drops of help? (anyone know of this company/charity?)

[giggirl]

concita Wrote:

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

> that's why good causes never receive the right

> money.

How so, I don't understand your point

> This sort of charity is OK for this country, but

> overseas, people do help local people and do not

> mind if they see others walking in the same street

> with their clothes on.

I would not mind either, but I suspect I would find it odd. That's not the same thing as minding.

> Charities in this country are already supported by

> tax payers, by the national lottery, raffles

> etcc...

So what? So they might get some money from the national lottery AND they have the nerve to want to raise more money from other sources. They're fundraisers. That's wht they do. More power to them.

> As you said there are many charity workers, but

> there are also many highly paid directors, who

> would not give a penny of their salary to support

> the charity they represent. It is certainly not a

> good thing.

If somebody works for a wage then it's up to them what they do with their money. It's not my business how they spend their money and it's not YOUR business how they spend their money.

[Alec John Moore]

One of the things I find most fascinating working in the sector is the motivations of donors. There are many good people in this country who respond to a disaster overseas by gathering together clothes, knitting blankets etc to send to the victims of the disaster. No matter how much it is put to them that it would be more effective and efficient to sell what they have gathered/made and donate the proceeds to the charity of their choice so that those funds can be used to buy what people need nearer to them, they insist on trying to send stuff at great cost. I think it is important to respect people's personal motivations but professionals know that having enough funds will help people more effectively.

I'm glad the OP raised the question about a dubious collection and I hope more people will be more aware of how they donate to charity as a result.

[louisiana]

concita Wrote:

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

> that's why good causes never receive the right

> money.

> This sort of charity is OK for this country, but

> overseas, people do help local people and do not

> mind if they see others walking in the same street

> with their clothes on.

> Charities in this country are already supported by

> tax payers, by the national lottery, raffles

> etcc...

Most charities receive absolutely nothing from the National Lottery.

Charities will only receive any money from a raffle if they themselves actually operate a raffle, or if some kind soul decides to give the cash from a raffle to that charity.

Charities receive Gift Aid only as a consequence of having raised money themselves from individual donors/taxpayers.

> As you said there are many charity workers, but

> there are also many highly paid directors, who

> would not give a penny of their salary to support

> the charity they represent. It is certainly not a

> good thing.

Concita, you seem to have some pretty strange ideas.

There are paid employees in many charities. After all, those charities have a job to do, and sometimes a very unpleasant or even dangerous one. (Here, I'm thinking of a friend who was working in the field in Rwanda/Burundi during the awful events there.) Most charities (and NGOs) also generally have quite a few volunteers. But it's pretty difficult to do any serious work without some paid full-time employees.

Detail of exactly what money is paid as wages is available for all charities, in their accounts available on the Charity Commission website. Charity trustees cannot receive any payment for services from the charity of which they are a trustee. Charities do not have directors (as in board of directors) unless they are also limited (by guarantee) companies. Charities may have executive director(s) who is paid, but that tends to be a very full-on full-time role, in other words the 'director' bit is just a job label and it's a job like any other.

Would you give money out of your (after-tax) wages to 'support' the company or organisation you work for?

[pommie]

half the stuff probably doesnt get collected as people walking past sometimes take it too. I put a small bag of clothes out for such a charity only to find a woman walking past opening the bag to have a look

[Alec John Moore]

It's an important question about where the money goes and who benefits from the donations that people make. Some take the view that they'd rather support a voluntary organisation/charity/NGO that uses their funds effectively and efficiently - having first determined that they share their values to an extent and support the cause. So, if a charity has a system for identifying high value items that come through their shops that are then sold for a good price elsewhere then that is merely maximising the income potential of those donations. It's not really that different from charities urging us to sign up for gift aid so that they can get more from that type of donation.

[giggirl]

AJM, what's your take on chuggers?

[Alec John Moore]

To be honest, I feel sorry for them. I'd hate to do that sort of job. My criticism, though, is of the practice. It's not really my area but, as far as I can see, it requires those who have been chugged to sign up for a direct debit. The problem with this is that donors are less likely to halt a DDR if they change their mind at a later date - just through not getting around to it rather than anything dubious about DDRs. Ideally - for charities - there would be loads of active donors and volunteers who give freely of their time and money. Recruiting supporters/donors through chugging is not something I would support. However, the type of income that charities get from individual donors is mostly unrestricted so can be used to pay for the staff and activities that other donors - trusts, governement, Big Lottery Fund etc - won't pay for. It's why charities put so much effort into raising such funds.

[giggirl]

AJM - I've never managed to get a straight answer to the really simple question "how much of my donation goes to your company" when asked of a chugger. I sense a lack of transparency. Is that fair comment?

[Alec John Moore]

They may not know or may be briefed to be vague. You could ask the charity directly. As I understand it, chuggers are likely to be casual labour working for a contractor commissioned by the charity. So, the charity will pay a straight fee or a percentage of the donation, don't know the details, to the company and the charity will get the money you give in your DDR. They will also get someone they can "grow" into a donor who supports in other ways and, over time, may give more in their regular donations. Eventually, they will try to get you to will your estate to them - we're all worht more dead than alive. The life cycle of a punter, sorry, donor/highly motivated supporter of a cause, in a few glib sentences. For me, I wouldn't work in any other sector. I've been to Africa and seen how the funds I've raised have improved people's lives.

[elloriac]

There was news on this earlier this year, saying that chugging companies earn more per signature than the charity does in the first year - here's a link (sorry the Daily Mail was the first one to come up, but has the relevant facts) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306567/Fees-high-street-chuggers-eat-millions-donated-charities.html.

But as AJM says, the charity will hopefully get more over time from the donors who remain signed up, not just in money. Also initial studies showed that chuggers were reaching people who don't give in other ways/weren't reached by traditional fundraising activities. I don't know if this still holds true today, but they wouldn't keep doing it if it wasn't working...

FWIW, I work for a not-for-profit, not a registered charity. We have been a victim of the clothes donation bag scheme with some dodgy company claiming to be collecting on our behalf fraudulently. So please do check with the named group/charity when you receive these through the door.

[Penguin68]

'Chugging' actually refers to companies who appear to be undertaking market research but then 'mug' you for Charity - it is an extension of the coining of 'sugging' - selling under the guise of research - used to be a favourite ploy of insurance companies, who would start off apparently collecting information for a survey, then steer the conversation towards sales. When in doubt about MR ask to see the interviewer's badge/ ID - all interviewers working for kosher MR companies will have Market Research Society ID.

A number of charities do use professional (paid) agents to collect donations - often via pledges - and this is what the Daily Mail report is picking up.

This is entirely different from companies passing themselves off as charities (actually, that's illegal, what they do is to let you think they are charities without actually making that claim). That is what this company appears to be doing. There is no chance with these companies that donations or donated goods will ever be used charitably - not true either of chugging or of professional collectors for real charities.

[ianr]

binary_star Wrote:

> I actually emailed The Tree of Hope because I thought the flyer looked a bit DIY (the logos were

> badly pixellated), no bags were provided, and the web address provided for SOS Clothes Ltd (who are

> collecting the clothes on behalf of the charity) didn't check out. But a contact at the Charity

> confirmed this is a legitimate collection. Good job as we've donated clothes to them!

Just to provide a link to a post I've just made to the lounge about a similar kind of arrangement: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,558283,584479#msg-584479 where A.N.Y.A.Ltd say they are collecting for a Lithuanian charity.

It is interesting, btw, that as one delves into the different companies and arrangements, one does notice some recurring names.

I suppose the acid test is to look at the collecting companies' accounts and to find out from the charities what they received.

[binary_star]

Just to provide a link to a post I've just made to the lounge about a similar kind of arrangement: [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk] where A.N.Y.A.Ltd say they are collecting for a Lithuanian charity.

It is interesting, btw, that as one delves into the different companies and arrangements, one does notice some recurring names.

Just to clarify, I had every confidence the charity 'Tree of Hope' were legit - I searched the Register of Charities on the charity commission's website and they're listed there with a full history of viewable accounts from 2005. Also, their 'activities' are described as helping sick children find treatments not provided by the NHS, so a worthy cause.

I was not sure on the company who were collecting on behalf of them 'SOS Clothes Ltd' because although they are listed on Companies House, I still had reservations for the reasons mentioned above. As it turns out, the treasurer at the charity confirmed they were legitimately collecting on their behalf and they were very grateful for it too. Just felt I should make all that clear if it wasn't already!

I suppose the acid test is to look at the collecting companies' accounts and to find out from the charities what they received.

I should imagine that the companies will be making a healthy profit, or else they wouldn't bother to operate? They're not charities themselves after all.