Charities

Mr. Incognito

I was reading the tributes to Kathy French and someone was saying that she raised the profile of charities and it got me thinking, what exactly do a lot of these charities do? There's a different one out every day on Grafton Street collecting for this that and the other taking advantage of people's twang of guilt when out sploshing the cash and lob them a bit of change to make themselves feel less guilty. I don't want to name a list of charitable institutions and their remit but I worked for a homeless charity in college and the only thing they seemed interested in was raising money, money money.

Everyone goes chugger bashing and I think they're worse than the bloody religious fanatics on the street as at lease the religious nuts believe what they're selling.

I have a few questions people might be able to clear up.

Does anybody audit these people? i mean with all that untrackable cash coming in the potential for abuse is huge. They seem to be more like Corporations these days only without any shareholders?

I know that a charity under the charities act is defned as an institution involved in "charitable" aims. Well that's great then. Cleared that right up.

Maybe I'm just cynical and these organisations are staffed with Mother Theresa's but to be honest I'm not giving any money to these charities anymore. Or is it worth a little feathering just to have some good work sone no matter how small? Does anyone think about this at all or am I on a random rant.

Sleepy

I've no problem with charities having full time staff who are paid a fair wage for the work they do. I *do* have a problem with full time companies acting as collection agents for charities and skimming their profit out of the donations.

One Cold Hand

Sleepy wrote: »

I've no problem with charities having full time staff who are paid a fair wage for the work they do. I *do* have a problem with full time companies acting as collection agents for charities and skimming their profit out of the donations.

This is a major problem I have, and the main reason I don't give to them on the street. When charities use these agents they get about 10% of what is actually collected. When I'm giving to charity I will donate directly to them.

Sangre

Bodies that actually have charitable status i.e. recongisned by the governement, are strictly audited afaik.

Of course not every charity has this status.

Pyjamarama

One Cold Hand wrote: »

This is a major problem I have, and the main reason I don't give to them on the street. When charities use these agents they get about 10% of what is actually collected. When I'm giving to charity I will donate directly to them.

Exactly! I just ignore those people on the street because I'm not going to be guilted into donating money by people who are getting paid to fundraise. Perhaps next time I'll ask one of them how much of their wages do they donate to said charity. Donate directly to a charity or volunteer for one and you'll definately see where the money is going.

MayMay

I read somewhere recently that a certain charity's fundraisers get €15 an hour, if that's true I don't know but if it is it's ridiculous!

laughin'joe

Hey mate you have a point and I have been asking the same question for ages. I know the front runner of a well known charity and he used to drive a opel cadet and live in a 3 bed council house with his 3 daughters and wife.....now he lives in a big gaff and has a big merc and so has the wife...good charity huh! it started at home well the runners of these charities homes in-any-way...and there I was thinking what a fool he is doing this charity work...hmmmm! think I might begin a charity...any ideas

SetantaL wrote: »

I was reading the tributes to Kathy French and someone was saying that she raised the profile of charities and it got me thinking, what exactly do a lot of these charities do? There's a different one out every day on Grafton Street collecting for this that and the other taking advantage of people's twang of guilt when out sploshing the cash and lob them a bit of change to make themselves feel less guilty. I don't want to name a list of charitable institutions and their remit but I worked for a homeless charity in college and the only thing they seemed interested in was raising money, money money.

Everyone goes chugger bashing and I think they're worse than the bloody religious fanatics on the street as at lease the religious nuts believe what they're selling.

I have a few questions people might be able to clear up.

Does anybody audit these people? i mean with all that untrackable cash coming in the potential for abuse is huge. They seem to be more like Corporations these days only without any shareholders?

I know that a charity under the charities act is defned as an institution involved in "charitable" aims. Well that's great then. Cleared that right up.

Maybe I'm just cynical and these organisations are staffed with Mother Theresa's but to be honest I'm not giving any money to these charities anymore. Or is it worth a little feathering just to have some good work sone no matter how small? Does anyone think about this at all or am I on a random rant.

Lizzykins

About four years ago I signed up at the door for a direct debit for Gorta and found out subsequently that the first years donations is the commission for the company that employs the guys who call to the door.
On the other hand I work for a well known NGO that employs street fundraisers directly and I can tell you that they are not on commission. Also our accounts are audited annually by an outside agency. I think any NGO should be able to tell you how much of their money goes to the people they are helping. On the subject of charities using volunteers to do the admin and fundraising I can tell you that it just wouldn't work on any kind of a long term basis. You will never get away from the fact that some money will have to go on admin. After all we can't even get a light bulb or make a phone call without paying for it.

One Cold Hand

I've also heard a story about a well known Irish sports-star who is associated with a charity organisation. This person is the face of the charity, so to speak. However as part of their deal, they gets something like 5% of EVERYTHING donated to the charity. Not 5% of the campaigns they're involved in, 5% of EVERYTHING donated to the charity. So if I was to walk into the charities office out if the blue and hand them €100, they have to give this person €5. Ridiculous.

Mr. Incognito

On the subject of charities using volunteers to do the admin and fundraising I can tell you that it just wouldn't work on any kind of a long term basis. You will never get away from the fact that some money will have to go on admin. After all we can't even get a light bulb or make a phone call without paying for it.

I have no problem with that. Of course that's reality,

I think any NGO should be able to tell you how much of their money goes to the people they are helping.

That's the nail on the head right there! I mean you give money to charity but you don't know where it goes. If every charity had to publish their figures and they were all compiled and audited we could see which one actually puts the most per euro into their particular cause. There is no transparancy there at all and people don't really bother once the money's gone in the jar. I guess that's the problem I have.

My father was diagnosed with Cancer this year and I'm not sure what this Cancer charity does that's out flogging yellow ribbons each year? Certainly nothing as far as I can see unless the money is going on R&D for developing new treatments. That's just one example.

NextSteps

Lizzykins wrote: »

I think any NGO should be able to tell you how much of their money goes to the people they are helping.

Concern, for example, is here. If they don't fundraise, they can't work. Obviously, the'yre smart enough to fundraise in the most profitable way possible - and so chuggers must work.

CathyMoran

I only have experience of the Irish Cancer Society - they helped me when I was diagnosed by being on the other end of the phone and arranging massage and other things when I was undergoing chemo (as well as providing leaflets) - when you have cancer you go on illness benefit which is very limiting, you have extra bills (heating, medical including getting a wig). I would not hesitate to give money to them again. You never know when you or a loved one might need them.

edanto

If every charity had to publish their figures and they were all compiled and audited we could see which one actually puts the most per euro into their particular cause. There is no transparancy there at all and people don't really bother once the money's gone in the jar. I guess that's the problem I have.

I agree with your concern. You're complaining though, without having done any investigation. Any charity that's big enough to employ staff will have audited accounts filed with the CRO, which you can request from the CRO site and AFAIK if they don't file accounts, they are breaking the law. So, if you're interested in a particular charity, you should investigate.

But just looking at a measure like 'the highest percentage of donations to the cause' is overly simplistic.

To take the example of the Irish Cancer Society. I don't know how much they give to cancer research, let's just say that it's X percent. But what if the Irish Society for Cancer give X+10 percent to cancer research. That doesn't necessarily mean that the second one is better, it just means that they might prioritise research over the things that CathyMoran mentioned like supportive phone calls and help accessing information.

An overseas aid charity might well spend 90% of it's budget on direct aid like tents and blankets. But what if a charity wanted to attack root causes of poverty and felt that the way to do that would be to have staff that can lobby politicians and engage in media/awareness campaigns? I don't know of any charities that are completely like the second example, it's just to illustrate the point.

That's why I'm saying it's overly simplistic just to look at 'the highest percentage of donations to the cause'. But very obviously a good idea to contact a charity before you donate to them, ask them what they spend their money on and then analyse that before you choose to support them.

Finally, I know of people that work in many charities (as well as working in one myself), and it's an incredibly cost-sensitive environment and rightly so. There are a few chancers out there (clothes collection comes to mind) and they make the news because they are unusual, not because they are normal.

Do you have any idea HOW HARD it is to get a good news story into the media?!

Bawnmore

Just stumbled across this article while checking for something else. I have a close friend who works for Concern as a direct dialogue fundraiser. All Concern fundraisers are working directly for the charity for a set hourly wage rather than on any commission or bonus based system so the work done is not performance related. As UB mentioned, it is the most cost effective way to raise funds in the long term and as well as this, a lot more can be done with the funding when its seen coming in on regular intervals.

As for the transparency of the accounts, the annual report is printed and available to the public each year displaying all costs. The following is a breakdown of the costs each year:

85% development and emergency relief
11% marketing and fundraising
3% education in irish schools
1% administration

The amount for development and emergency relief last year was 84% so it is increasing at a steady rate and admin costs are quite low.

I know of other charities which do use a company called Face-2-Face to do all their fundraising who are paid on commission.

bawnmore