Why can't all charities do this???
Discussion
I'm sure we would all like to think that every quid we donate to charities of our choice goes towards actually doing the things we had in mind when we donated it, but all too often, that isn't the case, what with operating costs, staff salaries and the like gobbling up large swathes of it.
Now OK, it's one thing giving a bit of time or money to a charity and not being paid for it. It's quite another expecting someone to work full time for a charity for free and still somehow pay their mortgage, so nobody can expect them to work for nothing, but at times it does still seem like there's a lot going on the running costs.
I've just been reading through the latest Help for Heroes newsletter on email, and they had a pretty startling statistic, which is that they essentially cover all their operational costs from the profit made on merchandising sales, which means that whenever you stick a quid in a collecting box, 99.8p of it goes to actual projects making a difference, and only 0.2p of it goes on the operating costs of the charity itself.
OK, you could say it's just one way of accounting for the overall amounts of money in and out, and to an extent I'm sure that's pertinent, but it still seems pretty amazing compared to some other charities you read about, so I have to wonder what makes the difference? Are they somehow more organised than other charities? Have they just managed to stumble onto more profitable merchandise?
Now OK, it's one thing giving a bit of time or money to a charity and not being paid for it. It's quite another expecting someone to work full time for a charity for free and still somehow pay their mortgage, so nobody can expect them to work for nothing, but at times it does still seem like there's a lot going on the running costs.
I've just been reading through the latest Help for Heroes newsletter on email, and they had a pretty startling statistic, which is that they essentially cover all their operational costs from the profit made on merchandising sales, which means that whenever you stick a quid in a collecting box, 99.8p of it goes to actual projects making a difference, and only 0.2p of it goes on the operating costs of the charity itself.
OK, you could say it's just one way of accounting for the overall amounts of money in and out, and to an extent I'm sure that's pertinent, but it still seems pretty amazing compared to some other charities you read about, so I have to wonder what makes the difference? Are they somehow more organised than other charities? Have they just managed to stumble onto more profitable merchandise?
H4H does seem to have a fairly slick merchandising operation. They also seem to have taken full advantage of the internet
Being a recentish charity with a number of high profile patrons running a high profile campaign on a high profile issue, they've maybe managed to obtain various services, facilities and press coverage arranged by individuals and organisations for free or at cost whereas older, more established and smaller charities no longer have that critical mass. There's possibly a forces influence making their fundraising more organised for them, reducing the cost of administrating donations. Certainly, they've done very well out of newspaper campaigns, which, if administrated by the paper, would've reduced their own costs.
AFAIK they focus on a handful of big issues like Headley Court, which probably reduces the administration burden compared to charities that support individuals across the country. I don't think H4H actually do anything with the money themselves; it was more established to fundraise on behalf of other campaigns and leave the administration of the projects to them. They don't have legacy issues to worry about and they don't tend to get involved in political debates, whether campaigning or providing research/evidence, as several major charities do.
So although it works extremely well for H4H, I'm not so sure their model would suit most charities.
Being a recentish charity with a number of high profile patrons running a high profile campaign on a high profile issue, they've maybe managed to obtain various services, facilities and press coverage arranged by individuals and organisations for free or at cost whereas older, more established and smaller charities no longer have that critical mass. There's possibly a forces influence making their fundraising more organised for them, reducing the cost of administrating donations. Certainly, they've done very well out of newspaper campaigns, which, if administrated by the paper, would've reduced their own costs.
AFAIK they focus on a handful of big issues like Headley Court, which probably reduces the administration burden compared to charities that support individuals across the country. I don't think H4H actually do anything with the money themselves; it was more established to fundraise on behalf of other campaigns and leave the administration of the projects to them. They don't have legacy issues to worry about and they don't tend to get involved in political debates, whether campaigning or providing research/evidence, as several major charities do.
So although it works extremely well for H4H, I'm not so sure their model would suit most charities.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff