Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Charities wasting our money

  • 25-04-2006 10:36am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭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.


Comments

  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Annie Mysterious Yoga


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 999 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭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?:confused:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Who pays his wages then?:confused:
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭HelterSkelter


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    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


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Speculation is not fact.

    Why let those pesky facts get in the way..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,537 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 118 ✭✭Lindaloo


    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)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,733 ✭✭✭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 ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    iguana wrote:
    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.
    Isn't that simply more of a reason to merge the charities into one international aid agency? If it was large enough, no religion or political entity would be able to force it's hand on any single issue. It would require a great deal of co-operation from the international community (in order to do things like prevent religious aid organisations from trying to circumvent the umbrella body i.e. your money is welcome but your people/beliefs aren't) but as we start the 21st century, surely this is something we should be to do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    It was once envisaged that the World Bank, IMF and UN would form a single organisation. That didn't happen because post-war powers had their own interests. Within the UN system, the Economic and Social Council and the UN Development Programme were imagined to be that global NGO. But that didn't happen because the post-war powers had their own interests. They (they being the USA and the UK, mainly) saw it as more strategically sound to consolidate their political-economic power in the World Bank and IMF, which they controlled, and to undermine the UN, which the rest of the world controls (this strategy accelerated around the period of decolonisation).

    That's the geopolitical context in which global aid/development/human rights governance, or stuff, happens. The situation regarding these global governance institutions is roughly the same now as it was in 1948.

    The reality is, though, that working together, sharing the load, making use of comparative advantage is very fashionable in official aid, which is, in fact, lagging behind the NGOs.

    Government aid departments like Irish Aid, the UK Department for International Development etc. are pursuing coherence and complimentarity strategies (or, at least, say they are). Within government, countries like Finland have integrated their aid department with all other departments to improve policy coherence (e.g. to ensure their trade policies don't undermine their aid activities in developing countries).

    Government aid agencies are also improving co-ordination among themselves. The OECD Development Assistance Committee is a forum and think tank which is pushing this coherence and co-ordination agenda, and Irish Aid, for example, make regular refereces to it in their policy statements.

    On the ground, government aid agencies are pooling funds and resources in developing countries in areas such as agricultural development (where they have a comparative advantage), election funds, and they channel money directly into governments and, depending on the exact country, form donor consortiums and represent themselves to the developing countries as a single bloc.

    EU expansion and integration is also pushing this agenda - the big EU aid policy issue is how to harmonise EU-wide aid practises. It's a dirty political game and really confusing.

    But I'm skeptical that this will happen, and I'm not sure that it should happen. From a developing country perspective, I might imagine that one huge hulk of an aid body composed of countries I don't trust might make things difficult for me and make it easier for them to pursue their own interests at my expense. Because official aid is foreign policy. From a developed country perspective, with the exception of the EU, whose members have a common trade policy, Country A's interests may conflict with Country B's and, things being as they are, former aid partnerships could easily fragment. And now there's China weighing in, upturning the apple cart. The scamble for Africa is happening again.

    I can only second what iguana said about NGOs. The world being as it is, people have irreconcilable differences, and that's fine, so long as they can work together to achieve urgent common goals. I know that, for example, Concern, Oxfam, Trócaire (not Goal, ptooee), Banúlacht, Comhlámh, Christian Aid, ICTU, the IRC and so on are in constant contact and co-ordinate many of their activities through the NGO umbrella body, Dóchas. Combined with the level of public funding (state grants and private donations), this indicates a vibrant civil society that is required in any democracy to keep the government in check.

    I think it'd be dangerous to let states take care of all development work. States are the most powerful instruments to promote development when they work well, when they work genuinely eliminate poverty. They're the gatekeepers to the money, trade policies, agriculture policies, intellectual property etc. Developing country governments are also vital actors. 'Development co-operation' - rich and poor/donor and recipient countries pursuing meaningful relationships to eliminate poverty is the current paradigm.

    But without NGOs - a radically diverse net of NGOs - democracy wouldn't function and probably nothing would get done because reasons of state always trump touchy-feely crap. NGOs are there to do what the state doesn't and, luckily, in this country, the state funds them to do what the government knows it doesn't, or can't be seen to. Maybe it's a crude political calculation. That's a hell of a lot better than just doing nothing.

    What works best is when governments and people work together.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,289 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Interesting post DadaKopf. I'm probably being over-simplistic in my looking at this but I still can't see the reason for there to be so many different charities all focused on the same thing. A single, professionally managed, NGO would still seem like the best option to me. All governmental aid funding, religious aid funding, privately donated etc. etc. etc. flowing through a single independent, secular organisation. Of course it's probably naieve to expect governments to actually give their aid unilatterally and to expect the religious organisations to be open-minded enough to just give their charity to those who need it without the chance to force their religious beliefs upon the recipient but economically it would seem like the best means of erradicating extreme poverty in a single life-time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    What I meant in the first paragraph was that it has been attempted, and it was murdered.

    I just don't think that's how people, societies work. Governments themselves are fractious entities - Ireland is a major culprate of not linking its aid policies up with trade policies. On one hand, we have Irish Aid attempting to reduce poverty (yes, reduce, not eliminate) while Mary Coughlan and Brian Cowen (and their svengali senior civil servants) pursue agenda which undermine that. Departments compete against each other so a singular, cohesive state is a myth, really. And the same thing goes for relations between states, globally.

    As for NGOs, society just works that way. And there's an argument to me made that NGOs are better off specialising because a lot would get lost in translation in a "world aid agency". Effectiviess is, therefore, undermined, and it would also send a message to the developing world (governments especially) that forming independent associations and organisations is a bad idea. There could be major conditions/barriers to entry. People would be, to that degree, more unfree. Think of people's criticisms of the trades union movement (though it's actually, generally, a decent model of common social organisation, as is the Christian Right in America, I guess ;). It would be more difficult for locally-based issues to be dealt with because they'd get crowded out by the big guns. This, also, in a context where corruption is a major issue in developing countries (less so our own).

    There's a need for greater levels of co-operation and co-ordination among aid/development organisations. There's certainly need for improved global governance, but we already have the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO. Why not, instead, mobilise the unified diversity of the global justice movement to transform those institutions into what you're talking about? At least if they're not perfect, those organisations can be made better through a people's movement. There's no need to go back to scratch.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,537 ✭✭✭✭Victor




  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    That story's not quite true, and the backstory is in-fighting between board members who got annoyed at somebody or other's promotion.

    The Independent went mental and Self Help have been fiercely rejecting its accusations.

    The Irish Times reports:
    Mick McCarthy, one of the group which has called the egm, said the meeting was being convened to reconstitute the board. The legal advice was that the meeting was properly called.

    He claimed there was concern about the level of administration costs within the organisation, which he put at €500,000 of the €1.49 million raised last year.

    However, an agency source denied this, saying it was arrived at by including the salaries of overseas project staff under administrative costs.
    Basically, spending administration costs on local staff in Africa would be considered aid because the money is going into the locality. Self Help's accounts are run in such a way that they just count everything as administration costs, even though many different forms of spending fall under that bracket.

    For example, Self Help flies celebrities over to their projects in Africa to drive fundraising. They ensure that the €1,000 it takes to fly them over there is compensated with €4,000 extra donations - they spend €1,000 to make €4,000.

    Out of the so-called quarter of donations going on administration, much less than that actually does, and the rest goes to fundraising, paying locals etc. Roughly 10% is real administration costs. In-line with best practise.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,537 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    DadaKopf wrote:
    For example, Self Help flies celebrities over to their projects in Africa to drive fundraising. They ensure that the €1,000 it takes to fly them over there is compensated with €4,000 extra donations - they spend €1,000 to make €4,000.
    Fundraising expenses are part of the overhead, so €1,000 / €4,000 = 25%

    Then again thats possibly why professional fundraisers are so busy these days.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭GOAT_Ali


    There's a hell of a lot of people getting rich and 'famous' from their so called mercy missions to Africa. I'd like to se their CV as regards charity at home. Africa has ben for far to long an easy option for a lot of these charities, a lot of these people wouldn't cross the road to help their damn neighbour, yet they will beg, steal and borrow to help Africans?, it doesn't make sense.

    Africa needs Africans to be calling the shots, not westerners on ego trips dictating to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    There's a hell of a lot of people getting rich and 'famous' from their so called mercy missions to Africa. I'd like to se their CV as regards charity at home. Africa has ben for far to long an easy option for a lot of these charities, a lot of these people wouldn't cross the road to help their damn neighbour, yet they will beg, steal and borrow to help Africans?, it doesn't make sense.

    Africa needs Africans to be calling the shots, not westerners on ego trips dictating to them.
    Whoa, there. You've got two issues there. Africa is the poorest continent in the world and badly needs resources to develop, and has urgent needs which Africans can't provide for themselves right now. The second issue is certain celebrities - *ahem*John O'Shea*ahem* - grandstanding, pushing racist stereotypes as a publicity tool to raise cash, which I completely abhor. Goal staff do great work, but O'Shea is a lunatic.

    In any case, you don't know what celebrities who lend their faces to aid NGOs do in other areas. And since when should we ourselves before anyone else? Why shouldn't celebrities do stuff for other places? There are plenty to go around. Truth is, out of an island of four million people, there's a wide spread of people, and celebrities, helping out all kinds of causes left, right and centre.
    Victor wrote:
    Fundraising expenses are part of the overhead, so €1,000 / €4,000 = 25%

    Then again thats possibly why professional fundraisers are so busy these days.
    George Jacob: Self Help expended just 6% of its 2004 budget, which was €4.2 million, on admin, that figure was actually brought down to 5% last year. Now what the critics have been doing is they have been incorporating into administration the cost of fundraising, and now you will appreciate in the, in the charity sector, fundraising, you don’t make money without expending money.

    George Hook: the [Your] figures on promotion are about 14%-15%, which if we talk about ratios is, ratio of promotion and fundraising is about standard for charities across the board, 14%. Also what is a standard ratio across the board, if I looked at Oxfam and looked at Children in Need, eh I looked at a pile of accounts today on the internet for the charities, income of 4 to expenditure for 1 is about average, which is the case for you, 4 to 1. I think where Mr. McCarthy has a point if I may say so, is at the end of the day the €925,000 is set off against income of €1.5 million. Whereas although your total income is over €4 million, that comes from Government Aid and so on.

    [...]

    I think where Mr. McCarthy has a point if I may say so, is at the end of the day the €925,000 is set off against income of €1.5 million. Whereas although your total income is over €4 million, that comes from Government Aid and so on.

    George Jacob (Communications Officer, Self Help): Sure yes, but you only receive, em, from the Government we’re actually only one of five Irish Agencies that receives multi-annual programme support from Irish Aid the Department of Foreign Affairs, and they rigorously evaluate our expenditure and the effectiveness of our work in Africa, em, you know the point you make, em, they will fund up to 70% of the cost of a programme, and we need to go out publicly to raise the balance. You receive, you know like 6 to 1 and 7 to 1 ratios of the amount that you can raise.

    [...]

    George Hook: All right ok, well you know, all of us who work for charity em, give, and everybody who does it, gives it with big open hearts, but ultimately em, in order surely to develop any kind of charity and to work in very difficult conditions of dictatorships or otherwise, professional people are needed. Do you not accept that they have to pay, I mean that the have to pay professional people to raise money, professional people to put structures together or whatever?

    Mick McCarthy: Of course you do, of course you do, but the two instances I outlined there of flying people to India from Africa, flying, big numbers of people, flying big numbers of people to Ireland, again from Africa, at enormous costs.

    George Hook: You’ll have to answer that one quickly, because I’ll be in terrible trouble with the News.

    George Jacob (Communications Officer, Self Help): Well I’ll just answer the second point about em you know like 12 people coming to Ireland.

    George Hook: Quickly please.

    George Jacob (Communications Officer, Self Help): And you know the number was actually six, em, that came to Ireland, and they were the country directors from the five country’s plus our African Director, and you know, we had critical meetings with Irish Aid and with other donors and supporters, and they needed to travel to Ireland for that.
    Sorry, it's the critics, annoyed at the recent appointment who are cooking the books. So this 25% figure is nonsense.

    And this is from SHDI's Press Release:
    SHDI STATEMENT: RESPONSE TO RECENT MEDIA CLAIMS

    Weekend reports about the Irish charity Self Help Development International are untrue. Self Help expended just 6 per cent of it's 2004 budget of €4.2 million on administration costs - and invested approximately 80 % of funding received on our programme work in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Malawi, Kenya and Uganda.

    In 2005 our budget was €5.4 million – from which 5% was spent on administration, 14% on promotion and fund-raising, and 81% on our programme work in Africa – where we have a staff of approximately 300 people.

    Self Help is one of just five Irish agencies that has been approved for multi-annual programme support (MAPS) through the Irish Government's Irish Aid. The Dept of Foreign Affairs rigorously evaluates Self Help's expenditure and the effectiveness of its work. In total Self Help received €2.25 million from the state in this way in 2004.

    A distinguishing feature of Self Help is the way it keeps overheads down and gets funds to where they are most needed. The organisation does not employ expatriate staff in Africa, but instead ensures that local people benefit from the work of their own people. The Irish headquarters is in Hacketstown, Co Carlow.

    Since Self Help Development International was founded in 1984, it has directly helped approximately 2.5 million African small-holding farmers and those living in rural communities to achieve self-sufficiency in food production. The total cost of this was under €30 million.

    Self Help relies upon funding support and contributions from the Irish public, and its audited accounts are open and available to anyone who might wish to view them.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement