Olympics: small charities for the high jump
Great, we got the Olympics. Not so great: smaller charities will inevitably suffer. The funds they usually get will divert to bullet trains and an 80,000-seater stadium.
As you probably know, many small charities rely heavily on grants or contracts with local or central government. They have to, since the money donated by the public is sucked up by the large charities which send us pens and which we therefore know. You haven't heard of most of them. And you certainly won't after 2012 because several of them are in for the chop.
"Some of the resources invested in East London will now not be available for regenerating other parts of the capital"
Most observers of the Olympics agree on one thing: it costs the host city a fortune to stage and, in most cases, a loss. This Forbes article has an ironic take on it.
Los Angeles is the only city which in recent years came out on top, largely because it didn't build anything new. London on the other hand will be starting from scratch on the Hackney Marshes. The scale of the plans is astonishing. As are the cost estimates. And according to this 1992 British Olympian, they're bound to grow.
It will bring work, visitors and nice housing to the poorest part of London. But London School of Economics specialist Tony Travers predicts, "Some of the resources invested in East London will now not be available for regenerating other parts of the capital. Within the local boroughs... there will be a steep addition to the cost of running basic services as 2012 approaches. There will be environmental improvements to fund, new facilities to run and, eventually, much litter to pick up. Not all of these costs will be met from Whitehall grants."
What to do? Adopting a local charity - smart advice in any case - is a good place to start.
posted by David Pitchford @ 4:10 PM
3 Comments:
this just highlights the problems small charities face continually with trust funds etc who change criteria on a regular basis. they spend huge amounts of time and effort applying for funds with results mimicking the lottery. the public are charities best resource in creating stability and at times like this we need to respond accordingly with regular donations.
this just highlights the problems small charities face continually with trust funds etc who change criteria on a regular basis. they spend huge amounts of time and effort applying for funds with results mimicking the lottery. the public are charities best resource in creating stability and at times like this we need to respond accordingly with regular donations.
Why don't smaller charities increase in size? That way they could benefit from the economies of scale and get more attention.
Complaining that they're being pushed aside for the Olympics is a rather selfish way of looking at things. It's not the country's fault that they're small.
Post a Comment
<< Home