Sorry, that was 2007 not 2008. Time flying by faster than I realised.

In September 2008 I went to Sierra Leone to visit a friend who worked at a car dealership in Freetown. The bulk of the sales and repairs were actually from Charity organisations, including OXFAM.

From this experience I have found that so called Charities in countries such as this leave a lot to be desired. What I saw was the charitable organisations staff living in hotels and compounds literally in the lap of luxury by comparison. They drove the latest and most elite 4x4 vehicles, BMW X5, Range Rover Vogues, Ford Rangers and lived with Air conditioned comfort and luxury.

I was shown an example where the manager of a local charity had to pay for a new head gasket for the generator on their premises. the quote was for one million Leones for the head gasket (£157) but the company was told to charge six million Leones and pass the other 5 million into the hands of the charity manager or they would lose the contract to support the generator. This, I was told, was par for the course in this land. As I was present during the elections the state turned on the national grid for almost a whole day.

This is what makes me reluctant to contribute to charities, after seeing this in the flesh I realise that the countries are not getting all they should from the charities funds.

The only exception I saw to this was with Medicine san frontier, they were rarely in their accomodation, usually rented private or on the rented premises bearing their standard, and they were driving older basic model Land rovers, tending to be out with the stricken people and giving their services where needed. I met a couple in a bar in Freetown who were preparing to return home for a short break and they explained how their dedication has given them the sort of protection, love and respect from the people that few others get. Their biggest problem was the regular raids and robberies of drugs by dealers and the like but even then they said that they often leave enough for them to carry on instead of stealing the entire lot.

How would one go about deciphering advertising expenditure specifically within all of this data?

I cannot accept that Oxfam should deduct/use 21% (or 27%???!!!) for admin costs from donations to emergency appeals. I make regular contributions to Oxfam and have no problem with deductions for campaigning, admin, etc, from that. But to deduct the same proportion rom money which is donated specifically for an advertised appeal seems frankly less than honest.

It's really very simple to 'opt out' of getting any information sent to you by Oxfam. Just email the address on the envelope saying you don't want anything and they'll stop...easy eh?

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your comment. As a result of your enquiry, I did have quite an extensive search on the Oxfam website, but could not find the 79% figure. No matter. I'm sure it is there.

We calculate charitable expenditure by figuring out what percentage of a charity's overall expenditure went on charitable activities. We do this from 'the statement of consolidated financial activities' in a charity's annual report. It's easy to work out. We just divide 'charitable activities' figure by the 'total resources expended' figure. Some charities calculate their charitable expenditure in different ways, and that's fine. We just feel that our way is simple and understandable.

In fact,the figure above (73%) is from last year's Oxfam accounts (2005-6). The 2006-7 accounts have just come out. ASAP, we will update this profile to 2007. I did calculate the 2007 charitable expenditure ratio, and it came to 72%.

Charitable expenditure ratios can get quite political with different charities trumpeting varying figures, that 'prove' how efficient they are. At 'Intelligent Giving', we take a reasonably relaxed view towards it all. We realise that governance costs, costs of generating funds, and other associated costs, can amount to quite a lot. As long as a charity doesn't spend too little on its charitable activities (around 70% is absolutely fine), then we are not bothered by the figure.

In fact, as you will surely know, the most important point is not what percentage an outfit spends on 'charitable activities', but how they spend that money. Is the money actually making a difference? Is it going to the right places? Is it being handled by the right people? And from Oxfam's impressive track record, you can be pretty sure that it is.

Please reply if you have more questions or queries

Nat Ogborn, Intelligent Giving

This site says that 73% of Oxfams income is spent on charitable work ,but the Oxfam site says 79 % ?????

My main issue with Oxfam is the wretched begging letters addressed "To occupier" with free pen. Yes, I know it must work and be cost-effective, or they wouldn't do it. But I don't give to *any* organisation that adds to my rubbish/recycling pile.

(For the record, I've been signed with Mailing Preference Service for years and am anxiously awaiting for the Post Office to get its act together and action the "Please don't give me unaddressed mail" request I sent them :non-existent rolleyes emoticon:)

On a more positive note: "big up" to Oxfam for helping the Ethiopian Government to take on Starbucks in Ethiopian coffee farmers' (IMO completely justified) attempt to retain intellectual property rights over Ethiopian names.

I particularly like the element of self criticism in many Oxfam reports. International development is appallingly difficult, but you would never guess this from the reports of many charities.

Luke FitzHerbert