Intelligent Giving - Sport Relief: a worthy cause? - Comments

Suspicious?

mikemuses — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:07:09 +0100

"However I think we do need to recognise that the public are suspicious that we're generating perks for ourselves."

Absolutely, and it comes back to telling people everything. People do seem to hate 'admin costs', and love it when there are none - which is why certain charities seem to take great delight in saying they have no costs - but this is a complete lie. There ARE costs, they're simply fortunate enough to have someone appreciate that costs are needed, and so restrict their donation to the costs. I'll actually have to find out if the local ones get a donatio to cover the cost. or get the expenses paid - think about the efficiency difference.

Every penny

rspcacambridge — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:16:13 +0100

My comment was more about public perceptions than whether an external organisation can actually enforce more "frugal" spending on admin and publicity. Presumably that would depend on whether the external body was doing the fundraising itself (as with Comic Relief) or simply offering to pay the charity's costs (as with the local charity). However I think we do need to recognise that the public are suspicious that we're generating perks for ourselves.

Or

mikemuses — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:30:54 +0000

perhaps the exact opposite, rspca, since the costs are covered by a company anyway, maybe they don't need to worry about them, so the costs are higher than they may need to be.

Admin costs

rspcacambridge — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:14:05 +0000

Isn't this really about public suspicion that charity staff don't have any real incentive to minimise the percentage of costs spent on staff expenses? Hence all the complaints about "huge salaries" as well.

If fundraising and admin costs are borne by some external organisation, I suppose there's some logic to the idea that this decreases the risk of people feathering their own nests because the second organisation will have an incentive to minimise what it spends.

One charity which always

David M — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:46:47 +0000

One charity which always intrigues me is Smile Train UK. They seem to advertise every day in the broadsheet newspapers (or at least it seems that way), and say that all their non-expense costs have been met by their board: http://www.smiletrain.org.uk/site/PageServer?pagename=financials.
Must be a very rich set of trustees they have. Unfortunately because they have been registered for under a year (they are a predominantly US charity) there are no annual reports on the CC website. Might be a good IG profile when it does materialise though...
David

Consistency

mikemuses — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:22:43 +0000

I know this is an old topic, but hang on, "Comic Relief is also able to promise – legitimately – that “for every pound the charity gets directly from the public, a pound goes to helping transform the lives of people living with poverty and social injustice”

Yet: "the awful CIN claim that 'every penny raised' goes towards helping vulnerable children"

Perhaps IG needs some more consistency?

For that matter, is it important anyway? We have a local charity whose admin costs are covered by a local company, but if the company wasn't doing that could they spend their money better elsewhere?

Sport Relief: a worthy cause?

Matthew Graham — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:02:09 +0000

AS THE RAIN LASHED down on London’s streets last Sunday afternoon, I decided to go for a run. Not, of course, because I particularly wanted to. No. I braved the atrocious conditions because I wanted to make the world a better place. I was, in other words, running the Sport Relief mile.

Having put myself through the pain of taking part (a sore knee was my reward on Monday morning) I thought: was it worth it?

The answer is Yes.

Cash raised by Sport Relief is spent by Comic Relief (see profile). It bundles the proceeds from Sport Relief with the money it raises on Red Nose Day, and dishes it out to dozens of projects in the UK and abroad, including those helping street children, refugees and those affected by HIV/AIDS. Not only is the cause unquestionably worthy, but Comic Relief also funnels much-needed cash to un-sexy (and under-funded) charities.

Comic Relief is also admirably transparent. A section of its website called Cash in Action shows where your money ends up, and gives an indication of the good it’s capable of doing. It would be nice to see a bit more analysis of the grants’ effectiveness, but this is an excellent start.

"The cost of staging events is covered by corporate donors, wealthy individuals, and the government"

Comfortingly for some donors, Comic Relief is also able to promise – legitimately – that “for every pound the charity gets directly from the public, a pound goes to helping transform the lives of people living with poverty and social injustice”

It’s able to do this because the cost of staging events is covered by corporate donors, wealthy individuals, and the government. Few charities can make this claim: but beware that the charities which receive grants from Comic Relief all have their own overheads to worry about. As we’ve said elsewhere, worrying about admin costs probably isn’t very sensible.

Despite all this fancy footwork by Comic Relief’s fundraisers, I believe that Sport Relief was a success. It’s a great way of getting people actively involved and raises cash in a high-profile way that boosts the income of all charities in the longer term.

Personally, it’s also good to think that I helped contribute to the £20,747,375 the charity has raised so far. Despite the cold and the damage to my body, I’ve had the satisfaction of really achieving something – for myself, and for the people the charity helps.