Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Improve your finances

5 things charities secretly spend your money on

Robert Powell
by Lovemoney Staff Robert Powell on 02 November 2010  |  Comments 28 comments

How do charities spend your money when you donate? We know it can't all go to the cause, but here are five costs to charities you may not be aware of....

5 things charities secretly spend your money on

As the recession bites and your disposable income shrinks, it’s certain you’ll want to know exactly how charities are spending your donated money. Much has been made of high in-house admin and advertising costs at big name charities, but what else do charities spend your pounds on?

Here at lovemoney.com we believe you should be fully informed as to what charities do with your money so you can be sure to give in the most efficient way possible. So here are five things that you may not know charities spend your donations on...

1) Chuggers

It’s hard to navigate your way down any high street nowadays without being approached by a bouncy, spritely young person vying for your direct debit details. We all know that chuggers are not fundraising solely out of the goodness of their heart, but what you may not know is that they are often not even employed by the charity they are raising money for.

In fact, charities pay tens of millions of pounds every year to subcontracted firms who recruit and train fundraisers. These fundraisers are paid considerably more than the minimum wage and may even receive a bonus for exceptional performances.

Charities usually pay these companies between £80 and £160 for every donor they sign up. But when the average donor will only agree to give £90 annually, it often takes over a year for the charity to break even. This is bad news when you consider that the number of chugger recruited donors cancelling within just three months is currently at an all time high.

If a chugger convinces you of the need to donate a small sum once a month, don't sign the form there and then. Go home and set up a direct debit commitment with the charity directly, via its website.

Whatever you do, don't sign it to get the chugger to leave you alone, then cancel after the first month. Your chosen charity will actually lose money if you do!

2) Legacy gift marketing campaigns

Who will get your money when you die? It’s a question everyone has to ask at some point, and most of us seem to arrive at the same answer; family and friends. Just 7% of the British public opt to leave a legacy gift and donate to a charity in their will – but fundraisers are attempting to increase this percentage.

Many charities invest heavily in legacy campaigning in an attempt to put people at ease when thinking about the sinister proposition of writing a will. One way the legacy donation collective Remember a Charity has done this is by producing tea bags printed with instructions advising the user to relax over a cup of tea and start a conversation about leaving a gift in their will.

One recent Remember a Charity campaign cost its consortium of charities around £900 000, but with estimated donation returns stretching well into the millions, they see it as a wise spend.

Of course, if there was no need for charities to spend this money - if we all remembered charities in our wills without needing a free teabag to do so - then they'd be a lot better off.

3) Charity runs

The charity run is a tried and tested fundraising method, but has still come under scrutiny over the percentage of raised money that actually goes to the charity. In fact, charities runs are not organised by charities at all, but by ‘mass participation event companies’.

For example the London Marathon and its associated events are put on by London Marathon Limited whilst the Great North Run and its sister events are organised by Nova International.

These companies charge charities hundreds of pounds for so-called ‘golden bonds’ that guarantee runner places, and the charities then pass on the cost to us. So when you pay that fee, it's not a donation - it's going to the event company's coffers.

What's more, places at these events are often bought in bulk every year by large, big name charities who can require their runners to raise large amounts of money in exchange for a free running place. Smaller charities can't afford to buy lots of places every year. Nor can they afford advertising campaigns to attract runners who are prepared to raise a lot of money in exchange for a free place. So this system often has the effect of squeezing out smaller charities from big name events.

You could in theory try to run for a small charity by entering the public ballot for a place in a marathon, but you'll find it extremely difficult. Each place is around five times oversubscribed. If you win one, however, you'll be able to run for the charity of your choice.

4) Fundraising website charges

OK, so let's imagine you’ve managed to secure that hard-won place on the London Marathon and are running for a charity. Time to get fundraising. You set up an online donation site like Just Giving or Virgin Money Giving, send the link to your friends and you’re away. One hundred percent of the money you raise will go straight to charity, right? 

Wrong! Donation website Just Giving has come under fire recently for charging charities a £15 monthly fee to be on their system and taking a 5% cut out of all straight donations made on the site. Virgin Money Giving is better - it's not-for-profit, so it only charges a one-off set-up fee of £100, then takes a lower cut of 2% of all donations.

Of course, such sites defend themselves by arguing they enable people to give in an easy and convenient way, increasing donations. But again, small charities are likely to lose out because they can't afford the fees. 

If you don't like the idea of your sponsor's charitable donations going to a company, ask your sponsors to donate directly via the charity's website instead.

5) Commercial ventures have their place

Don't get me wrong, I know that chugger agencies, charity race companies and fundraising websites have their place in the modern world. Despite being commercial ventures, they do raise millions for charities every year.

I just think lovemoney.com readers should be aware of how and where their donations are being spent. After all, it is possible to give direct to charities and ensure the maximum amount of your donation gets spent on the cause. For example, the Disaster Emergency Committee appeal for the Pakistan floods spends 95p from every pound on the ground, whilst Oxfam spends 81p of every pound on the cause.

Here's some other big name charities and the pence out of every pound they spend on their charitable objectives.

Charity

Amount (per £1)

British Heart Foundation

83p

NSPCC

75p

British Red Cross

85p

UNICEF

75p

Action Aid

73p

Cancer Research

80p

Save the Children

85p

Barnardos

82p

Railway Children

76p

Source: Small Charity Directory

Tell us what you think

Are fundraising websites evil? Should chuggers be shot? Tell us what you think using the comments box below!

More: Nasty small-print surprises 5,000 Brits caught out by clever new scam

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (28)

  • Liam Cranley
    Love rating 3
    Liam Cranley said

    Thanks

    for raising some very interesting points in your article, Robert. As a

    representative of the ImpACT Coalition, a movement to improve accountability,

    clarity and transparency (www.impactcoalition.org.uk),

    this is certainly a discussion we welcome. To this end, I have to challenge

    your choice of title! Charities are not secretive about how they spend their

    money: this information is freely available on the Charity Commission website,

    with additional information on fundraising available on the Public Fundraising

    Regulatory Association’s (PFRA) website http://www.pfra.org.uk/

    Title aside, I welcome the debate.

     

    I

    also applaud your comments on fundraising being a necessary expense, charities

    certainly want to get the message across that all fundraising costs money.

    However, your article did leave me with a few questions. It appears your

    assumption is that those charities that direct the most money to the cause perform

    the best. Put simply, the greater amount that goes to the cause, the greater

    the impact. This is problematic for two reasons.

     

    Firstly,

    costs that are not directly related to ‘the cause’, such as fundraising, bills,

    rent, consumables and governance costs, differ from one organisation to the

    next. How much in each pound donated goes to the cause depends on how a charity

    generates income and how much it has to spend on fundraising. To take the

    example in your article, the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) fundraise on

    an ad hoc basis in response to disasters, unlike Oxfam, which fundraises on a

    rolling basis. DEC spend very little money on advertising or awareness raising,

    with the exception of poster campaigns to promote each appeal. In effect, the media

    coverage of natural disasters acts as the DEC’s fundraising campaign. Contrast

    this to Oxfam (and the other charities in the list), which has to both raise

    awareness of issues and fundraise for them all year round.

     

    DEC

    is quite simply an anomaly. The charities included in the list above all fall

    within a 10% tolerance, they spend between 15%-25% on costs that are not

    directly related to the cause. Again, any deviation is accounted for by how a

    charity generates income. If one charity has a ratio of 85%, it may be the case

    that it has a large corporate sponsor, or a large local authority contract, and

    therefore does not need to spend as much on raising funds from the public.

     

    Secondly,

    fundraising ratios are a poor test of a charity’s effectiveness. Fundraising

    ratios, at best, can only tell us that a charity’s finances are in order. A

    charity could have an impressive fundraising ratio yet fail to deliver

    effective projects on the ground. What we really need charities to do is to get

    better at communicating the difference they make. A website was recently

    launched to help charities achieve this http://www.seethedifference.org/ It

    hosts videos of charity’s work in the field.

     

    What

    would genuinely drive quality and efficiency in the charity sector would be if

    the public asked more questions about the difference that charities make.

     

    Once

    again, thanks for your article. We need to encourage debate around these issues

    in order to increase understanding of how modern charities operate and, more

    importantly, make a difference to people’s lives.

    Report on 03 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Landlord
    Love rating 15
    Landlord said

    Another problem with charitable fundraising is that often the donor is entitled to gift aid tax relief on their donation. For higher rate tax payers this can be claimed on their self assessment tax return. Yet charities almost never inform their donors of this, nor do they provide a receipt. To the charity it makes no difference, as they claim standard rate tax back from HMRC irrespective.  But many high rate donors miss out on the top slice of tax relief due to the charities' negligence in not informing the donor of their right to claim a personal tax deduction. When I've drawn this to charities' attention, they don't seem to give a damn. 

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Duxdeluxe
    Love rating 0
    Duxdeluxe said

    Thanks for the informative article and the two equally informative comments. Much appreciated

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    I think the whole point of a charity is that, irrespective what they spend to draw attention to themselves, they are there to help a needy cause.

    So, if they spend a bit to earn a bit more, then that is good.

    What I would like to see is a listing of the worst performing charities, where the majority of your donation is swallowed up in admin costs, or pays the wages and salaries of those running the charity. After all, if I donate a pound to charity, I would like to see as much of that pound used for a charitable cause, and not used to line someone elses pocket.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • thanet04
    Love rating 13
    thanet04 said

    You seem to have missed off Will writing, which I had a leaflet on recently, where you get a will written for you by a solicitor at no cost to yourself, in the hope that you might leave a part of your estate to them.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • cakey
    Love rating 3
    cakey said

    Great article though you also miss some other points in relation to salaries. Charities spend a great deal on salaries. For example the Chief Execs of some of the major charities earn more than the Prime Minister. I was looking at the accounts of a charity recently for a charity with a voluntary income (donations) of £27m from that they spent £120,000 on the chief Execs salaries, around 4 people on salaries of circa £90k in fact their wage bill was higher than the Voluntary income they raised. (They boost their income with contracts and statutory funding).

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • grahamj
    Love rating 2
    grahamj said

    beware the hype on

    their websites. Rather look at how easily it is to see a copy of their

    accounts - how far do you have to search. Do they tell you the details of

    the cash they pay to their employees - do they tell you of any losses they have

    sustained from problems with corruption (especially Africa).

    I have worked in Africa for

    nearly 20 years and have experience of having to sack employees for gross

    misconduct and theft. Two of these ex-employees applied for jobs with a

    major Christian sponsor programme and are now employed by them. I have

    contacted the Charity on several occasions but they are not interested in

    listening.

    Try to ask a few questions, one of which might be how much do

    they estimate they lose through corruption. If they are honest they will

    give figures of anything between 10-90%.

    I could go on

     

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • reyniers
    Love rating 0
    reyniers said

    Is it right to use the ratio of money spent on the ground to money received to judge charities? Charity X spends 0.1m on fundraising whereas charity Y spends 10m. X receives 1m donations and Y receives 100m. Both charities have ratio 0.9 but X is giving 0.9m aid and Y is providing 90m in aid.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nason
    Love rating 2
    nason said

    My hobby horse is that many charities are collecting money for the same cause. If they amalgamated they would save on overheads, namely chief executive's pay, administrative costs, advertising, payment to fund raisers and no doubt other hidden costs. The Charities Commission should reduce the number of charities collecting for exactly the same cause.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • mikex
    Love rating 13
    mikex said

    At one stage, I was employed by Oxfam as Regional Manager. The claim at the time, was that Oxfam diverted less that 20% toward necessary expenses. If memory serves me right, we were expected to raise £5 for every £1 spent. Things might have changed, as communications improve; this was many years ago.

    As an aside, being a 'manager' with Oxfam (and, no doubt, other charities) has its rewards and its downside. Normally, in a business setting, the manager manages his workforce; since most of the Oxfam workforce comprised volunteer workers, who could walk away if they disagreed with you, it was a case of manager managed... The answer is to pay a manager(ess) to run the shops upon which charities rae very dependant, but then, their cost has to be set against the 5:1 ratio mentioned above.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • msmoneywise
    Love rating 27
    msmoneywise said

    What I really object to is the raffle tickets, pens and expensive mailshots the charities send out to people on a list they have bought(?) from somewhere? I used to give through my salary to a major animal charity. However, after getting their begging mailshots three years in a row, I stopped and started giving to a local animal shelter because I know that they do good work, and don't spend my donation on unsolicited mailshots. Had they bothered to check their list of donors they could easily have eliminated me from the mailing list and continued to get my donation!!

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    I thought everybody knew this, obviously not! However, if you compare the percentage charities use for "good works" to the percentage of your council/income tax that is used for something useful, you will realise just how efficient charities are, even the worst performing ones!

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • itsaripoffworld
    Love rating 0
    itsaripoffworld said

    Ironically, aid to some of the most deprived areas of the world ends up in Swiss bank accounts or actually funds terrorism. This includes aid from say, the EU or United Nations.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • easygoing
    Love rating 156
    easygoing said

    Thanks Liam Cranley for a very informative follow up to the main piece. I too hate the expensive mailshots with free pens, address labels etc. I think they are designed to make you feel guilty about keeping or dumping them. Also I am annoyed that charities seem to swap donors details. I regularly give to one and and occasionally another but of late I have been getting mailshots from charities in which I have no interest. The fact that they use my familiar name shows that it didn't come from the electoral roll for example.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • hippobank
    Love rating 7
    hippobank said

    agree with Nason, so many charities are raising for the same thing, yet everyone has different accountants, different advertising budgets, different directors etc. They need to start merging as two similar businesses may do. 

    Cheers, Hippobank. 

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • c3menzies
    Love rating 14
    c3menzies said

    Charities are very different in the impact they get for each £1 you give them. have a look at this site to get some more information about impact. Apologies if someone else has already posted it but I haven't spotted it

    http://www.philanthropycapital.org/

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • culluding-fool
    Love rating 49
    culluding-fool said

    I stopped donating to charities many years ago after seeing how the money is spent, especially in Africa. I lived in Africa for many years and knew a number of people who received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the British embassy & spent most of it on holidays, 4x4s & boats, even though there was a committee of local businessmen, church and usually a government minister, they were all in on it. The poor orphans they were supposed to be looking after with the money were still half starved and often forced to work instead of school.

    As for local charities, I once knew one of the people who collects money in the street (or signs up direct debits, I don't know exactly what he did) and he was earning more than twice my salary. If a charity can afford to pay an uneducated person on the street more than twice the amount of a qualified computer engineer then it certainly doesn't need my money!

    My daughter has recently started a school which is heavily supported by charity & I do donate to them because I not only see where the money is going, but I also get a say in the running of the school, as a parent. What I don't like is the raffles and competitions they keep sending home with the kids. If would prefer they just asked for the money, but I suppose it gives some people the motivation they need to donate (in the hope of winning a prize, etc...)

    Just my 2p worth :-)

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Pepper
    Love rating 0
    Pepper said

    I am from Holland (but live in the UK) and overthere, there where some issues this year with de wages of the MD's got, which caused a big stire in Holland and a lot of people cancelling their donaties, as most people find that the top people working for a charity should not get an outrages high wages as there are a lot of people working voluntarity and thus for nothing. For example the MD of the Dutch Heart Foundation (Nederlandse Hartstichting) was earning 172,000 euro's a year...

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • maarkyboy
    Love rating 10
    maarkyboy said

    I went to Bangladesh and gave away as much as I had directly to starving folk at deaths door. Don't know if it did much good ather than delaying death another few days.

    Lots of critics of the sponsor a child programme but I do think it's a better way to do it than I did.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hugo-grubb
    Love rating 0
    hugo-grubb said

    Fundraising website charges:

    www.bmycharity.com does not charge ANY commission whatsoever - 100% of every donation goes to your chosen charity!

    Run by UK charity Help For Heroes, its trading company, which sells H4H branded merchandise, uses the profits to operate bmycharity commission-free!

    By the way, I don't work for Help For Heroes or bmycharity.com - I simply cycled Land's End to John o'Groats with a friend in aid of Help For Heroes and in the process raised over £10,000 commission-free! If you feel inspired, please donate at: www.bmycharity.com/sept2010lejog - cheers!

    Please spread the word that there is an alternative to fundraising website charges then perhaps Justgiving et al will follow suit. 

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SeaBee
    Love rating 15
    SeaBee said

    Organised international charity. The transfer of wealth from the poor of the donor country to the rich of the beneficiary country. Without charitable donations, most Swiss banks would have few deposits.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SeaBee
    Love rating 15
    SeaBee said

    Liam Cranley. Have you not noticed that all the major charities give the same information? This is because they are required by the Charity Commissioners to give the stated information. Very few, if any, give information other than that which they are required to give.

    Report on 07 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Anfauglir
    Love rating 8
    Anfauglir said

    There seems no getting away from Chuggers in my town - 3 days each week (at least) there will be 3 or 4 there, making it impossible to walk unmolested down the road. And the sarky comments you get if you just ignore them!

    Thanks for the info on their paid status - next time I get stopped the first question is going to be "how much are you getting paid for this".

    Report on 08 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Meanmachine2
    Love rating 37
    Meanmachine2 said

    I was told by an Accountant 30 years ago that he estimated that 65% of the money raised by the big charities never left this country and that 95% never reached the recipients it was intended for.

    I friend of mine worked for a religious group who did charity work around the World in isolated areas. One time he went to somewhere in Africa but before he went his son who also raised money for good causes gave him £100 to spend on children when he got there. When he arrived he told the woman he was staying with in the village that he had the money to spend.

    She then said "Good we can buy two parcels of childrens clothes ".

    In other words the clothes which had no doubt been donated were being sold to the natives.

    Report on 08 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Charley316
    Love rating 2
    Charley316 said

    Thanks for a good article, but I'd also like to point out that not all charities operate in this way. I'm a trustee of a small disabled military veterans charity. We have no paid staff, everyone is a volunteer. We have no premises costs - we work from our homes and a gifted a board room at a local law firm when we need office space. We have no admin costs - we all just chip in what we need (stamps, paper, web hosting costs etc).

    One day, we may have to spend some money on something that isn't our core mission, but we haven't so far - we tend to gift it, borrow it or beg it as an in-kind donation! I guess squaddies are just resourceful!

    I guess my message is, don't always look to the big national charities - your local charities need your support just as much if not more, and they tend to be very economical with their costs. You know what they say, charity begins at home!

    Report on 08 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 43
    hopefultom said

    Excellent article & high quality follow-up debate

    With particular ref to the contributions from "CuNNaXXa " and "mikex" It would be interesting to see the financial details for The Salvation Army"

    Many years ago,I was told that just 12p in the pound was spent on "good causes" .They ,allegedly spend more on uniforms and musical instuments.

    If they have upped their game since then,I will be happy to be corrected,but I wonder where the "sinners"in the pubs,on a Friday night,think their money is going?

    Report on 09 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LittleToSay
    Love rating 7
    LittleToSay said

    I personally wonder how much cancer charities and the like receive for providing endorsements for sunscreens for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies that produce them.

    I notice that Cancer Research UK has an annual income of about £500,000,000, but I could find out very little published information about what had been achieved with all of this cash. Personally I would have thought that half a billion could do rather a lot, but anticipate that part of the problem is that if they actually cured cancer then they'd all be out of a job.

    Perhaps I'm just too skeptical.

    Report on 11 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • McLeodC
    Love rating 13
    McLeodC said

    Most charities, even large ones, live a fairly hand-to-mouth existence, with no more than a very few months' funds in reserve - meaning that if their income suddenly stopped, they could survive only for a matter of weeks.

    A few charities are fortunate to have substantial endowments that are sufficient to cover most of their outgoings - if their income stopped, they would need to make cutbacks, but could continue much of their work indefinitely. However, this generous income enables these fortunate few to spend even more on fundraising, and so attract even more income through donations!

    Bear in mind that, while all charities are needy, some are more needy than others - and their needs are not necessarily related to their marketing budget.

    Report on 11 November 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV1