Charities .... which would you support, or not?

[jimbouk]

Ive been under the perception that very little money in the big charities actually make it to help them as it goes on admin costs. Or was this just one case which has caused me to not believe most of them?

Sorry for the diversion from the thread, but I thought this one needed answering. Most overheads are fairly small, and the larger charities will often have breakdowns of where their money goes (including overheads). Without some overheads the money would not go to the right places so a necessary evil (if you can call it that).

There are some cases where the admin costs are unnecessary, such as Children In Need where you're better off giving directly to one of the supported charities (and the Give As You Earn scheme tbh), but the cost to the charities is outweighed by the donations they would not normally receive.

[Flash477]

There have been a number of different charities that myself and family have given to - the ones we no longer support are the ones that are constantly sending stuff through the post. I figure that if they can afford to waste a whole load of money on stuff that goes in my shredder, then they'll be able to do without my money.

[matty-hodgson]

I opted to give the price of a pint out of my wages each month to the Great North Air Ambulance, simply because it's a local cause and genuinely needs the money owing to getting no government funding.

And if I ever see a charity bucket in a bar or a shop, I'll always put anything less than 20p into the bucket from my change.

[mcmiller]

PETA - Horribly corrupt charity. Less than 1% of their budget goes to charity work, the rest goes to advertising, convicted criminals and terrorist organisations. They also boast an average kill rate of over 98% on animals they impound(not including animals killed on pickup).

is that actually true?

[jim]

Personally, I would only consider gving to charities that do lasting work. So something like Cancer Research UK I would be happy to donate to, because once I've given that money it will have an effect forever, and potentially help thousands of people.

I'm much less likely to give to a charity like Macmillan. Don't get me wrong, I approve of the work they do, and long may it continue. But when it's my money that I'm handing over, I don't like the idea that one person is assisted, and then my money goes straight down the drain. I prefer it when there's a lasting legacy, ideally as long as possible.

[IBM]

Would/Do support

Kids charities - especially ones focused on third world/war torn countries.

Orphanages - my wife and I donate regularly to two in Indonesia.

Disaster Event Charities

Extreme third world poverty/health charities

Would not/do not Support
Animal charities
Animal charities
and
Animal charities

[sammyc]

Some people are very animal-friendly, or even type of animal friendly, i.e. dogs but not cats, or vice versa

However no animal-friendly people represented here so far, if I'm correct.

A word for why I donate to certain animal charities - those in question are dealing with cases of animal cruelty caused in the main by us humans; so that is our responsibility imo.

[chuckskull]

is that actually true?

Yes that's why I posted it. The kill statistics are PETA's own. Along with sworn statements at trial of two of their employee's for 31 counts of animal cruelty confirming the practice, along with rafts of photographic and video evidence none of which I'll link here, pictures of pet's killed for no reason are a bit beyond what acceptable on a family forum, I think, and they do this on a scale where they had to buy a walk-in refrigerator for their HQ because they could not cremate the ones they killed fast enough.

They have strong ties to The Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, both considered serious domestic terror threats by the FBI. Ingrid Newkirk has endorsed their actions publicly, and I quote; "I will be the last person to condemn ALF." and the charity has donated hundreds of thousands to their members and the organisations themselves.

What PETA actually believes is rather different to their public image. PETA believes in total animal liberation. No eating meat, no wearing animal hides, no companion animals(pets), no working animals, no killing pests, no medicines tested on or derived from animals, even if these measures mean sacrificing human lives, which they would, in the millions.

PETA has repeatedly attacked the Paediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Cancer Society and the March of Dimes, among others.

...even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.

I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow.

Most of this information, including their financials, is publicly available, this site is not particular to PETA but rather more general, but contains a good(SFW, many aren't) source list http://www.animalscam.com/sources.cfm

I'm an animal lover, I've volunteered for animal rescue charities, that's why my hate for PETA and their actions is rather strong. They are extremists. There are many great animal welfare charities out there, make sure your money goes to them, rather than whackjobs with expensive ad campaigns.

[jimbouk]

However no animal-friendly people represented here so far, if I'm correct.

One of my friends selected charities is a wildlife one, does that count? Obviously people do support them, we have a cats and dogs home here in Bath which is well supported through volunteer dog walkers and donation. I think smaller animal charities tend to have to make less compromises than the larger ones, or at least get less press when they do. I feel we could have a long debate about animal charities/keeping pets/putting down animals/etc if we really wanted Maybe another time!

[Steve A]

I would and do give to the following Charities.

Cancer (Various) - not enough is given to these charites to be perfectly honest, pretty sure 99% of people know someone that has had or got cancer so if you dont donate you really should (even £1 a week/month is managable for everyone)

Help for Heroes & SAAFA - Been effected by this unfortunatley so often give donations and support others that help raise funds and awareness,

* im 110% in agreement with chuckskull on this one, we way we treat our servicemen and women is a disgrace, so we have to rely on these charties to help out where the government doesnt, im not saying the government dont do anything but what they do is far from good enough, especially when they are prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

I dont but should charity is ::

NSPCC

WTF!!! .... how anyone could hurt a child is fhsdalfh;sdlqhfsdahfolasdhfoasdhfoasdhf ...... man that gets me angry! (grinds teeth whilst typing) ...... now that i would bring back death penalty for, infact i would personally inject/hang/beat the crap out of them. But again another very worthy cause to donate to and maybe often gets overlooked.

[Gerrard]

RNLI via GAYE and Help for Heroes through various things at work.

[htid]

Oh well I'm the first to support an animal charity then, RSPB. I also support a London homless Charity called St Mungos.

[Zyte]

I wouldve given it all to Diabetes UK due to me being a Type 1 diabetic for the last 19 years, but due to the influx of people being diagnosed with type 2 over the last 5-10 years due to over eating my fondness for the charity which would help me the most is dwindling. This is mainly because i think the resources being put forward to treating and preventing Type 1 diabetes will be sliding across to similar measures for those with Type 2.

Due to my opinions of this i would give the vast majority to cancer research as i, like a lot of people have lost a family member to this, and the remainder to Diabetes UK probably circa £250 mark.

[Mblaster]

If I was to give money to a charity now it'd be Mountain Rescue England and Wales, or maybe to a specific mountain rescue team. Like the RNLI they are unfunded and are pretty much all volunteers. Other types of charities I'd consider are Cancer/Alzheimers/Parkinson's Research charities, and the national trust. As snootyjim said, generally I'd like to give to charities that do lasting work, but that's not always the case (obviously, looking at my selection!).

The types of charities I wouldn't give to are all animal and foreign aid charities. Although I won't bother going into the reasons here...

Basically, it seems for the most part people just want to give to the charities that have impacted their lives and lives of their family/friends, which is kind of to be expected, and it's the charities that people actively choose not to support that are based on their general moral views of who/what deserves their help.

[Alex]

Personally I'm quite against cancer/heart disease/lung foundation charities. This may sound a little odd as I'm a doctor, but it's not because I disagree with the aim, but at the end of the day for me it's about how much difference my money can make.

A cure for 'cancer' in general is not possible. All cancers are different and multifactorial and all cancer therapies are being heavily researched by drug companies who have a lot more to spend. I don't think that my money would achieve much substantial in cancer research. The same really goes for any other medical research charity.

For my hypothetical £1000, I could achieve very little in cancer research. If anyone has worked in a lab they'll know quite how expensive all the equipment is. Chances are that £1000 will not save even one life. For £1000 I could feed a hundred families in third world countries for weeks.

[Zak33]

I'm a devoted Help For Heroes man myself.

RSPCA immediately after that....