Posted by keggiemckill on 2014-12-30 16:18:35

Here in Canada, only 23% of donations go to actual research. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade for something like this and perhaps the UK is different. Cancer is a serious issue and it deserves a ton of support. I just wish there were more creditable organizations to donate my money too. I am always hesitant to donating money for a "non profit organization" and getting a tax right off due to it, because it's a way the goverment circumvents having to pay for the research themselves. The goverment would rather give me a small break on my donated money rather than paying for this much needed cure out right. Also any organization that has to pay someone to organize it, is missing the point on true donations. I feel if it were important enough people would donate time to a worthy cause. Not grow fat on the woes of others, like most so said Cancer research companies do. Why would anyone undermind their money providing job to create a cure for something that is so tragic? Instead the research is devoted to making the symptoms more palatable to the patients.

But what do I know, I'm just a cable guy. Good luck and stay Jan-sober Valen!

Posted by Valen on 2014-12-30 16:58:01

Thanks for your vote of support lol

Posted by akaRenton on 2014-12-30 19:09:03

As I work for CRUK, I have to thank you for doing this. Always good to see people getting behind our cause. I'll be dry too, but the fundraising for me will be focussed in our store. Best of luck to you dude!

Posted by akaRenton on 2014-12-30 19:37:49

@keggiemckill

As I work for CRUK I can tell you that we are not only the largest charity in the UK but also have the highest proportion of funds raised making it to the cause. For fundraising it is well over 85% (admin costs sadly do eat some, inevitably). The retail arm with the associated costs of running a store runs at a lower percentage, but is still very very high (we pay all the same bills as any other retailer, despite popular uninformed opinion to the contrary).

I'm curious which charity is it that runs in Canada at that figure though, as it seems low unless they are a very small scale charity. I would guess that either it is a small scale charity, or the figure you quoted is another urban myth taken as gospel.

Posted by keggiemckill on 2014-12-31 06:35:53

I was just discussing this subject with my family yesterday. We discussed several large Charities that proportionally are skewered away from what I feel is an exceptible administration cost. People get paid for working for the charity. Even the Red Cross pay the people that go door to door requesting charity. I know this because I asked the person who came to my door and they confirmed it. If people make earnings to collect donations then they are a business and not a charity. Might as well be the Mob.

I'll go and ask who in specific the charity was that had a 23% of monies going to research as I am not exactly sure which one it was. We discussed several "companies" and I'll have to confirm which one I think it is. The others are not at 85%. If the CRUK are at 85% then that sounds fantastic. I'm glad to hear it numbers so high but they still have to pay employees to participate in a charitable cause. I believe in good will from a personal level and I don't expect pay for doing good will.

I still think charities for diseases are supported by a goverment that doesn't want to fund the needed research. That is a Canadian goverment which provides a Heathcare plan for the citizens. Perhaps the British governments are different and I can not speak for that. I know nothing of CRUK, so I will have to concede that they are doing what they advertise.

I'll respond after when I know which Charity it was.

Posted by akaRenton on 2014-12-31 19:02:35

"I was just discussing this subject with my family yesterday. We discussed several large Charities that proportionally are skewered away from what I feel is an exceptible administration cost. People get paid for working for the charity. Even the Red Cross pay the people that go door to door requesting charity. I know this because I asked the person who came to my door and they confirmed it. If people make earnings to collect donations then they are a business and not a charity. Might as well be the Mob."

I am paid for my role with CRUK. It is the 2nd lowest wage I have had in the 20 years since I left college. It is barely above the minimum wage in the UK, and means that I live very modestly. I accept this as I believe in the cause. Earliest this year I was offered a role with a mainstream retailer for a more than 80% rise in wages. I turned it down because what I do for CRUK has greater value for me.
Charities in the UK used to rely almost exclusively on volunteers to staff and run their shops and administrative roles. It doesn't work. A willingness to help the cause doesn't mean you are the best person to help that cause. Our volunteer staff in the shops do still fill the more basic non-management roles, saving the charity roughly £30million a year in wages. However, you need paid and trained staff to get the most from the stores. Since I took over my branch in August 2011 the shops profits have more than tripled. I am also the regional trainer for new managers, and for health and safety. I receive nothing extra for these duties. My experience and knowledge would for equivalent roles in mainstream retail see me on well over double what I actually am paid.
Of course there are fundraising methods, usually for smaller charities but not always, that do not offer the best method of ensuring the maximum amount reaches the cause. My advice would always be donate directly to a charity that has a cause you believe in and you have thoroughly researched is making the most of your donation. Fifteen minutes with google would be ample time, but more would be better.

"I'll go and ask who in specific the charity was that had a 23% of monies going to research as I am not exactly sure which one it was. We discussed several "companies" and I'll have to confirm which one I think it is. The others are not at 85%. If the CRUK are at 85% then that sounds fantastic. I'm glad to hear it numbers so high but they still have to pay employees to participate in a charitable cause. I believe in good will from a personal level and I don't expect pay for doing good will."

That's a very idealistic and simplistic view of the world. I am contracted for 37 and a half hours a week. I have never worked less than 50, and usually more than 60. I give up time with my family at weekends and evenings to support the cause. But I do have bills to pay, and responsibilities to provide for my family. I could not offer more than probably 10 hours a week if I worked full time elsewhere. Also, the levels of training we receive and provide ensure that the people working for us are able to run the shops to be legally compliant with insurance policies, health and safty legislature and numerous other duties. You wouldn't believe how expensive it could be for a charity to not comply to these and be caught out. the fines for some examples, particularly with regards to health and safety compliance can wipe out years of fundraising for stores.

"I still think charities for diseases are supported by a goverment that doesn't want to fund the needed research. That is a Canadian goverment which provides a Heathcare plan for the citizens. Perhaps the British governments are different and I can not speak for that. I know nothing of CRUK, so I will have to concede that they are doing what they advertise."

Yes, in an ideal world all governments would fund the research directly. However, the necessary tax hikes to support this hugely expensive area is a huge stumbling block. Even small tax rises, for proven worthy work are almost universally hugely unpopular. If you can find me examples of this not being the case I would be hugely happy to find this out. Saying they don't want to fund it is presuming a lot.

We have a healthcare system in the UK too (the NHS). It is struggling just to keep up with providing healthcare and treatment, but does also do research too. You may be unaware just how hugely expensive research into treatments is. It costs over £1million to run 1 trial over here, and that's in labs our charity owns and staffed by researchers who work directly for us for significatly lower money than they could earn in the private sector.
I apologise ifany of this comes across as an attack on you. It is certainly not meant to be. There are however a number of huge misconceptions and myths about charities, and as a representative of the one in question I wanted to respond to some of the issues you raised.

To anyone concerned about what is done with money given to any cause I would encourage you to spend some time researching the charity in question. Don't take at face value information you may have heard from newspapers (in the UK the Daily Mail, a very large publication routinely publishes stories with innacurate information about many subjects including numerous nonsensical claims of things that can cause cancer) or second hand. Take time to double check whether what you have heard is true, you may be passing up the chance to help a very worthy cause due to misinformation. Sadly there are some that don't make the best use of funds raised. I would never donate to a cause I had doubts about either.

Here is a link to CRUK's website. You can donate directly there, which is the most efficient method of giving to a cause.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/


Hope that lot didn't come across too Bono :D