I'd say it impossible to run a charity of any size without some permanent
employees. Just how many people could you find who are willing (and
qualified) to take on what would be a full time job for free?

Which is better - a full time registered charity providing essential
services to a council in exchange for funding - or a commercial firm doing
the same thing? With shareholders to be paid.

Of course you could argue that a decent welfare state would have no need
of any charities. But the way things are these days many essential
services are provided by charities, rather than by the appropriate
authority.

I'll give one example. A single pal is pretty ill with various cancers
including bone cancer. He is still just about managing to live at home.
His pain management is provided by nurses from the Trinity Hospice. A
charity. Which does all the usual fund raising through charity shops etc.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Which is better - a full time registered charity providing essential
services to a council in exchange for funding - or a commercial firm
doing the same thing? With shareholders to be paid.

Whichever provides better value for money - eg the best care for the
money available - which is not necessarily the charity.

Much of the managerial theory of firms applies to charities as to other
organisations. So, for example, the top management of a charity may
decide the key objective is to become "the leading charity for [x] in
the UK". That can then justify (in their view) switching spending of
charitable donations from direct "good works" to publicity and lobbying
(and the press officers etc to do it). It's all justified by the
greater good that will come from the ultimate accrual of power and
influence - and beating the competing charities.

Also don't assume that charitable operations don't have to make a return
on capital. Most charities competing for government business operate
through subsidiary trading company which transfer some or all of the
profits of that company back to the charity as a donation. The trustees
of the charity ought to be asking some serious questions if the company
is not making a return on any capital provided by the charity.

--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

In article ,
Robin wrote:
Which is better - a full time registered charity providing essential
services to a council in exchange for funding - or a commercial firm
doing the same thing? With shareholders to be paid.

Whichever provides better value for money - eg the best care for the
money available - which is not necessarily the charity.

Didn't say it was.

Much of the managerial theory of firms applies to charities as to other
organisations. So, for example, the top management of a charity may
decide the key objective is to become "the leading charity for [x] in
the UK". That can then justify (in their view) switching spending of
charitable donations from direct "good works" to publicity and lobbying
(and the press officers etc to do it). It's all justified by the
greater good that will come from the ultimate accrual of power and
influence - and beating the competing charities.

Also don't assume that charitable operations don't have to make a return
on capital. Most charities competing for government business operate
through subsidiary trading company which transfer some or all of the
profits of that company back to the charity as a donation. The trustees
of the charity ought to be asking some serious questions if the company
is not making a return on any capital provided by the charity.

Given the amount of dubious practices between councils and commercial
organisations, I'd still put my money on the average charity.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/08/2011 10:37, Robin wrote:
Which is better - a full time registered charity providing essential
services to a council in exchange for funding - or a commercial firm
doing the same thing? With shareholders to be paid.

Whichever provides better value for money - eg the best care for the
money available - which is not necessarily the charity.

Much of the managerial theory of firms applies to charities as to other
organisations. So, for example, the top management of a charity may
decide the key objective is to become "the leading charity for [x] in
the UK". That can then justify (in their view) switching spending of
charitable donations from direct "good works" to publicity and lobbying
(and the press officers etc to do it). It's all justified by the
greater good that will come from the ultimate accrual of power and
influence - and beating the competing charities.

Also don't assume that charitable operations don't have to make a return
on capital. Most charities competing for government business operate
through subsidiary trading company which transfer some or all of the
profits of that company back to the charity as a donation. The trustees
of the charity ought to be asking some serious questions if the company
is not making a return on any capital provided by the charity.

Around here drug and alcohol charities and the like have to do the same
as many NHS Trusts - tender for the various business available from
PCTs, local authorities, county councils etc. Many are effectively not
for profit businesses.

In article ,
Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
Around here drug and alcohol charities and the like have to do the same
as many NHS Trusts - tender for the various business available from
PCTs, local authorities, county councils etc. Many are effectively not
for profit businesses.

Indeed. And it's important work for all of us. An addict in recovery is
capable of going back to work, rather than being a burden (and worse) on
the community. However, it would be pie in the sky to expect to find
enough trained volunteers to be the councillors, etc.

--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Hugh - Was Invisible" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2011 10:37, Robin wrote:
Which is better - a full time registered charity providing essential
services to a council in exchange for funding - or a commercial firm
doing the same thing? With shareholders to be paid.

Whichever provides better value for money - eg the best care for the
money available - which is not necessarily the charity.

Much of the managerial theory of firms applies to charities as to other
organisations. So, for example, the top management of a charity may
decide the key objective is to become "the leading charity for [x] in
the UK". That can then justify (in their view) switching spending of
charitable donations from direct "good works" to publicity and lobbying
(and the press officers etc to do it). It's all justified by the
greater good that will come from the ultimate accrual of power and
influence - and beating the competing charities.

Also don't assume that charitable operations don't have to make a return
on capital. Most charities competing for government business operate
through subsidiary trading company which transfer some or all of the
profits of that company back to the charity as a donation. The trustees
of the charity ought to be asking some serious questions if the company
is not making a return on any capital provided by the charity.

Around here drug and alcohol charities and the like have to do the same as
many NHS Trusts - tender for the various business available from PCTs,
local authorities, county councils etc. Many are effectively not for
profit businesses.

Course the way to "not have a profit to delclare" is to make sure you spend
all the income...... on something or other.....

Jim K