Non-Profit Organisations

[Bloomdido]

As HeadingNorth said, 'Not for profits' have a Reserves Policy . They can stash away what isn't ring-fenced or has to be spent within the fiscal year.

 

It pays to have a look how your Charities are spending your cash and how much of it they are sitting on. Who actually makes an informed decision before donating? I didn't.

[Resident]

What I missed out and I'll blame being tired is that the company running this service is a Ltd company, registered with companies house. However to it's patrons it claims to be a community owned/run service for the benefit of the Sheffield community.

 

Well that is until you have cause for complaint at which point it clams up claiming it's a private business and they'll run it as they see fit even if it means no longer including the complainee.

[ECCOnoob]

The law makes them register at companies house.

 

Even a social enterprise even with just unpaid volunteer directors and no paid staff has to be registed as a company.

 

My group has no paid staff or directors. We even have some company directors with learning disabilities. We are registered as a limited company because it protects us. If we went bankrupt we would only be personally liabile for £1.00 each.

 

Nothing from our profits is kept, dished out, given to overpaid execuitves or their drivers.

 

Stop taking things at face value and read between the lines. Not every company is take take take from the government funds. Not every "not for profit" has a board of execs with chauffers.

 

Lots of people are working damn hard for nothing to keep their respective groups, organisations or not profit companies running. Maybe do something yourself and you might learn how it works rather than sitting behind your keyboards on here.

[GrapeApe]

NPOs and charities not an honest one amongst them. .

 

I think that's rubbish. All the charities and social enterprises I work with are 100% bona fide and dedicated to their cause.

[Cyclone]

 

Not for profit models should be more compared to something like the RSPCA, PDSA, Mencap or McMillan.

 

RSPCA: Mark Watts, chief executive, received £105,500 in pay and perks in the year to April 2009.[/b]

 

From the RSPCA Trustees report 2008:

The salaries are shown on page 23. They come to £46,554,000 – plus £997,000 for temporary and agency staff.[/color]

Higher paid staff are as follows:

£60,000 - £69,000 - 9 people

£70,000 - £79,000 - 4 people

£80,000 - £89,000 - 2 people

£90,000 - £99,000 - 1 person

£100,000 - £109,000 - 1 person

Hmm. If each of the above is paid in the mid range this comes to a total of £1,255,000 per annum for only 17 staff.

 

 

The RSPCA pay some people quite a lot of money!

[Cyclone]

The law makes them register at companies house.

 

Even a social enterprise even with just unpaid volunteer directors and no paid staff has to be registed as a company.

 

My group has no paid staff or directors. We even have some company directors with learning disabilities. We are registered as a limited company because it protects us. If we went bankrupt we would only be personally liabile for £1.00 each.

Sounds like you might be registered as a company limited by guarantee, rather than a limited company.

 

Nothing from our profits is kept, dished out, given to overpaid execuitves or their drivers.

 

Stop taking things at face value and read between the lines. Not every company is take take take from the government funds. Not every "not for profit" has a board of execs with chauffers.

 

Lots of people are working damn hard for nothing to keep their respective groups, organisations or not profit companies running. Maybe do something yourself and you might learn how it works rather than sitting behind your keyboards on here.

 

There is nothing underhand about a charity paying for staff.

[HeadingNorth]

There is nothing underhand about a charity paying for staff.

 

There isn't, but some on here appear to be claiming that there is; and furthermore, claiming that all charities do pay for staff.

 

ECCO is defending against the latter point, but I don't think he would agree with the former point either.

[fake]

Nothing from our profits is kept, dished out, given to overpaid execuitves or their drivers.

 

As for profits, is that the net profit after expenses and running costs have been deducted from the gross, as is common practice?

 

With the other charities that have paid staff they also have wages to be included so only a fraction is then available after deductions to give away.

 

Stop taking things at face value and read between the lines. Not every company is take take take from the government funds. Not every "not for profit" has a board of execs with chauffers.

I know and that's why I said the majority and not all.

 

Suppliers such as crapita, liberarce, sohdexo and a4e might not be NFP organisations but Wise Ability and also what was their partner, Remploy are.

 

Remploy, a charity are now having problems because of the withdrawal of the £25,000 per person government subsidy. Wise, get millions in government contracts, provide services which are paid for and yet are a charity.

 

Maybe its time the whole idea of charitable status was reviewed as some seem to be abusing it and there now seems to be a fine line between charity and big business.

 

Maybe do something yourself and you might learn how it works rather than sitting behind your keyboards on here.

 

I have done voluntary and charity work a number of times and in each case the person giving the orders was a waged employee. I also know of several instances where well paid jobs were created, money was squandered and then the companies went bankrupt owing plenty. Sheffield is littered with failed forums and schemes like these which generally operate as NFP organisations. I'm sure the same applies elsewhere.

[Rupert_Baehr]

What do you understand by the term 'Non-profit organisation'?

 

I suspect that the term may mean different things to different people. it appears - from some of the posts on this thread - that the posters equate the term 'Non-profit organisation' with the term 'Charity'.

 

Not everybody uses that interpretation.

 

The community in which I live (during the months October- May) is a 'non-profit organisation.'

 

It's certainly not a charity! - It's a Limited-liability Company owned by me (and my co-residents) which operates to provide services to the 'shareholders' members in as efficient a manner as is possible.

 

It has a board of (unpaid) directors a (well-paid) management team and a well-paid team of employees. It makes (hopefully) an 'operating surplus' each year (which tends [for a number of reasons] to be retained in contingency funds, but which - should the surplus be excessive - could be returned to the members.

 

It does not make a profit. It is not a charity. It is, however, a very efficient (and cost-effective) way of running a community.

[HeadingNorth]

Most people, Rupert, would call that "operating surplus" a profit. I would myself. That said, I'd still accept that you are a non-profit organisation if that money is kept only for future operations, and not dished out to anyone as a reward.

 

 

I suspect that much, if not all, of the scepticism regarding 'non-profit organisations' stems from precisely that difference of opinion over what counts as a profit and what does not.