Should the government look for value for money when funding charities?

The_Minister

Simple question.

I was just reading this which say that

Of the 341 women we assisted in the past two years, 167 were street based, less than 50% - and this of course represents the new trend of invisibility for the women'.

.

341 in two years.
Two years.
Thats less than one person helped every two days.

Their list of funders is :
Department of Health - Health Service Executive
Department of Health - South Inner City Local Drugs Task Force
Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform - Probation and Welfare
Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform - Commission for the Victims of Crime
Department of Community Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs
Charitable Infirmary Charitable Trust
St.Stephen's Green Trust
Vodafone Ireland Foundation
Corporate Donations
Private Donations
Community Support
Fundraising Initiatives

5 different government departments are donating to this charity, which is helping less than one person every two days.

I can't find exact figures for how much Ruhama is recieving, but according to this Dail debate, they recieved an annual grant of €275,000 in 2005, as well as tens of thousands more in one off grants

Since the 341 figure is over two years, that means they spendover €1600 per prostitute per year (if the level of funding was maintained).
Thats not even including the one off grants.

In fact they recieved 1.2 million from 2002-2005.

As far as I can see this charity does not provide value for money (I'm not even sure what productive things it actually does after reading the website), but surely in a recession its time to make charities and NGOs actually show value for money on their projects?

EDIT: Holy ****! Thats just Department of Justice funding, not including the other departments!!:eek:

Long Onion

I agree with you there, when it gets to the stage that the organisation is costing more to run than it actually gives out, there has to be a case for winding it down.

Well, that or else, only fund the hot hookers who will come to your place of work;)

AARRRGH

I've been researching Ruhama for years. They are a complete disgrace. Not only do they preach very extremist feminist viewpoints (e.g. every man who has sex with a prostitute is a rapist; every single foreign woman who works as a prostitute has been trafficked), but they invent all their statistics. Their lies have gotten so bad that they lobbied the Government to allow them to set public policy on prostitution using their own statistics without having to back up any of their figures (they specifically asked for this - the Gardai should not be allowed investigate their claims.)

I know a girl who works for a street prostitution charity and Ruhama are considered a joke by her organisation.

It's really a disgrace that they are given funds. You have to remember too that Ruhama is run by a bunch of nuns; they're hardly going to have a healthy opinion on sex and women's rights.

AARRRGH

Note they get a large amount of funding from the HSE.

(I need to set up a charity, it sounds like a great scam.)

The_Minister

AARRRGH wrote: »

I've been researching Ruhama for years. They are a complete disgrace. Not only do they preach very extremist feminist viewpoints (e.g. every man who has sex with a prostitute is a rapist; every single foreign woman who works as a prostitute has been trafficked), but they invent all their statistics. Their lies have gotten so bad that they lobbied the Government to allow them to set public policy on prostitution using their own statistics without having to back up any of their figures (they specifically asked for this - the Gardai should not be allowed investigate their claims.)

I know a girl who works for a street prostitution charity and Ruhama are considered a joke by her organisation.

It's really a disgrace that they are given funds. You have to remember too that Ruhama is run by a bunch of nuns; they're hardly going to have a healthy opinion on sex and women's rights.

I've read your comments about Ruhama before - whats disgraceful is that even if they are wasting money (and by the figures that seems to be the case), people will still go nuts if their funding is cut.
In the Dail Debate linked above you had Pat Rabitte, then leader of the Labour Party, wanting them to have more money, and all the feminist crowd would come out in force.

Sigh.

Then Biggins would say its a Fianna Fail disgrace and they are attacking prostitutes.:D

Mr Benevolent

AARRRGH wrote: »

(I need to set up a charity, it sounds like a great scam.)

Trust me, it is. Only 5% of the money collected is required to be used for helping the homeless/poor.

IvySlayer

So a young woman can claim to be a prostitute and get charity?

Do something illegal and pity them? I imagine a very small percentage are actually forced into it. Only way to stamp it out is harsh punishments on prostitutes.

Joey the lips

Your question is very interesting. But what of charities like the saint vincent de paul that dont receive govt funding or overseas charities that get a lot more?

If the govt put a performance onus on these would it start to fund them better?

Further more there is a rule in the govt that if a charity receives x amount and 1 year later still has that x amount on its books the govt seizes this money! Surly this is wrong as it incourages charitis to spend first rather than spend wisely!

But to answer your question yes i think there should be a performance based system.

Long Onion

You could set up a system of reducing the monies available according to certain criteria.

Deduct 5% for over reliance on emotional blackmail in ad's using cute little black children and sad songs.

Deduct 10% for use of chuggers who start by saying "hello mate, how are you today?"

Deduct 15% for using a Goat with a cork accent

Deduct 20% for playing the downtrodden feminist card

Deduct 25% for anything with Ronan Keating's head on it

Instant shut down for anything to do with PETA

AnonoBoy

Long Onion wrote: »

Instant shut down for anything to do with PETA

The government fund PETA now?

Six of One

As to the original question- should the government look for value for money when funding charities- as far as I knew they very much do look for value for money. I know that in the homeless sector there is a constant pressure to try to quantify work that is very hard to measure in order to justify funding.

I don't know about Ruhama and whether they are over funded or not, maybe they are. I do know ithat a lot of women working in prostitution in Dublin use them as a drop in service. If they provide needle exchange and condoms as well as the services listed on their website then they could indeed be providing a very valuable service in the long run. Do they provide this?

Thats less than one person helped every two days.

Again, it is about quantifing the help. Counselling, advocacy and keyworking support can be very intensive and time consuming with progression only visible over months and years.

Long Onion

AnonoBoy wrote: »

The government fund PETA now?

No - just an instant shutdown for any charity that has anything to do with them.

Eveyone knows that PETA is funded by Tom Cruise.

patmac

Slightly off topic I heard we are sending a team to the Deaflympicshttp://www.irishdeafsports.net/21st_deaflympics.html
I think we have over 40 athletes + trainers etc going to this, not sure where the money comes from, and would have no problem if they have raised it themselves, but there seems to be a lot of theses events recently along with Paralympics, Special Olympics, Dwarf Olympics in Belfast recently. As said before this is ok if money is being raised for the event but I think it would be unfair if government money was been spent on high-tech wheelchairs and other equipment whilst other charities and disabled persons go without.

AARRRGH

Six of One wrote: »

I do know ithat a lot of women working in prostitution in Dublin use them as a drop in service.

Really? According to my friend who works for a street prostitution organisation (can't remember the name of it, sorry) the prostitutes she knows avoid Ruhama as they don't understand the reality of prostitution.

Six of One wrote: »

If they provide needle exchange and condoms as well as the services listed on their website then they could indeed be providing a very valuable service in the long run. Do they provide this?

No.

The_Minister

patmac wrote: »

Slightly off topic I heard we are sending a team to the Deaflympicshttp://www.irishdeafsports.net/21st_deaflympics.html
I think we have over 40 athletes + trainers etc going to this, not sure where the money comes from, and would have no problem if they have raised it themselves, but there seems to be a lot of theses events recently along with Paralympics, Special Olympics, Dwarf Olympics in Belfast recently. As said before this is ok if money is being raised for the event but I think it would be unfair if government money was been spent on high-tech wheelchairs and other equipment whilst other charities and disabled persons go without.

So we now have:
The real Olympics,
The paralympics
The Special Olypmics
The Dwarf Olympics
The Deaf Olympics

Anyone wanna bet when the obese olympics gets started?

mikemac

The_Minister wrote: »

The Deaf Olympics

Deaf Olympics
I never heard of these before.

And for many, many Olympics sports being deaf is no hindrance at all!
Marathon running or diving or gymnastics as examples. Definitely diving, you can do this without the ability to hear.
If you have the skills and ability why not go for the real Olympics?

irish_bob

The_Minister wrote: »

So we now have:
The real Olympics,
The paralympics
The Special Olypmics
The Dwarf Olympics
The Deaf Olympics

Anyone wanna bet when the obese olympics gets started?

thier is a gay rugby world cup aswell

Pygmalion

mikemac wrote: »

Deaf Olympics
I never heard of these before.

Then perhaps you qualify for a place.

The_Minister

Pygmalion wrote: »

Then perhaps you qualify for a place.

Ziiiing!