RNLI again.....income well spent?

Tranona said:
Charity Commission comments favourably. I also have heard from other sources I was involved with when doing work with the RNLI that it is probably best not to put on a public forum.
Click to expand...

I can't find any report on the RNLI by the Charity Commission, let alone one saying that it's "one of the best run charitable organisations in the country". You probably realise that some unverifiable anecdotes from people you know who are linked to the RNLI don't really meet the criteria for "generally considered by those that know".
 
Last edited:
JumbleDuck said:
Who has said that, and based on what criteria? Is there a UK equivalent of CharityWatch?
Click to expand...

I have said it more than once based on my not inconsiderable experience of "working" (volunteering) in the charity sector at trustee / director level

No large organisation is perfect, of course, but the RNLI is definitely considered to be one of the best third sector (as it's now fashionable to call it) organisations and both the envy of and a role model for other "doing"* charities

* My own definition: "doing" charities are charities that actively do things, such as run lifeboats, restore historic buildings, ships etc, etc. as opposed to "money" charities which exist to raise money, or manage a legacy or trust, and hand it over to others to do things with. Technically, only the latter are actually true charities by the way!
 
Moodyman said:
With recent comments on the RNLI I had a brief look at their latest annual report, and noted the following:

Total Income £191.9M

Total Costs £171.3M

Capex £49.5 (to come from the reserves)

Gross Revenue for the year £- 28.9M

So a soundly run operation on a not for profit basis but then you look at;

Staff Costs £75.3m (39% of Revenue which is very high for any corporate organisation. Normally should be no higher than 20% for a business doing this turnover if it was tightly run so ‘rationalisation’ needed in the RNLI I think)

Of which 35 people take £2.285M

And the rest (excluding seasonal workers) of 1,608 make up the rest of the Staff Costs or approx. £73M which means an average salary of £45,407 for those 1,608.

What do they all do should be the question?

Even if you exclude all the ‘Lifeboat Service’ of 310, ‘Lifeboat Equipment & Property’ of 566 and the 65 in ‘Rescue and International’ you’re left with 104 in ‘Safety and Education’, 282 in ‘Support’ (whatever that is) 264 managing ‘Legacies and Donations’ and 17 in ‘Trading Activities’.

What do they all do, why are they paid £45K on average and are they necessary?

If I've misread or misunderstood what's in the report no doubt someone will let me know

I should say that none of the above is any criticism of the brave volunteers who put themselves at risk every time there's a "shout".
Click to expand...

On another thread earlier this year I commented on what I thought was a new home for Loch Ness inshore rib.
Those who know it will be familiar with the little harbour at the head of Urquhart Bay.
So it began with the creation of another harbour wall-steel pilings hammered down then a heavy duty reinforced concrete wall and flat standing in the middle of which appeared an adjustable launch and recover ramp.
Then there was the shed a massive over the top steel and concrete affair(remember an inshore rib).
Finally a two story house completely out of character for the area.
It has cost a mere one million pounds to construct ,its still not finished and in the same 9 months or so since its start they have built a brand new shopping mal in Fort William!
My local garage proprietor whose family own the land its built on and who is an avid sailor himself like me thinks its a complete waste of time and money.
I repeat one million pounds!
 
ffiill said:
On another thread earlier this year I commented on what I thought was a new home for Loch Ness inshore rib.
Those who know it will be familiar with the little harbour at the head of Urquhart Bay.
So it began with the creation of another harbour wall-steel pilings hammered down then a heavy duty reinforced concrete wall and flat standing in the middle of which appeared an adjustable launch and recover ramp.
Then there was the shed a massive over the top steel and concrete affair(remember an inshore rib).
Finally a two story house completely out of character for the area.
It has cost a mere one million pounds to construct ,its still not finished and in the same 9 months or so since its start they have built a brand new shopping mal in Fort William!
My local garage proprietor whose family own the land its built on and who is an avid sailor himself like me thinks its a complete waste of time and money.
I repeat one million pounds!
Click to expand...

A mere snippet. The boathouse at St David's cost in excess of £10m.
 
Let me ask the RNLI knockers a couple of questions:-

Is their record of saving life and property satisfactory?

Is there a cost to the taxpayer?

If the anwers are yes to the first and no to the second it becomes clear there is not a problem.

The RNLI have to spend the income and accrued capital they recieve from fundraising and donations within the Charity regulations. They are constrained by this in some areas, as well as being free in others to be more profligate than might be considered neccessary in others. They are not required to answer to shareholders or Government Ministers, just the public who are the source of their income.If the public become dissilusioned with the RNLI things might change, but untill that time dont rock the boat!

If it aint broke dont fix it.......................................
 
Last edited:
rotrax said:
Let me ask the RNLI knockers a couple of questions:-

Is their record of saving life and property satisfactory?

Is there a cost to the taxpayer?

If the anwers are yes to the first and no to the second it becomes clear there is not a problem.

The RNLI have to spend the income and accrued capital they recieve from fundraising and donations within the Charity regulations. They are constrained by this in some areas, as well as being free in others to be more profligate than might be considered neccessary in others. They are not required to answer to shareholders or Government Ministers, just the public who are the source of their income.If the public become dissilusioned with the RNLI things might change, but untill that time dont rock the boat!

If it aint broke dont fix it.......................................
Click to expand...

+1
 
rotrax said:
. They are not required to answer to shareholders or Government Ministers, just the public who are the source of their income.If the public become dissilusioned with the RNLI things might change, but untill that time dont rock the boat!

If it aint broke dont fix it.......................................
Click to expand...
ive been the trustee of a household name charity of similar scale to the RNLI, you over simplify the problem. The rnli go out seeking money, if they keep raising more than they really need it potentially prevents other charities from receiving the funding, if you have too much cash there is an argument to scale back on the fundraising.. Further if you have excess funds available then until there are no deaths at sea the question must always be what more could they do? They have started thinking outside the box with things like lifejacket lockers etc, on a pound per life saved basis those may prove more valuable than yet another fancy station. The difficulty comes that legacies (a huge source of income for them) often come with strings attached - "I leave £x for the purchase of a lifeboat in yyy" being a classic example. Great - but that is not the area with the greatest need, or possibly even a lifeboat anymore! Such restricted funds are a total PITA for charity trustees, and even more so for the finance managers. Finally every charity is only one big PR disaster away from its finances being scuppered, it is entirely right that donors and trustees regularly question both how they spend the money and how it is perceived they spend the money.

Threads like this serve as a warning to the trustees that some people who should be most appreciative of their services are uncertain about its efficacy, and so there is a risk that the pile of cards could fall.

Having said all that I do believe wealthy upper middle class donors like to be associated with highly professional prestige organisations. Ironically if the landrover and trailer were a bit rusty and the ILB tubes sun bleached their legacy income may fall despite it implying a greater need!
 
A lot of sense in the above post.

But, at this moment in time the RNLI is well funded and manages the waterborne SAR service for the UK well.

This might not be the case in the future.

That is when the guys who recieve the big salaries will start to earn their wages-or be bought to account!

I dont believe the RNLI has any serious flaws in its operational capacity, or its fundraising capabilities.

The organisation will have its public face determined by marketing and social media guru's.

They wont always get that part right................................
 
ylop said:
SNIP
The difficulty comes that legacies (a huge source of income for them) often come with strings attached - "I leave £x for the purchase of a lifeboat in yyy" being a classic example. Great - but that is not the area with the greatest need, or possibly even a lifeboat anymore! Such restricted funds are a total PITA for charity trustees, and even more so for the finance managers.
SNIP
Click to expand...

AMEN!!! Every Parochial Church Council in the land suffers from this one; legacies left in good faith for things that were a Good Idea way back but which are now simply holding back the development of the church to suit current needs. Memorials are a particular problem, as well. And then there are massive funds that can only be used for things (such as education) where the need has been taken over by secular organizations, but which cannot be directed to assist the current setup because the legacy included conditions that are incompatible with a secular school.
I guess the RNLI must have considerable funds that are locked away by conditions such as the above, where there is no longer any need for a lifeboat at yyy! And short of a complex and possibly unsuccessful legal process, the money can ONLY be used for the designated purpose.

Legacies are a particular problem, as the beneficiary organization doesn't get to see the terms until it is too late to do anything. I think that a lot of organizations will not accept gifts that come with conditions, unless the conditions are ones that a) they are happy with and b) have no long term implications.
 
rotrax said:
A lot of sense in the above post.

But, at this moment in time the RNLI is well funded and manages the waterborne SAR service for the UK well.
Click to expand...

No, the RNLI provides part of the waterborne SAR service, although it would love you to think it manages all of it.

Over 140 independent boats from 60 independent services, plus Lowland SAR and Mountain Rescue, plus dedicated inland water rescue organisations, plus Fire & Rescue and Police also provide a waterborne response.

In the Solent, for example, independent lifeboats attend more service calls than the RNLI.
 
Sailfree said:
Do the actual people that man the lifeboats get paid anything?

No criticism intended just curious.

Personally I am a great Fan of the RNLI but hope the senior people are not benefiting from others contributions by paying themselves more than the job rates as I would not like anything to detract from the esteem in which most hold them.

I mention that as senior staff in schools/councils/utilities/banks do seem to all suffer from that!
Click to expand...

I assume the beach lifeguards that are funded by the RNLI are paid, at least for the six months they patrol the beaches.
 
With regard to ringfenced funds (e.g. moneys left in a legacy for a specific stated purpose) it isn't actually THAT difficult to redirect the money if the trustees can satisfy the auditors and the Charity Commissioners that the original purpose is no longer feasible and provided the new purpose to which the moneys are to be put is compatible with the benefactors original intent

So, for example, if Mrs Mop leaves £100k for a new lifeboat at Snoozing-on-Sea but that station has closed with no realistic prospect of it ever opening, it's fairly straightforward to put the money towards a new lifeboat at Lively Harbour just up the coast

Less likely to be deemed acceptable would be to spend the money on general expenditure or building a new station at Lonely Loch 300 miles away

The issue of ringfenced legacies should not be, but often is, confused with trusts. It is trusts which are the bane of the life of parish officer etc. Back in 17-oh-something The Hon. Bufton Tufton left £200 in his will to establish a trust "for the relief of the poor of the parish of Much Grumping" which was a fine thing to do two or three hundred years ago. Today, the income from the trust is £3.50 per annum and it costs the parish £300 a year to administer it! (Trust me, that really is NOT an exaggeration! It's an extreme example but one I've come across for real). Rarely was any provision made in the original bequest for winding up the trust and up until quite recently the trustees had to go to court to apply for an order to dissolve it. (I think that has now changed but I've been out of the charity loop for a decade or so now)
 
Tranona said:
Charity Commission comments favourably. I also have heard from other sources I was involved with when doing work with the RNLI that it is probably best not to put on a public forum.
Click to expand...

The Charity Commission is absolutely useless. Cases of fraudulent charities abound and not a thing is done.
 
chanelyacht said:
No, the RNLI provides part of the waterborne SAR service, although it would love you to think it manages all of it.

Over 140 independent boats from 60 independent services, plus Lowland SAR and Mountain Rescue, plus dedicated inland water rescue organisations, plus Fire & Rescue and Police also provide a waterborne response.

In the Solent, for example, independent lifeboats attend more service calls than the RNLI.
Click to expand...

I think you will agree that the RNLI provides the MAJORITY of waterbourne SAR services in the UK and Ireland.

I apologise for forgeting the independents, who do a great job.

And who also mostly operate as charities supported by donations and local fundraising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top