Friday, 29 October 2010

Things Charities Ain’t What They Used To Be……

Managers at a York charity which faces losing thousands of pounds in funding from a cash-strapped NHS trust have branded the cuts “ridiculous”.
I find it equally ‘ridiculous’ that a charity can be a quango in all but name yet still attract the advantages of charitable status…
This means York Council for Voluntary Service (CVS), which provides back-up to about 1,000 community groups around the city and volunteering opportunities for people with mental health problems and learning difficulties, being left with a £17,500 shortfall in four weeks’ time. It says this will hit its volunteer centre’s ability to help people get involved in local initiatives, and threaten its forums offering support, access and information to charities working with vulnerable residents.
So it’s a charity that services other charities? Fantastic!
Angela Harrison, York CVS chief executive, said: “This is a ridiculous cut. Reducing our funding by 37 per cent in four weeks’ time not only breaks our legal contracts but, more importantly, doesn’t take into account any impact for the people of York.

“NHS managers should come out to communities and see the huge value of their voluntary sector investment. These services are not just lines on a budget, they are frontline services to vulnerable people. ”
Yet it seems from the comments that the message that ‘charities are wonderful and must never, ever be questioned’.

First, there’s the ‘We all need to tighten our belts – why should you be exempt?’ outlook:
smudge1, York says...

You will have to take your cuts like everybody else in the UK. Stop whining and find a way round it. The country cant keep spending more than it earns.
Then there’s the ‘Hey, who was watching the bottom line, then?’ query:
Pete the Brickie, Site says...

It always seems to me to be wrong who these sort of cuts affect. It’s all very well for Ms Brown to tell us how she’s responsible for “800000 residents”, how she has to “secure NHS Healthcare for them” make “unpalatable decisions” and “protect services for the majority”. Very grand sound bites but an 18 million overspend is a lot of public money, even if it is tiny percentage of your budget, surely the idea of a health or any other budget is you stick to it and there must be somewhere it can be trimmed before we start starving charities for the most needy. Or shouldn’t it have been looked at before it went over by someone in a senior position like MS Brown?
Followed by the ‘Charity begins at home!’ outlook:
addynuff, york says...

close the borders,withdraw the foreign aid and look after our own first.the wealthy in india and pakistan show no responsibility for their own people and don t india fund a space programme.
And finally the ‘So, what do you spend the money on?’ query:
Silver, York says...

A lot of charities actually employ staff so why don't the higher ups take a paycut?
To offset the loss.....
Heartening signs…

9 comments:

Chalcedon said...

All they have to do is go out and rattle their collecting tins (if that is allowed these days).....I bet of course that they don't actually obtain money like this but only from taxpayers via a government depatment. Taxpayers money should not be given to charities.

Disenfranchised of Buckingham said...

I no longer give to charities. They seem to think that giving makes you a bleeding heart liberal. I prefer the idea of being as cold as charity.

Anonymous said...

"So it’s a charity that services other charities? Fantastic!"

Julia - You seem rather surprised by that concept. However it's nothing unusual. I have been looking into several "Eco" charities, and the insidious way they all use each other as "funding partners".

You click on the links at one site and quickly see links back to the one you started at. Downloading accounts reveals similar cross financing. And when you look for the major sources of income it's always Govt departments, councils etc. To find one with more than 10% coming from independent contributions is rare.

Lady Virginia Droit de Seigneur said...

Just shut it down and give money directly to the charities it helps - it will save more than £17,500 - simples!!

Fucking parasites - where the fuck do they add value?

Brian, follower of Deornoth said...

"services other charities"

I think, perhaps, you meant "serves other charities". Or perhaps you didn't.

archytas said...

I have never seen a charity that does much good other than the Sally Army. I think we should move away from charity to some form of time bank/local economic transfer schemes.
The financial aspects of charities are very disturbing, with massive abuses.

JuliaM said...

"Taxpayers money should not be given to charities."

Agreed!

"I no longer give to charities."

I still do, but the list is tiny. In fact, I'd rather give goods or my time. Neither can be abused.

"You seem rather surprised by that concept. However it's nothing unusual."

So I see! It doesn't surprise me any more...

"Just shut it down and give money directly to the charities it helps"

If they are worthwhile charities, they should be raising the money from us, the public. If they are not...

JuliaM said...

"I think, perhaps, you meant "serves other charities". Or perhaps you didn't."

I think we, the taxpayer, are getting the servicing. Getting it good and hard!

"The financial aspects of charities are very disturbing, with massive abuses."

Indeed. It's something I hope the coalition will address, though I can't see them getting around to it in this term.

microdave said...

I happily donate to the RNLI, but they are very much alone in the charity game. They do a much needed job, and do not want government money, preferring to retain control of their own destiny.