Confused.com

Now hold off your guns for me asking such a question....... BUT how come large organisations with Royal patronage, who have access to lots more funding avenues, ask local small rescues to take in buns?

Political question I know, I'm just trying to make sense of the whole picture. From my limited view it would seem local rescues are being put in awkward positions by National more greatly funded large organisations?:?

I've lost all faith in them to be fair. I've been a member and have supported them via direct debit for 20 years but am going to cancel it and give my support elsewhere.

PippinWarren said:

From my limited view it would seem local rescues are being put in awkward positions by National more greatly funded large organisations?:?

Click to expand...

Because contrary to popular belief, the local branches where the rescues are located aren't nationally funded! They get the logo and the branding, but they are completely self-funded just like any other rescue It's a really tricky one - part of me thinks that it would be better to support the individual branches with donations etc, but equally we all complain about the lack of inspectors/resource for prosecutions etc, and those are funded through the national channel.

Santa said:

Because contrary to popular belief, the local branches where the rescues are located aren't nationally funded! They get the logo and the branding, but they are completely self-funded just like any other rescue It's a really tricky one - part of me thinks that it would be better to support the individual branches with donations etc, but equally we all complain about the lack of inspectors/resource for prosecutions etc, and those are funded through the national channel.

Click to expand...

Really :shock: So your telling me each local branch has to find their own funding and receives nothing in cash from the national organisation? So how come the national organsation can appeal for help on T.V etc and not declare that none of the donations reach local branches? That's some kind of laundering surely?

Think I feel I need some kind of official response from the national organisations if thats the case. I'm appalled that such garbage is going on. This is one sure way to kiss bye bye to National and hello local independant rescue. Disgraceful if this is really the case.

Santa do you happen to work for one of the national organisations? Are you a mole? :lol:

PippinWarren said:

Really :shock: So your telling me each local branch has to find their own funding and receives nothing in cash from the national organisation? So how come the national organsation can appeal for help on T.V etc and not declare that none of the donations reach local branches? That's some kind of laundering surely?

Think I feel I need some kind of official response from the national organisations if thats the case. I'm appalled that such garbage is going on. This is one sure way to kiss bye bye to National and hello local independant rescue. Disgraceful if this is really the case.

Santa do you happen to work for one of the national organisations? Are you a mole? :lol:

Click to expand...

Not a mole, no :lol:

I don't think there is anything untoward going on, nor do I think it's quite worthy if your reaction, but I do think it lacks transparency that so many people don't realise that local branches don't receive central funding. There might be a few, but the vast majority are 'franchises' in one way or another, with their own funding and policies. they may well be able to apply for grants etc, I don't know - their national accounts will be registered at the charities commission so you can look them up for yourself if you're interested to see where the money is spent.

The problem with kissing bye bye to the national is that leaves us in a situation where there is no organisation who can legally enter properties and take prosecutions on welfare. That is all coordinated nationally...if we take that away, there will be virtually no such thing as a prosecution for welfare offences or animals being seized and removed forcibly from unsuitable owners...

Santa said:

Not a mole, no :lol:

I don't think there is anything untoward going on, nor do I think it's quite worthy if your reaction, but I do think it lacks transparency that so many people don't realise that local branches don't receive central funding. There might be a few, but the vast majority are 'franchises' in one way or another, with their own funding and policies. they may well be able to apply for grants etc, I don't know - their national accounts will be registered at the charities commission so you can look them up for yourself if you're interested to see where the money is spent.

The problem with kissing bye bye to the national is that leaves us in a situation where there is no organisation who can legally enter properties and take prosecutions on welfare. That is all coordinated nationally...if we take that away, there will be virtually no such thing as a prosecution for welfare offences or animals being seized and removed forcibly from unsuitable owners...

Click to expand...

Completely agree with this

The issue is not the charity, but with the law that ties their hands. That's what needs to change. Having worked with said people I know how passionate they are and how frustrating it is for them too. Once one told me that he had to lie about requirements and suchlike to those he was working with in the hope it would make things better for the animals, because they didn't have anything that covered what he needed it to cover. He said that if he had been found out he would have been disciplined.

This might give you some perspective on the difference between Branches (essentially the 'franchises') and also the Centres (run by the National Charity).

http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/showthread.php?262335

Santa said:

Because contrary to popular belief, the local branches where the rescues are located aren't nationally funded! They get the logo and the branding, but they are completely self-funded just like any other rescue

Click to expand...

I had no idea and I am very annoyed about it. :evil: I thought I was reasonably informed about these things but I did believe that the main organisation funded the branches and the branches did what they could to add to their cash tin with local fund-raising. Is there a link to something that describes the funding? I will Google but if you know of something, I'd be interested to know.

ETA: thanks for the link, Sky.

Tatihou said:

I had no idea and I am very annoyed about it. :evil: I thought I was reasonably informed about these things but I did believe that the main organisation funded the branches and the branches did what they could to add to their cash tin with local fund-raising. Is there a link to something that describes the funding? I will Google but if you know of something, I'd be interested to know.

ETA: thanks for the link, Sky.

Click to expand...

From the RSPCA Website http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/aboutus/branches

Not very expansive, but backs up all that has been said here.

Santa said:

The problem with kissing bye bye to the national is that leaves us in a situation where there is no organisation who can legally enter properties and take prosecutions on welfare. That is all coordinated nationally...if we take that away, there will be virtually no such thing as a prosecution for welfare offences or animals being seized and removed forcibly from unsuitable owners...

Click to expand...

The RSPCA have no legal powers to enter peoples property and have no special powers of prosecution. Legally any one of us could do the same things they do. I do support that work but wish it was done officially by a government agency more like the police.

True - I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we took away all national funding and no longer funded inspectors, there would be no national 'helpline' for people to ring to report cruelty cases and the chances of individuals locally picking up that mantle are slim to non-existent. Even if other people could take private prosecutions, it's got to be bad for animal welfare overall. I completely agree with you that it's a ridiculous situation and they really should have used the opportunity in establishing the Animal Welfare Act to enshrine such an agency (whether the RSPCA or someone else) within the legislation.

I am a trustee for my local branch of the RSPCA. We are self funded and can only do fundraising in our specific area. National do dish out money from time to time but it's hard to come by. Our clinic is very important. I would say Yarmouth is a pretty poor area and we all know without the clinic all those animals would not get the treatment they need. Yet we are struggling to get a grant to cover work that needs to be done on the clinic for safety reasons.

If someone wants to leave us money when they die, if they don't state the charity number of the exact branch name in their will, the money goes to HQ and we don't see it. We only have room to house two dogs if we take them in. We as a branch literally cannot afford to look after or house any more for rehoming. As a committee we went though the finances and tried to work out how we could do it, but we physically can't. Even I had to agree that two was all we could do. If or inspectors take a dog and we're full because we have two, the dog has to go to another branch or another charity. I'm sure there are other branches who have the same situation with rabbits. Perhaps their kennels have a lot of dogs and it would be unfair to house rabbits in the midst of barking dogs.

The RSPCA like to put on a front. You know all the TV programmes they do? Animal hospital was my favourite growing up. I remember all the sugar coating, the valiant inspectors rescuing animals from harm and finding them new homes. They only really want to show the happy endings. I asked if we could do a different kind of show. One that explains how the charity works and how we're very short of money. One that follows a couple of branches as they try to do fundraising and find rooms for the 24 cats they just got out of one house. But they won't. I can only speak for my branch. I joined so I could have a say in what happens and make a difference but we can only make as much difference as our funds allow. Which isn't much at the moment.

Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread its been a real eye opener. :shock:

People need to know that branches receive very limited funding from the HQ. I for one have supported national level for years and whilst I understand we need inspectors to step in, more often than not local independant rescues, not branches seem to be picking up the tab.

Back to the age old charity problem I think, too much money is wasted on advertising & National overheads. I feel I have had the wool pulled over my eyes. Branches should make it very publically clear why their funds are so limited.

I know where my charity will begin from now on......just a little bit closer to home. :evil: