Charity

corner of hells

BuboBubo wrote: »

I was going to start up my own "charity related" thread, but I'm going to piggy-back on this rather excellent one instead.

Genuine question - has anyone else noticed all the schools/sports clubs/drama groups etc who are operating (masquerading?) as charities? My workplace selects 2 registered charities per year to fundraise for, both of 2018's nominations are schools (not special needs ones btw).

It used to be all about Africa/the poor/children or animals in need - what happened? Now it's irish dancing schools shaking tins at harassed grocery shoppers and sponsored walks in aid of soccer clubs.

I think all primary schools must register as a charity

BuboBubo

corner of hells wrote: »

I think all primary schools must register as a charity

Apparently so. They mustn't be getting enough money from the government. The "Blue Token" scheme in Tesco seems to be mainly primary schools and kids clubs too. Very few "traditional" charities being catered for.

RobbingBandit

I like those cakes from the guy in the hat they come with a powder blue icing sugar he always remembers to knock three times too, good auld Walt.

meeeeh

A large well run professional charity is less of a waste of money than five local care groups with their own management who can't join together because everyone has a different plan for fixing autism. I think there is also a problem of state farming out services that should be provided by state. Hospitals, schools and groups like Rehab are prime example. I'm very cynical about donations, some work better thank others. When being approached on the street I ignore all charities that I don't know exactly what their mission is and where/how they are operating.

RobbingBandit

meeeeh wrote: »

A large well run professional charity is less of a waste of money than five local care groups with their own management who can't join together because everyone has a different plan for fixing autism. I think there is also a problem of state farming out services that should be provided by state. Hospitals, schools and groups like Rehab are prime example. I'm very cynical about donations, some work better thank others. When being approached on the street I ignore all charities that I don't know exactly what their mission is and where/how they are operating.

No such thing as a fix for autism no such plans exist neither.

splinter65

Just give to your local meals on wheels or small charities that visit old people living on their own and things like that.
They’re all volunteers so no one has to be paid .

meeeeh

RobbingBandit wrote: »

No such thing as a fix for autism no such plans exist neither.

Really?!?

That's a shocking news...

splinter65

mikemac2 wrote: »

You won’t pay to send the local underage soccer club to a tournament in Germany and a free holiday for the tag along parents and coaches?

Heartless :pac:

Or Mrs Maguires Irish Dancing School want to go to the Irish Dancing Competion in Leeds....give generously...

RobbingBandit

meeeeh wrote: »

Really?!?

That's a shocking news...

Bet your cats breath smells like cat food...................... ... ....... ......... .

meeeeh

I never liked Simpsons...

decky1

BuboBubo wrote: »

I was going to start up my own "charity related" thread, but I'm going to piggy-back on this rather excellent one instead.

Genuine question - has anyone else noticed all the schools/sports clubs/drama groups etc who are operating (masquerading?) as charities? My workplace selects 2 registered charities per year to fundraise for, both of 2018's nominations are schools (not special needs ones btw).

It used to be all about Africa/the poor/children or animals in need - what happened? Now it's irish dancing schools shaking tins at harassed grocery shoppers and sponsored walks in aid of soccer clubs.

we have a set of traffic lights in our town , that's where the so called charities gather with their buckets, they stare at you while: waiting to move off, don't think this should be allowed.:o

decky1

decky1 wrote: »

we have a set of traffic lights in our town , that's where the so called charities gather with their buckets, they stare at you while: waiting to move off, don't think this should be allowed.:o

Those “so called charities” will have gotten a license to hold a bucket collection. You don’t have to donate if you don’t want. They are volunteers collecting for causes close to their hearts.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Those “so called charities” will have gotten a license to hold a bucket collection. You don’t have to donate if you don’t want. They are volunteers collecting for causes close to their hearts.

They also cause traffic jams and are complete nuisance. You need health and safety assessment with method statement for every small project and yet a group of sheep with buckets can do what they like on the road.

murpho999

This comes up all the time.

Some NGOs are huge organisations.

They employ thousands of people.

Organisations like Concern, as an Irish example, employ over 3000 people around the world. They have to comply with employment laws, taxation, HR policies, finance regulations, logistics travel etc etc.

Do you expect that to be done by people for nothing?

This cannot be done by voluntary pensioners. The commitment is too much.

People seen to think they just go to Africa and hand out food parcels an bottles of water but they do a hell of a lot more.

By the way, the CEO of Concern is paid €99k a year which is by no means excessive for the role they have.

Look at the recent Oxfam scandal, which was totally wrong but they required a fully professional CEO, HR dept and Legal team to handle and these people must be paid.

If people are not paid then they get less effective people in their organisation and the charity will be as successful in its aims to benefit others.

Samuel T. Cogley

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

There is a reformed heroin connoisseur that goes around selling cakes in aid of something or other dont know if its a scam but the cakes are good

Feck are we neighbours?

Got the local news letter from some TD muppet or other.

Kilbarrack got about 6K for pitches and Clontarf over 300K for the Yatch Club and something else. I donate to the local charities.

diomed

BrookieD wrote: »

Concern Worldwide = 90.7c in every euro donated, for example, is sent to relief and development in the areas its needed most. 6.7c on fundraising, 2.1c on education and .5c on governance including salaries of over 250 staff in Dublin. Let me say again - one half of one cent on governance!

For six years in a row, Concern's annual reports have won the Published Accounts Award for charities and not-for-profit organisations.

The award is organised by the Chartered Accountants Leinster Society and is for “excellence in financial reporting.”

Let's not tar all with one brush, insight is valuable

You say.
Unless I had access to all the accounting records I would not believe anything.

You say 90.7% of expenditure on Relief & Developement
You say 0.5% on Governance.
This is how you do that.
You call everyone a "development manager/executive" and charge their salaries as Developement.
Keep doing that with all head office / central expenses until you have 0.5% left as Governance.

BrookieD

diomed wrote: »

You say.
Unless I had access to all the accounting records I would not believe anything.

You say 90.7% of expenditure on Relief & Developement
You say 0.5% on Governance.
This is how you do that.
You call everyone a "development manager/executive" and charge their salaries as Developement.
Keep doing that with all head office / central expenses until you have 0.5% left as Governance.

you are a very ill-informed person, my friend...

here you go - also lots more if you want them all the way back to 2003 >>> https://www.concern.net/about/annual-reports

Flippyfloppy

Why do people only want to give to charities that uses solely unpaid volunteers? Why do people have to be completely unpaid to help others? Do you ever refuse to deal with other businesses that have paid/well paid employees?

diomed

BrookieD wrote: »

you are a very ill-informed person, my friend...

here you go - also lots more if you want them all the way back to 2003 >>> https://www.concern.net/about/annual-reports

I am not your friend.
Before I responded to the previous post I downloaded and read the Concern accounts.
0.5% Governance is a nice, easy to remember, number to quote to the media and the public.
Do you seriously believe that after 200 million revenue and expenses the Governance figure just happens to be 0.5%?

Fwiw I was an accountant.
I've seen plenty of manipulation of figures, and contrary to general perception it is not the accountants who do the manipulation, it is operational management.

diomed

In the 1970s I worked abroad for a few years.
My salary as an auditor was double my Irish salary.
But when I did the audit of a charitable organisation I found the saiaries of management were nine times my good salary, and they were paid in sterling.

How did this happen?
Increase salaries by local inflation rates every year (40% and 4% when I was there).
Everyone's a winner babe.

splinter65

EdEd wrote: »

Thanks to Angela Kerins I refuse to give money to charity.

That was the ultimate eye opener for a lot of Irish people. The final insult.

splinter65

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why do people only want to give to charities that uses solely unpaid volunteers? Why do people have to be completely unpaid to help others? Do you ever refuse to deal with other businesses that have paid/well paid employees?

Because it turns out that for every €1 I give to a charity that only 5c actually goes to help the people in need because the CEO had to get his salary first.
Surely you can see that this is not what people who want to help those less off want?
If I give €10 to Meals on Wheels or the local group who provide outings to elderly people living on their own, then the €10 goes to the service in its entirety.

murpho999

splinter65 wrote: »

Because it turns out that for every €1 I give to a charity that only 5c actually goes to help the people in need because the CEO had to get his salary first.
Surely you can see that this is not what people who want to help those less off want?
If I give €10 to Meals on Wheels or the local group who provide outings to elderly people living on their own, then the €10 goes to the service in its entirety.

How do you know that 95% goes to the CEO?

What are you basing this on?

Can you provide any evidence?

gargargar

BrookieD wrote: »

For six years in a row, Concern's annual reports have won the Published Accounts Award for charities and not-for-profit organisations.

The award is organised by the Chartered Accountants Leinster Society and is for “excellence in financial reporting.”

The award isn't worth a boilix. These accountants are the same tools that audited Nationwide/Anglo etc and gave them a clean bill of health before they went down the tubes.

BrookieD

diomed wrote: »

I am not your friend.
Before I responded to the previous post I downloaded and read the Concern accounts.
0.5% Governance is a nice, easy to remember, number to quote to the media and the public.
Do you seriously believe that after 200 million revenue and expenses the Governance figure just happens to be 0.5%?

Fwiw I was an accountant.
I've seen plenty of manipulation of figures, and contrary to general perception it is not the accountants who do the manipulation, it is operational management.

then you my friend are very ill-informed and ignorant of the facts and i say "facts" in a Benitez stance... Concern very much can demonstrate exactly where every cent is... nuff said.

Do I believe this figure of .5% damn right i do, 100% without a shadow of a doubt,by all means prove to mean otherwise.

BrookieD

gargargar wrote: »

The award isn't worth a boilix. These accountants are the same tools that audited Nationwide/Anglo etc and gave them a clean bill of health before they went down the tubes.

go interagte the accounts your self and choose and independant accountant...

BrookieD

For anyone doubting the money Concern raise and pay towards governance as per my information and pay towards overseas aid I challenge any of you to pop out from behind the keyboard take a trip into Camden street and take a look, ask the questions and challenge them otherwise... any money on that none of you will...

BrookieD

splinter65 wrote: »

Because it turns out that for every €1 I give to a charity that only 5c actually goes to help the people in need because the CEO had to get his salary first.
Surely you can see that this is not what people who want to help those less off want?
If I give €10 to Meals on Wheels or the local group who provide outings to elderly people living on their own, then the €10 goes to the service in its entirety.

please back up the statement that for every €1 95 goes to the CEO! show me...

diomed

BrookieD wrote: »

then you my friend are very ill-informed and ignorant of the facts and i say "facts" in a Benitez stance... Concern very much can demonstrate exactly where every cent is... nuff said.

Do I believe this figure of .5% damn right i do, 100% without a shadow of a doubt,by all means prove to mean otherwise.

Yes, the accounts are audited, and the auditors expressed their opinion in their certificate.
They are not expressing an opinion on the Governance figure.
There is a note in the accounts analysing the Governance figure, but not in sufficient detail.
What is included in governance is not explained.
What is the Governance figure?
The annual report shows Governance consists of:
Staff costs; Legal and professional fees; Office and other costs
No mention of which staff; which legal, which professional, which office.

Is all of the governance expense included in that heading, or are some expensed elsewhere?

The annual report says "we introduced a new integrated programme category in 2016, which will improve categorisation going forward."
That suggests categorisation going backward was not great.

The Annual Report has beautifully posed and expertly taken photographs.
My guess is the cameras and lenses used are top quality, much more expensive than my €5k Nikon.
Are to assume these images are of people who have received help from Concern.
Is this true? Or are they actors?
In crisis situations why spend money on professional photography?

Concern make a big play on their website of the Governance 0.5%
and they have great photographs.
They are strong on PR.

cdeb

diomed wrote: »

0.5% Governance is a nice, easy to remember, number to quote to the media and the public.
Do you seriously believe that after 200 million revenue and expenses the Governance figure just happens to be 0.5%?

That's a daft argument. The governance figure has to be something. Why not 0.5%? Maybe it is wrong, but you'd need a hell of a lot better argument than that to start making the point.

The bigger issue is whether the charities like Concern actually do any good in the greater scheme of things (and I'm not trying to pick on Concern here, hence saying "like Concern"; they came up just as the example in the thread) Donating free clothes or building free houses just puts locals in those industries out of a job, for example. Paul Theroux and Dervla Murphy have both written about the negative impact of charities in Africa based on their experiences there; I'm sure there's others too.

Then there's the - somewhat controversial - idea that, say, famine is an indication of overpopulation, and alleviating it just puts further strain on the world's resources, which is clearly a very pressing issue at present. It's cynical of course, but if the population of an area in Africa isn't sustainable, then it could be argued that it does more harm than good trying to keep it at unsustainable levels. (David Attenborough's comment that mankind is a plague on earth is uncomfortable but surely true)

Certainly too much of charity is about making first world people feel good, with little enough in-depth analysis of the impact of charity at the other end (as this thread has to an extent shown, with the above criticism being brought out)

So yeah, I tend to pass them on by, for the main.