National Autistic Society, Are they a Business or a Charity?

Post Reply New Topic

Some questions that must be raised regarding the lack of transparency and accountability at NAS, who seem more concerned with speeches, conferences, awards and meetings rather than directly helping those with an ASD. Consequently many people are being refused help.

Is is right that 20 executives should receive in excess of £2.1 million pounds per year ? Afterall NAS is a charity not a bank or a business, therefore it's very existence should rely on those being charitable.
Is it morally acceptable that Mark Lever the Chief Executive of NAS should receive a salary of £140,000.

Is it right that these 20 people can afford to live in relative luxury - paid from from funds that are given and donated to supposedly help those with Autism especially when the majority of the very people they claim to represent are not working and have to live on £71/£99 per week ESA and need all the help they can get ?

There are many more important points that need to be looked at which call the integrity of NAS into question ? NAS should be dissolved and should be replaced with another organisation which is more transparent and more accountable and which actually directly helps those with an ASD.

Please view all the points and petition here

oops, am not allowed to post the link -= go to activism dot com and search for NAS or National Autistic Society and you will see the petition.

if true that sounds pretty shocking.

The NAS is registered as a charity in England and Wales (269425) and in Scotland (SC039427), and their finances will be subject to the same regulations and controls as any other charity.

This sounds rather like the similar, unfounded, accusations made against Autism Speaks' finances and is likely as easily resolved in the same manner.
Paull - to make your case, if any, you should compare the remunerations of the executives at the NAS with the remunerations of executives at charities of a similar size and turnover.
Ranting because you think it looks wrong is not a valid case.

Id suggest get hold of their accounts for some proof.

This page might provide a useful hint, and the rest of the site a useful resource:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/FA ... ID103.aspx

But I doubt the most basic research will have been done, if the opinions expressed in the OP are any guide.

They're a business - in spite of their "Charity" status - just like any church is a business in spite of its "Non-Profit" status.

why arent you allowed to post the link.as far as i know what people arent allowed to do is post unsubstanciated accusation that can backed up with evidence

Users under a certain amount of posts aren't allowed to use links.

I, however, can. The petition is here.

In a more general sense there is often a lack of information about how charities make use of their funding. There is no (easy) way for the public to tell what percentage of the charity's donations go to the cause they raise money for versus the amount used for administration or fundraising.

I can see there being a need to spend on administration and fundraising as this is essential for the smooth running of the charity. Not all staff can be volunteers.

According to the NAS website they spend 12% of their income on administration. This is greater than the entire amount they receive from individual donations!

It seems that they have effectively become a service provider for local authorities (running schools and support groups) with a far smaller element funded by donations. Having a more definite split between the two sections would probably be beneficial as it would allow donors to be a lot more clear how their money was spent.

The Annual Reports and Accounts are freely available here:
http://www.autism.org.uk/news-and-event ... 1F811&_z=z

Per the link provided in the OP post, the NAS includes elements of expense under administration expenses including: "(eg building, rent, finance, IT, HR, governance, marketing, fundraising, etc)" It is not uncommon for organizations in the US to spend upwards of 12% of their revenue on just fundraising.

The organization manages a budget of over 100M equivalent US dollars. The CEO median salaries for organizations this size in the US are between 300K and 400K. Lever makes under 200K per equivalent US dollars. The NAS operates schools and residential services for people on the spectrum, under contract with funding provided by local authorities. There is no US equivalent national charitable organization like this.

I think the question might be what is it that they are doing that is not beneficial to people on the spectrum. I have never heard anything but praise for the organization, in comparisons to charitable organizations in the US. The organization is described in their financial report as dedicating almost the entire mission to support individuals on the spectrum through awareness, educational, and residential services.

Autism Speaks attempted to start a research organization in the UK but was only successful in raising close to 1 million in US equivalent dollars. Soon after separating ties with that organization, along with a change of name to Autistica.

Funding for the NAS is close to 10 million equivalent US dollars by voluntary contributions, but those national dollars of donation do not come nearly as easy in the UK. There is no way this organization could provide any substantial services to people on the spectrum if the government did not provide funding, nor any other charitable organization in the UK. But never the less, independent of sources of funding, the task to be accomplished and the expertise required to meet that task, is no small feat of effort, nor could be reasonably expected to come without a price accommodating the effort.

In addition the NAS is more aligned with the social model of disability, than any large national autism organization in the US. It would likely be a dream come true for the self-advocacy movement in the US, for a major organization to operate like the NAS in the US.

If the voluntary contributions to the NAS were decreased or eliminated, it could only mean the organization would not be able to accomplish what appears to be a positive mission, from observance of the accomplishments made in their financial report.

I don't live in the UK, so I obviously don't have full insight into the organization, but I am surprised to see it criticized, simply because no one seems to have ever criticized it before here.

I don't know much about this, I admit, since I don't live in the UK, but I got the idea that they do help individuals with autism pretty well. For example, this person said that she has a support worker from NAS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5172632 ... t=#5172632 . Here in Toronto, there isn't any organization that can send out support workers to assist people with everyday situations, and I have asked many specific autism organizations directly about this, so I know.

anyone who calls this a business needs their head looked at, theres hardly a cashier with a wad of cheques handing them out is there? i think that they need to check their stats again fully to be aware that they're not falsely misrepresenting themselves as raiders of a lost cause if indeed there is a betrayal..

A simple calculation using the information provided on page 58 of the NAS Trustees annual report and accounts March 2012 does indeed confirm an expenditure of at least £2.1 million on the staff costs of those earning in excess of £60,000. I do note however that there were 30 people in this group rather than the 20 you claimed. This makes quite a difference to your claim.

It would also be interesting to see how this compares to other similar sized charities. I suspect that we would find it very comparable and so whilst we of course wish the staff would give of their time for a heavily discounted rate I don't see the problem you refer to. They publish their financial data and so are open in their staff pay.

On a personal note, I have benefited significantly from attending NAS social groups in the last three years after suddenly finding out I was an Aspie at 38. Of course the NAS are not perfect - but then which organisation is?

this is exactly what ive been saying although i'll admit i didn't know about the problems happening within the NAS itself, ive only tried to contact my own m.p about autism stratedgies and targets and what there ought to be are walk in centres, agencies etc, specific to the cause and issues raised within the only name regarding the truth and not just be shunned off with a benefit title to gloss over the comments which are living and breathing in our society. ive spoken up for this several times anyway, and hope to find a bigger a better cause one day which highlights what people are saying and not scrolling back up.

I resigned from the NAS last week after having spent a month training with them and working for them for 3 months - the training was excellent. I worked for Outward in Camden, london for 2 years until 15 months ago, when i walked out after I realised the company were effectively trying to replace paid support-workers with volunteers to save money. I was 1 to 2 with the support in a supported-living house, and then it became 1 to 3 and it became unbearable as the high needs clients were being compromised in their attention due to the increasingly thinned out practice of the company. I was very dissilusioned and left, allwoing a year to recover and work in other areas. It is higly suspect behaviour to expect autistic clients of any capacity - hig or low needs - to be expected to be taken care of by "volunteers" - being paid is essential so we are held accountable.

But, last week i left the NAS and I doubt I will go back into the profession again considering how the pay/bank hours structure is that has been adopted by most if not all of the so called "charities" that The National Autistic Society purport to be. My first question when I had training was "what percentage of the revenue and companies business is private equity, and what is considered CHARITY?" this makes a huge difference. If they were a 100% charity, the profits would have to go back into the infrastructure and personnel of the company. But since most charities, as already mentioned are actually more BUSINESS now than charities, meaning they rely heavily on profit and taking the money for personal wages and non-internal implementation, it has now probably become like any other company - they are there to make a profit because they can. There is no regulation for this behaviour. I see no problem in making a profit if the work force are treated fairly and well, but I didn't see this in the NAS nor Outward, so I left. The best workers have left because of this from what I've seen.

I was not treated well with the NAS, nor with Outward (who are one of the worst companies/charities I have worked for - zero training, medical training, etc). i applied for a job at £9.03/hr. After my training they said this was wrong and it will go down to £8.00/hr - I made a stink and told them this was illegal - I applied for the first rate and my contract said so. I eventually settled for £8.50/hr. Barely acceptable for the work. I was working with Asperger's clients, and my skills are actually best with high/very-high needs, so I asked to work with those clinents. My wage went down to £7.50/hr!! !! ! I walked out that minute. THAT is what the NAS are about - messing people around who are there to help. The training was excellent, but during the training almost everyone was becoming disillusioned by the fact the NAS were totally non-transparent with their methods of pay, organisation, why problems were happening, etc. Their excuse was there are changes going on and hiccups happen. Not good enough.

I am saddened by this as it was a new career path I was moving into after having been an Architect for many years, and that field is dying also. It is absolutely disgusting that the NAS and other "charities" that help autistic clients, are taking so much for themselves with the pretence that they are a charitable organisation - they are not, they are small part charity/larger part profit making business, in it for the money. Why are their wages amounting to £2.1million for so few people - how is this allowed? Shameful.

This is why the world is falling into the gutter, because where people like me, who have so much to give to the absolutely amazing clients i worked with, who made my day so exciting and my life worthwhile like I haven't had for ages, will now not have good, sincere help, nor so many fantastic workers who I know have left the profession for the same reasons as me, all because the money that is going into the pockets of the COMPANY instead of increasing the wages of the workers who make it all happen. This is NOT TESCOS, this is far more improtant. I can not live on £7.50/hr as an adult, simple.

I am ashamed at how the NAS, Outward and many other so called "charities" are acting so uncharitably.

Last edited by Kolya on 05 Nov 2013, 7:50 am, edited 5 times in total.