[Closed] Do charities have favourite streets?

I'd imagine that [insert charity name here] would use the services of a third party door stepping company who sell their services as getting a high yield of sign up rate / doors knocked. You may find that the same bloke that chaps on your door for Dogs trust one week, is chapping on your door for the (very worth I'd add) GiveScruffCake charity the following fortnight.

What he said.

Charity fund-raising is basically business these days

I have been told that they target areas where people are less well off, so lower working class over more affluent areas.

This is due to poorer people being more likely to donate to charity.

Which explains why they are always on my street, which is mainly populated by people who work in warehouses.

Which explains why they are always on my street, which is mainly populated by people who work in warehouses

Red light district?

Sorry, my mistake.

Warehouses.

As you were

I have been told that they target areas where people are less well off, so lower working class over more affluent areas.

Poorer area is going to have more part-time and or shift workers, so more likely to be in. Plus the houses will be closer together. If charity collecting has become a business, it would make sense to do it right.

Could be seasonal though. Come December I'd hit up millionaires row for a guilt trip rather than those struggling to fund their own Christmas.

As above there are third party agencies who specialise in door to door fundraising - each charity will have a typical profile of the people they want to target and the agency will be able to map that to postcode/street level.

Expect you'll see more face to face fundraising (and unaddressed mail) in the wake of GDPR as its harder to source lists of prospects with appropriate consent.

Plus the houses will be closer together

We're in a borough of a few 1000 Victorian terraced houses, so very efficient from a door knocking perspective..

I’d imagine that [insert charity name here] would use the services of a third party door stepping company who sell their services as getting a high yield of sign up rate / doors knocked.

Completely forgot it would be out sourced....

Charity fund-raising is [s]basically[/s] business these days

I only give to charity direct now where I know 100% of it will go to it's intended cause. Too many people making too much money working for charities

This is due to poorer people being more likely to donate to charity.

Ill need to check to be certain but I’m fairly sure that’s bullshit.

As noted above,  very little chance they’re employees of the charity in question.

Oh, and expect more post btw. You can thank GDPR for that one.

edit, I was beaten to it

Could be seasonal though. Come December I’d hit up millionaires row for a guilt trip rather than those struggling to fund their own Christmas.

Nah, you don’t hit millionaires up with door to door 3rd party approaches.

Ah, possibly the most likely by proportion. That seems plausible.

I refuse to donate to door knockers on principle. It’s bloody rife where I live.

Bah humbug.

I only give to charity direct now where I know 100% of it will go to it’s intended cause.

Id go further than that, I’d read their annual report and especially their accounts then see if you can verify what their charitable activities actually are.

Youll need to factor in a few things of course, some charities might look like they’re hoarding cash but are actually creating the finances needed to build a hospice.

I’d imagine that [insert charity name here] would use the services of a third party door stepping company who sell their services as getting a high yield of sign up rate / doors knocked.

No no need to imagine.

Its a fact.

Data sharing is rife.

HTHs.

Its a fact.

Data sharing is rife.

It is. I used to work for a company that prints lottery/raffle tickets, and also receives back the tickets and money, does the draw, and all the banking. I worked in a number of different areas, including sorting the incoming post and doing database updates. There are certain charities who don’t update their databases, just keep adding lists they’ve bought in, which often contain repeat names with slight variations in spelling. This results in people repeatedly getting mail addressed to deceased family, and getting increasingly frustrated and angry. I’ve found as many as sixteen entries for just one particular person! That means they’ll keep getting mail no matter how often they demand their name be removed. That particular charity is involved in animal welfare, btw.

To be fair, the majority of charities are far more responsible and take databases and their updates seriously. It was rather eye-opening seeing how the system worked from the inside.

Come December I’d hit up millionaires row for a guilt trip rather than those struggling to fund their own Christmas.

Nope. Rich people didn't get rich by giving their money away.  It tends to be the folks in the middle who are the best givers

  I used to work for a company that prints lottery/raffle tickets, and also receives back the tickets and money, does the draw, and all the banking. I worked in a number of different areas, including sorting the incoming post and doing database updates. There are certain charities who don’t update their databases, just keep adding lists they’ve bought in, which often contain repeat names with slight variations in spelling. This results in people repeatedly getting mail addressed to deceased family, and getting increasingly frustrated and angry. I’ve found as many as sixteen entries for just one particular person! That means they’ll keep getting mail no matter how often they demand their name be removed.

I think the "used to" bit is probably relevant here - fundraising databases have been about the most impacted area of data governance by the introduction of GDPR in May - and rightly so, since what you describe was commonplace, and unacceptable.

 I only give to charity direct now where I know 100% of it will go to it’s intended cause. Too many people making too much money working for charities

I'd say that's a little naive - in principle what is the difference between the charity paying its own staff a wage / salary and them outsourcing the stuff that others can do better / more effectively / more efficiently, and those third parties then paying their staff for doing it? It all comes out of the same pot, ultimately. If it gets a better net return to the charity (i.e. more dosh to pursue their charitable mission) to outsource fundraising to specialists, surely that's good news for the beneficiaries?

in principle what is the difference between the charity paying its own staff a wage / salary and them outsourcing

 Doesn’t even need to be a proper charity, could be a local good cause/community group etc.

I'd just advise being a bit careful, do some "due diligence" on these - the regulatory regime for very small charities is not very onerous and if someone is presenting themselves as "like a charity" but without a charity number I'd be wondering why.

Lots of people do lots of good things in communities without wanting to be bogged down with paperwork, but also some scumbags use people's good nature to scam money for entirely fake "charitable" endeavours, and yet other scumbags use seemingly altruistic community activities to get into positions of trust in order to abuse (in all the various horrible ways one can) vulnerable people.

Being a registered charity doesn't in itself prevent either of those scenarios (especially the latter, as lots of case history shows) though. And there are lots and lots of good people doing lots of great things in more or less formalised organisational structures, so please don;t take this post as being anti "grass-roots" community activism, far from it.

Lots of people do lots of good things in communities without wanting to be bogged down with paperwork, but also some scumbags use people’s good nature to scam money for entirely fake “charitable” endeavours

Id go further than that, I’d read their annual report and especially their accounts then see if you can verify what their charitable activities actually are.

Amnesty International sent me their annual report last week, which had all this very clearly explained. I quite like their openness about it. IIRC 25% was spent on maintaining fund base / finding new donations.

I only give to charity direct now where I know 100% of it will go to it’s intended cause. Too many people making too much money working for charities

My largest donations go to a local wildlife Hedgehog hospital which keeps running out of food, so I just get Pets At Home or Amazon to deliver a 100 tins of dog food (or whatever) direct to them...

found some actual stats...
<h2>KEY FINDINGS</h2>

• The average donation in 2014 was £14.
• The average monthly amount given by sponsors in 2014 was £10.The estimated total amount donated to charity by UK adults in 2014 was £10.6 billion.
• 79% of people have participated in at least one charitable action, including volunteering, in the past 12 months.
• People aged 45-64 are the most likely to be involved in charitable actions.
• Older females in higher socio-economic grades are most likely to give money.

https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2015-publications/uk-giving-2014