Are We Less Inclined To Support Others?

In case you don't know - I didn't - the picture is of MP Nick Hurd, the minister for civic society.

Mr Hurd is angry because we are not giving enough to charity.  I'm angry because he has the gall to accuse the British public of lacking in compassion because they won't fill charities' coffers.

Speaking in response to the British Social Attitudes survey published earlier this month that found that we have become less inclined to support others:

But he said that being the fifth most generous nation was not enough.
‘The Government’s role is not to tell people what to do, but we can make it easier and more compelling for people to give.’ 


Suddenly?  I think not. Could it be that people are still smarting from the coalition's decision to spend increase funding, through the Department for International Development, for overseas aid and funding ridiculous UK projects?  £8.1bn was spent by DfID this year and serious criticism about the administering of DfID's actions persists.

I have no problem with helping the world's poor if the money is directly helping people achieve better health or clamber out of desperate poverty, but it would seem DfID don't keep proper records of their spending activities. They churn out endless reports that suggest methods which could make sure the aid is reaching the source of projects, but action is minimal. The world's poor are by-passed in many massive wealth-transfer schemes.

The UK commitment to supporting overseas development will be 0.7% of gross national income from 2013. It may seem a mere drop in the UK's ocean of debt but when politicians have to defend their spending by saying "projects are old", it merely emphasises the massive amount of money that has been wasted in recent years.

But, if much of the money spent is not being used efficiently and producing results that benefit those in need, why do DfID continue to spend it?  Until they introduce a system of accountability that accommodates publicly scrutiny, only projects which can offer evidence that donations have benefitted those in desperate need should be funded.

Annually I give to a small local charity. I know how much they spend on PR, salaries, office space and other administration. It's very clearly stated on their website. Haiti received or was pledged $11bn yet the world's unprecedented effort to rebuild it has turned into a disaster of good intentions.

Mr Hurd should give a little more thought about why we're donating less and not making the sweeping statement that we don't give enough. In my experience we're very generous, but maybe we're becoming more aware of where and how we place our hard-earned cash.  Certainly I am and no lecture from any politician will make me change my behaviour.

Money follows the law of diminishing returns. Given any problem a little money often helps, but a lot usually doesn't help lots more. Are we less inclined to support others? I think not.

source

Tweet

An Annual 'Sickener' for Someone

Do you know a Fifer, or maybe just someone living in Fife, who is feeling scunnered this week? Perhaps not, but if I was in this person's shoes I'd be feeling not just a little sick myself.

Among a pile of donated items at the St Andrews Cancer Research UK shop, a sharp-eyed volunteer spotted a rare comic. It was at the bottom of a big bag of donation and turned out to be the first Beano annual from 1939.

After taking advice from publisher D C Thomson, the charity had the book sold by a specialist comics auction house.

A final rush of bids saw it sell for an eye-watering £4264 - one of the highest prices ever paid for a copy of the book.

The manager of the shop said: "We're so grateful to the person who handed it in and to Matthew (the volunteer) for discovering how much it was worth."

I would like to think that the charity made a big effort to try to trace the person who donated the items, including the annual, but I hae ma doots. They possibly didn't have a clue they were putting an item of such value into a plastic bag and giving it to a charity shop.

Let that be a lesson to us all. The more people who rake through your charity donations before they leave your possession the better.

Note: For those with a keen interest in children's annuals, there was no Dennis the Menace in 1939. He didn't appear until 1951.

Tweet

Scottish Government Accused of Abandoning Homeless Scots in London

It never ceases to amaze me the number of 'charities' there are in this country. Borderline is one of these. It supports those from north of the border who are facing homelessness in London and receives around half of its total income from the Scottish Government. It was given £107,100 last year.

Borderline bosses fear the future of the 'service' is now at risk after it's grant was reduced to £49,184 for 2010/11.

Willie Docherty, chief executive officer at Borderline, said: “We think the Scottish Government has a duty to protect Scots who are homeless in London and may be fleeing abuse.

“There is an increasing demand for our service, particularly during the recession when people are falling out of work and they need our help to get them back on an even keel.

The Scottish Government funding is part of the Housing Voluntary Grant Scheme which is awarded every year to projects tackling housing problems. A total of £2.4m has been awarded to 29 projects in 2010/11, compared with £2.1m for the current financial year.

The charity, which is the only project operating outside Scotland to receive funding as part of the HVGS, also assists people to settle in London. Several new applicants to the HVGS have been given funding for 2010/11 with £34,721 being awarded to Quarriers in Bridge of Weir and £38,809 to the Calman Trust in Inverness. Other grants include £274,000 for the Scottish Housing Advisory Service, £200,000 for Shelter Scotland's housing law service and £40,000 for the Legal Services Agency in Glasgow.

A Scottish Government spokesman said, "Borderline has received in excess of £1.2m from the Scottish Government since 1999. The priority, we decided, was to help homeless Scots return to Scotland. For that reason Borderline was awarded funding." The latest figures for 2006/2007 show that Borderline assisted two people to relocate back to Scotland every month.

To me the Borderline charity sounds rather Victorian. "Scotman/woman runs off to London to escape domestic abuse/make their fortune/find a job/disappear (delete as appropriate). Surely there can't still be people who believe the streets of London are paved with gold? Then again, there are still people who believe the labour party has all the answers to the UK's ills.

Should we be funding a charity like Borderline which was set up in 1990 by the Church of Scotland London Advisory Service? I don't think so. No matter how good their service it's discriminatory unless they provide a service in say Birmingham, Manchester or Bristol and other big cities. For that reason I don't think it should be funded from the public purse.

Borderline appears to be a 'feeder' agency. In other words they don't undertake much themselves but pass enquiries onto the larger charities or local councils. There is a serious problem in the UK where there are thousands of small 'charities' providing overlapping services but few seem to work together. The reason is each is, understandably, desperate to protect their funding.

Good government would do a thorough investigation of the agencies which receive public funding and trim them into effective and efficient providers. Tiny charities have little or no clout. I often wonder if these agencies are of more benefit to their employees than their client group.

Source

Tweet

WHEN IS A CHARITY NOT A CHARITY

The past few days I've been thinking how to avoid  the media overkill of the saviour of the world and of course the excuse we have for a Prime Minister's visit to America next week.  This has resulted in me visiting blogs which I usually find are somewhat irrelevant to us here in Scotland and, if I'm truthful, so many are such expert bloggers they put me to shame.

The Devil's Kitchen has come up with a well written, candid post on UK charities (with a link to the Fake Charity site) and the closeness of some to the UK government.  Like DK I always thought at least 80% of a charity's funding came from public donation.  Please do read this article, I'm sure there is information in it that will surprise most of us.

My greatest disappointment is the funding Age Concern receive, because a very good friend of mine is a past president of that 'charity' and we've had many discussions about how it could help the elderly of Scotland more.  Now I know why she couldn't put up a good argument. Alcohol Concern and Ash have always appeared to be sycophants rather than protesters and I gave them credance because of my own bad habits.

My charities are limited;  I donate to the Ninewells Cancer Trust (they've finally got a website), they don't advertise and the staff are the creme de la creme of cancer research. They're a small unit with a world-wide impact  and reputation plus all of the donations stay within the Trust here in Scotland.   It wasn't until my Dad died of cancer 21 years ago that I found out about them and that was from one of the nurses at Dundee hospice.  Any extra I have goes to the Salvation Army.

Thank you Dizzy for bringing this gross misapplication of public money to our attention.  I do hope David Cameron et al see your post. Something has to be done and there is a very good suggestion here.

My thanks to Devils Kitchen for your post.       

Tweet