYDACw&usg=AFQjCNHrEgACLzmNipoFgNiatFSMGu-j-A&sig2=WW7WWfLnDePQD9gJPLhmSQ

[3]

http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/accounts/the-dulwich-estate

[Romnarz]

Can't myself see any thing wrong with the argument as set out in your post. No doubt beneficiaries of the education provided in Dulwich will be able to point out the flaws in your argument.

[Earl Aelfheah]

DadOf4 Wrote:

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

> I know one club that provides free membership to

> kids who otherwise wouldn?t be able to play their

> sport ? that same club made a loss last year. But

> they still have to keep shelling out to Dulwich

> estate.

^ it is hard to argue with the perversity of this situation.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is nice (Top public schools using charity status to help parents reduce tax bills): http://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/02/20/wealthy-parents-save-on-tax-bills-thanks-to-private-schools-39-charitable-status.aspx

[intexasatthe moment]

good post Dadof4 .

[grabot]

Let's not forget that they provide highly paid sinecures too. One employee of the Dulwich Estate earns over ?130,000!

[DadOf4]

Personally, it doesn't surprise (or upset ) me to see somebody in the org earning ?130k. Its an organisation with ?9M turnover that will need running & management. Same applies to many charities.

I've no problem with the CEO of, say, Cancer Research UK earning good money if he/she can help the charity raise/give more money.

The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity"

[Willard]

Good post Dadof4. Does anyone know someone who works for Dulwich Estate who'd like to come on here and give their side?

[grabot]

"The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity""

I agree, but I don't think that the two or disconnected. Cancer Research UK is a large organization with complex considerations around fund raising and distribution. The Dulwich Estate, as far as I can see, employees four people. Money flows in automatically by virtue of its legal position and distribution of funds largely involves slicing the pie into n chunks and handing it over to the local private schools. Perhaps dividing ?9,000,000 by n is marginally harder than dividing say ?9,000 by n. By only marginally...

[DadOf4]

good point Grabot.

Then add another 130k to the ?9M that is being "redistributed" .

I'd love to hear somebody from Dulwich estate give their side. It could well be that theres more to this than meets to eye

[grabot]

"I'd love to hear somebody from Dulwich estate give their side. It could well be that theres more to this than meets to eye"

Yes, I'm not sure. The accounts give a pretty detailed breakdown http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/accounts/the-dulwich-estate. Perhaps I am missing something too. I am more than happy to be corrected!

[mikeb]

I think the relevant question is why are the private schools charities. I'm sure it would find it more difficult to maintain its own charitable status if the ultimate beneficiaries were not also charities.

[edit: I don't have any data to support my assertion below that DC is unusual in providing 100% bursaries - it's just what I heard. For clarity, even if true, I don't think on its own that it's sufficient to establish that the schools "ought" to get charitable status]

I believe Dulwich College is one of the few private schools that gives (a very small number of) 100% bursaries for select local kids that could not otherwise even consider private education. The schemes of many schools are discounts of 10-50%, and the residual fees are still too high for most. I don't know exactly how DC assesses your financial position nor the rate at which the bursaries are reduced.

[Townleygreen]

JAGs and Alleyns also give a small number of 100% bursaries to kids whose parents couldn't otherwise afford the fees.

[Loz]

DadOf4 Wrote:

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

> The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity"

Why? Because they don't help the people you see as 'fit and proper' targets for your largesse?

What are you asking for here? That Dulwich Estate be forced to stop funding things you disapprove of? That charitable status be removed from a school charity organisation?

[newboots]

I understood that the number of 100% bursaries from Alleyns is very small now in comparison to the number available in 1960s and 70s?

[DadOf4]

Loz Wrote:

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

> DadOf4 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they

> DO as a "charity"

>

> Why? Because they don't help the people you see

> as 'fit and proper' targets for your largesse?

>

> What are you asking for here? That Dulwich Estate

> be forced to stop funding things you disapprove

> of? That charitable status be removed from a

> school charity organisation?

I don't know - I'm not really "calling" for anything. Its just I was quite shocked by the fact that an organisation that *seems* to have digressed so far from its original aims should be doing so under the guise of a charity (and the tax benefits that follow) - I was keen to see if others thought the same.

The charity commission say "To be a charity in England or Wales, your organisation must be set up with purposes which are exclusively charitable for the public benefit."

IMO - raising rents on social facilities like sports fields and redistributing that money to a set of (already wealthy) schools is not really meeting that test.

Yes, theres nothing wrong with giving some kids a better education (as ive said before, I've got no objection to private education) and I dont want to get into a tit-for-tat about the best places for charity money to go (we all have our own views & priorities on that ) but it just doesnt sit right with me

[skylorikeet]

newboots Wrote:

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

> I understood that the number of 100% bursaries

> from Alleyns is very small now in comparison to

> the number available in 1960s and 70s?

Yes that's true but I don't think it's anything to do with the issue Dadof4 has raised. Alleyn's was a direct grant school back then so if a child met the school's academic criteria the fees were paid by the local authority. Direct grant schools were abolished in 1976 and later replaced by the Assisted Places Scheme in 1981. When the direct grant scheme was abolished schools had to choose whether to come fully into the state sector or go independent.

[Loz]

DadOf4 Wrote:

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

> The charity commission say "To be a charity in England or Wales, your organisation must be set up

> with purposes which are exclusively charitable for the public benefit."

I have the same misgivings about animal charities - especially donkey sanctuaries. But, if people can be bothered setting one up and collecting money then who am I to say they shouldn't?

[grabot]

My own take on it is that I don't have a problem with people setting up a charity and asking people for money. But, Dulwich Estate residents are coerced into handing over money. That is not charitable behavior in my view. Not everyone that lives on the Dulwich Estate is fantastically wealthy.

[Loz]

Where is the coercion? DE own facilities and assets and raise rents on them as a form of income. It's hardly shaking children down for their lunch money on street corners, is it?

[grabot]

Fair enough. I misinterpreted the incorporation. The charge on freeholders is imposed by the Estate's non-charitable wing.

[DadOf4]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Where is the coercion? DE own facilities and

> assets and raise rents on them as a form of

> income. It's hardly shaking children down for

> their lunch money on street corners, is it?

But is it charitable ?

[Mr&MrsJ]

I live on the DE - bunch of robbers IMHO! A bit off thread however they have decided that our road needs extensive resurfacing works to the tune of just under 1 million quid ... that means each house on our little estate must cough up around ?10K per household (!) to put towards these unneccesary works!! They are completely out of touch with the 'common man' and the only way I'm getting 10K is by buying a balaclava...!

[DaveR]

Perhaps unsurprisingly there is a boring and complicated legal answer to the question 'why is this considered a charity', largely arising from litigation involving independent schools and the Charity Commission in 2010-2011. The judgment is here:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2011/421.pdf

Pretty heavy going, even for lawyers, but the key finding was that assessing whether a trust was entitled to charitable status involves asking 'what was it set up to do?', not 'what is it actually doing now?'. Providing a general education has always been recognised as a charitable purpose, so unless the original trust document said 'education only for the rich' it's fine.

The relevance of what the school is actually doing is to whether it is fulfilling its charitable purpose, and on that score the court said it's up to the trustees in each case to make sure they do enough to meet the public benefit test.

Going back to the OP and sports clubs, one thing that is clear is that if you are an educational charity, doing non-educational 'good deeds' e.g. making your sports facilities available for free to local clubs is outside your charitable purposes and may be a breach of trust, which is a little ironic.

In an ideal world fee paying schools would aim to be 'needs blind' i.e. if you satisfy the entry requirements you get whatever financial aid is necessary for you to take up a place. The difficulty is that you either need to start with a massive endowment fund (a la Harvard) or it needs public money. If the Tories get re-elected, we might hear more about it though:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d00408ba-e012-11e2-bf9d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3E21GfEpN

[DadOf4]

and the only way I'm

> getting 10K is by buying a balaclava...!

dont rob any kids of their dinner money