Charities wasting our money

HelterSkelter

I just heard an ad on the radio from the Irish Red Cross. They were appealing for donations for the food crisis in Africa. They said you can send donations to their head office in Merrion Square. It made me think, why the hell have they got their offices in probably one of the most expensive locations in the country??? The money they are wasting on that property could be much better used to save starving people in Africa.

Just wondering what people's views are on this.

coffee_cake

Em, how long have they had it and how did they get it? It's a central location easy enough to get to, better there than in the middle of nowhere

Noelie

I was in colllege with a guy who worked for a charity, i think it was oxfam but not sure, any way he done some network installation in his spare time, they used to send him to new york for 3/4 days all covered all his expenses and he used to get about 1000 punt for his few days work, ok he did do 10 hour days, but was still get paided quite a bit. take into account they paid for his flights and Hotel it must have been costing them well over 2000 punt for each person that they send over (he never went over on his own usually 2 to 4 people), surely they could get contractors in the states for less than that.

If the FAI think they can save money by moving from Merrion Square, surely Red Cross could.

HelterSkelter

bluewolf wrote:

Em, how long have they had it and how did they get it? It's a central location easy enough to get to, better there than in the middle of nowhere

I've no idea how long they have it or how they got it.

As for it being in a central location, how many people really go to the charity's office to make their donation? I would have thought most people would donate online/telephone, by post or give to people collecting in the street.

Lindaloo

They may be on a long lease with a set rent, you don't know.

A friend of mine works up there and he's not on great money, he likes the job and the work they do but the RC are in no way frivolous with money.

Every single cent they receive goes to the cause it's for, even if you want your money to go to a country that's sorted out with their crisis that money still goes to them because you said that's where it was to go to.

The situation in Africa is absolutely dire, they aren't getting the coverage they need to highlight it but it's absolutely critical at this stage btw if you are thinking of donating.

Lindaloo

Just to say I'm speaking about the RC, I can't speak about any other charity cos I don't know but I do know the above about the RC

hepcat

Lindaloo wrote:

They may be on a long lease with a set rent, you don't know.

A friend of mine works up there and he's not on great money, he likes the job and the work they do but the RC are in no way frivolous with money.

Every single cent they receive goes to the cause it's for, even if you want your money to go to a country that's sorted out with their crisis that money still goes to them because you said that's where it was to go to.

The situation in Africa is absolutely dire, they aren't getting the coverage they need to highlight it but it's absolutely critical at this stage btw if you are thinking of donating.

People know that the situation in parts of Africa is dire, and peolpe genuinely want to donate to such causes. However I think there is a general uneasiness with nearly all major charities these days. Why indeed can the Red Cross not rent a cheaper property or sell up and use the huge profits they make? What really bothers me is the tactic that charities are using nowadays - those chuggers are just so counter-productive cause they seem just to annoy the hell out of people, on a daily basis. No-one minds a once-off collection drive but having to run the gauntlet every single day, on the way to work at lunch time and on the way home, is a pain in the ass.

Surely registered charities should be made to publish annual accounts, detailing every cent of their costs and showing exactly how much of our donations reach the target?

HelterSkelter

GOAL publish their accounts on PDF here. I haven't read the pdf but they say their admin costs are 5% which is fair enough in my book.

http://www.goal.ie/about/funding.shtml

The_Minister

Lindaloo wrote:

A friend of mine works up there and he's not on great money, he likes the job and the work they do but the RC are in no way frivolous with money.

Every single cent they receive goes to the cause it's for, even if you want your money to go to a country that's sorted out with their crisis that money still goes to them because you said that's where it was to go to.

Who pays his wages then?

Dades

Firespinner wrote:

Who pays his wages then?

Don't you think it's a bit harsh to expect everyone who works there to work for free? The organisation would collapse without it's staff, and without a salary to live on they would have none.

To the OP, suggest you check the facts before posting your rant. Speculation is not fact.

The_Minister

The Atheist wrote:

Don't you think it's a bit harsh to expect everyone who works there to work for free? The organisation would collapse without it's staff, and without a salary to live on they would have none.

Are staff paid from government grants or from donations?

HelterSkelter

The Atheist wrote:

To the OP, suggest you check the facts before posting your rant. Speculation is not fact.

Erm, their head office is on Merrion Square, that is a fact. What other facts do you think I should check?

MrPudding

HelterSkelter wrote:

Erm, their head office is on Merrion Square, that is a fact. What other facts do you think I should check?

Do they rent it? Is it borrowed? Do they own it or but are precluded from selling it? Was it given to them as a gift which they cannot sell? There is 4 things you could check for a start.

MrP

Dades

Firespinner wrote:

Are staff paid from government grants or from donations?

I would presume donations, so no, every cent does not end up in a starving child.
But I don't see this point as constructive.

BuffyBot

Speculation is not fact.

Why let those pesky facts get in the way..

FlutterinBantam

I wonder how much David Andrews gets as Chairman of the IRC?

He is currently down in Ethiopia... did they travel business class...

I hear Fergal Keane of RTE is down there as well... who paid for him???


Just wonderin' thats all

The_Minister

The Atheist wrote:

I would presume donations, so no, every cent does not end up in a starving child.
But I don't see this point as constructive.

If you check the post which started this little tangent you will see I was actually wondering how all the money went to the cause when there was admin costs. I know that these are unavoidable I just wanted to clarify his post.

Victor

Quite a few charities operate their overheads out of government grants for overheads, so all your donation does go direct to the cause.

How about the suppliers of food, medical equipment, emergency supplies, etc. should they not give everything free?

Lindaloo

The Atheist wrote:

I would presume donations, so no, every cent does not end up in a starving child.

All I know is when I asked him before about donations, he said that every cent that people donate goes to the specific cause that they requested. Like I said, there may be a country that was in dire need, they got millions and have since got back on their feet, their may be money still there but they cannot transfer it to another cause because the donor requested what they wanted. (note - always tick wherever needed box)

They only contact people who have signed up or have previously donated, I'm 99.9% sure that they don't have chuggers (open to correction!)

Did a google, this may explain the wages and admin -

"2.—The Minister for Finance may, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, afford assistance to the Society by way of grant or loan on such terms and conditions as he shall think proper."

(Again, I'm only referring to IRC)

jrey1981

Regarding the Merrion Sq property, the Red Cross have been there since the 1960s or beforehand.

I have seen old correspondence from then with that address on it, as I have just written the history of another Irish charity that was in touch with them back then.

As you might guess, the value of the property will have risen very substantially since the 1960s and they will probably be borrowing against this to maximise the money they have available to carry out work overseas.

Typically the larger charities will aim to keep their admin and running costs to 5 - 10 % of their expenditure.

HelterSkelter

I was in touch with them. They said they don't own the property but they rent it on a fixed agreed price of less than €2 a year! Sounds like they have a good deal there.

I still think they could rent this place at market values to someone else and they themselves could rent a cheaper property and use the difference for charitable causes.

MrPudding

HelterSkelter wrote:

Erm, their head office is on Merrion Square, that is a fact. What other facts do you think I should check?

HelterSkelter wrote:

I was in touch with them. They said they don't own the property but they rent it on a fixed agreed price of less than €2 a year! Sounds like they have a good deal there.

Wow, it is amazing what happens when you actually make enquiries.

HelterSkelter wrote:

I still think they could rent this place at market values to someone else and they themselves could rent a cheaper property and use the difference for charitable causes.

Perhaps the sweet deal they have prohibits them from subletting? It would not be uncommon for letting agreements to disallow subletting. Something tells me if there was something they could do they would do it.

Why don't you ring them again and ask them instead of assuming they aren't doing it because they like the fancy offices?

MrP

Sleepy

Slight tangent but has anyone ever considered the notion of merging all these third world aid charities? Surely the admin costs would drop due to economies of scale?

I remember one of the most effective things that Live Aid did with their money was to charter ships to carry their aid and delivering aid for other charities operating in the area because Bob Geldof threw a fit when quoted the haulage rates. I assume this is still common practice with the international aid agencies (because it's just such common sense).

Surely were all the agencies to merge together and become one giant "Save the third world" agency, they'd be more effective?

HelterSkelter

MrPudding wrote:

Wow, it is amazing what happens when you actually make enquiries.

No need for smart arsé comments.

MrPudding wrote:

Why don't you ring them again and ask them instead of assuming they aren't doing it because they like the fancy offices?

MrP

Cos I coundn't be arséd at this stage. Why don't you?

MrPudding

HelterSkelter wrote:

Cos I coundn't be arséd at this stage. Why don't you?

Because I am not questioning their use of the building. I am quite happy for them to be there and trust that if there was a way to leverage the value of the building they would be doing it.

MrP

panda100

Sleepy wrote:

Slight tangent but has anyone ever considered the notion of merging all these third world aid charities? Surely the admin costs would drop due to economies of scale?

Surely were all the agencies to merge together and become one giant "Save the third world" agency, they'd be more effective?

Yep your dead right. I know at heart these charities believe and are to a small certain extent helping people, but ngo's really are doing more harm then good in the long term.
Problems in the developing world will never be solved by handouts from charities.The only people who can solve these problems are goverments.If ngo's didnt exist that means that our goverments would be compelled to do something instead of feeling good everytime they donate a million or so euro to some famine crisis.These crisis are going to keep coming for years and years.You cant get stability as a person,family and country on handouts and ngo's promote this sort of handout system.

Hermione*

Sleepy wrote:

Slight tangent but has anyone ever considered the notion of merging all these third world aid charities? Surely the admin costs would drop due to economies of scale?
Surely were all the agencies to merge together and become one giant "Save the third world" agency, they'd be more effective?

On a related point, I remmebr my Dad coming home in a huge huff one day cos the General Secreatry of his union (CWU) was leaving to take up a job in, I think, Goal or Concern or Trocaire, it was one of those, but I can't remeber which one:o. Surely head-hunting staff isn't the best way for a charity to be spending their resources?

StupidLikeAFox

Charity gets €10, charity invests €10, charity gets returns of €3, charity uses €3 to pay overheads, charity gives original €10 to the people who need it.

€10 invested, €10 goes to those who need it


Couldnt be simpler

MrPudding

Hermione* wrote:

Surely head-hunting staff isn't the best way for a charity to be spending their resources?

Like any business a charity needs good people for work in them or run them. How do you propose they get them? They want successfull business people or people with excellent contacts in the business community. These are people that may not think of working for a charity. Headhinting may be the only way to get them.

MrP

Sleepy

Panda, I think there is a role for NGO's or perhaps, an NGO. If aid is left entirely down to governments it often comes with strings attached that won't help the recipient nation at all. NGO's have the ability to step over politics and deliver the aid where it's needed. If these were concentrated into a single NGO, it would be an extremely powerful organisation and could force a lot of the necessary changes in the third world.

iguana

Sleepy wrote:

Slight tangent but has anyone ever considered the notion of merging all these third world aid charities? Surely the admin costs would drop due to economies of scale?

This can't ever happen fully as most charities have political or religious ideals which can fall into conflict with each other. Of the three main Irish charities, three of them are catholic and recieve funds and support from the catholic church. This also means that in the developing world they make some controversial choices under pressure from the church.

Oxfam, a group without religious or political affiliation, get complaints because Oxfam will allow funding to hospitals/clinics which allow full family planning services including abortion. Many religious groups would not offer aid to these hospitals unless they removed these services. I'm not sure how the Red Cross fare in this regard.

Oxfam is another group that guarantees that 100% of any direct donation goes where the donor wishes it to, although you can only donate to areas they appeal for, or give as a general donation. This includes money put in collection boxes on their tills.

They raise funds in other ways to cover their running and campaigning costs, as Oxfam is also a campaigning agency. They guarantee that over 90% of all money raised, this includes government grants, shop income, large corporate donations and concert and event revenue, goes into aid and development works.