Charities have long occupied a privileged moral high ground, distinct from the state on the one hand and the commercial sector on the other. They lie at the heart of a vibrant civil society and their independence is vital to their success. They enjoy special rights and privileges, benefiting from tax advantages as well as the moral authority associated with charitable status. However, the legitimacy of this status is under threat.In the past few decades, charities have drawn an increasing proportion of their income from local and central government grants and contracts. As a whole, the sector gets nearly half of its income from statutory sources, and some charities receive nearly all of their funding in this way. This in turn has led all political parties to factor them into their policy agendas more than ever before. The state now sets up its own ‘charities’, which provide statutory services, paid for by government, whilst still competing with genuine charities for funds and creating confusion about what a charity is. But is it possible to be independent when delivering services under contract for a provider – or does he who pays the piper pick the tune? What if charities are coming to resemble the statutory departments on which they depend for money? As we witness the emergence of multi-million-pound bureaucracies with armies of paid workers, some of which now engage in highly contentious political activism, we have to find ways of preserving the many small, local, independent organisations which play a vital role in creating inclusive communities, and which increasingly are struggling to survive. Andrew Alexandar, Daily Mail, February 9, 2007What we once thought of as an area of devotion and sacrifice has become very much big business these days. The average highest salary in the top 500 charities is apparently ?83,000 a year!Fifty-six of these chief executives earn over ?100,000 a year, according to the admirable think-tank Civitas in its new booklet Who Cares? It is not too difficult to display devotion to good causes with rewards like that available.Stephen Cook, Third Sector, 7 February, 2007[Who Cares?] unpicks all the anomalies [within the Charity sector], concentrating in particular on the growth in the sector's state income, up from 10 per cent in the mid 1980s to 37 per cent or more today... Nick Seddon comes to the conclusion that the blurring of the divisions between state and third sector is damaging the independence of the sector as a whole, and that it's time for a new dispensation.Public Agenda, 13 February, 2007What's the difference between the NSPCC, Barnardo's and Turning Point? Only the NSPCC has the right to be called a charity, according to the think-tank Civitas.[Who Cares?] argues that tax-breaks should be withdrawn from charities such as Turning Point, Barnardo's and the NCH because they receive more than 70 per cent of their income from the state.

Who Cares?: How State Funding and Political Activism Change Charity PDF

The list of books you might like