The Aid Agencies........

Fulton Crown

Now I know....I know they are doing a great job in Haiti or some of the other world disaster spots...but

I suppose I got to thinkin when over the past few weeks I heard the Radio Airwaves positively, swamped with appeals from these agencies...must have counted about 15 of them...at least.

Some I'd heard of - some were new to me.

Bearing in mind the well known generosity of the Irish people I figured the sums of money going to these agencies is not insignificant.

Now I am very cynical about everything financial since I believed a little man with a moustache when he assured me that the irish banking system was solid and well regulated.

So,,,whwt accountability do these agencies have ?

Who regulates them ?

What salaries are their head honchos on ?

What accounting / reporting do they have to do. ?

What proportion of their cash goes on actual aid on the ground. ?

What are their admin costs / percentages.

Does anybody know ? - If not should we be asking questions.......

Kalimah

The only one I know well is Concern. You could check their website for all the info you need.

walshb

How do you know they are doing a great job in Haiti?

Because they tell you?

The money going to these charities is enormous, big big business.
What I find distasteful is that Concern, for example, aren't simply asking
for a donation of some sort, they are now specifically looking for
a certain amount, 40 Euro. The arrogance of these people.

This is business, no different than any other business. The business of misery
and poverty exploited to make money. I am not saying these agencies don't do some
good work, but I don't believe they are there simply to save lives.

On the radio a few days ago, one of them, Concern or Trocaire were
saying that they now have closed the Tsunami fund and are concentrating
on the Hait fund. The tsunami fund?? That was almost 5 years ago.
As cool as a cucumber he came out with this.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

The money going to theses charities is enormous, big big business.

According to their annual report, Oxfam Ireland’s fundraising activities (for example) generated an income of €2.9 million in 2009 – that’s about 65 cents for every individual in the country. Their total net income for 2009? €119,983. Big, big business alright.

walshb wrote: »

This is business, no different than any other business. The business of misery and poverty exploited to make money.

If they’re in the business of making money, Oxfam don’t seem to be doing a terribly good job, do they?

walshb wrote: »

On the radio a few days ago, one of them, Concern or Trocaire were saying that they now have closed the Tsunami fund and are concentrating
on the Hait fund. The tsunami fund?? That was almost 5 years ago.

Five years? Wow. That is a long time. Out of curiosity, how long do you suppose it will take to rebuild Haiti?

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

According to their annual report,
Five years? Wow. That is a long time. Out of curiosity, how long do you suppose it will take to rebuild Haiti?

It will take years and years if western NGOS and charities have a say in it. It means constant money and begging and money. Big money spinner for these lads, why would any of them want it over in a few years? Sure aren't they still begging for Ethiopia and others. Must be going on 50 years now with some of them. Fine work they're doing, yeah:rolleyes:

BTW, I never referenced Oxfam, not once! Not all the charities are swimming in money.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

It will take years and years if western NGOS and charities have a say in it.

So NGO’s and charities should pull out of Haiti to speed up the recovery process?

walshb wrote: »

It means constant money and begging and money. Big money spinner for these lads, why would any of them want it over in a few years?

Rebuilding Haiti will probably cost money, yes. Big money spinner for which lads exactly?

walshb wrote: »

Sure aren't they still begging for Ethiopia and others. Must be going on 50 years now with some of them.

Not exactly. Financial aid to Ethiopia dried up after the Soviet-backed revolution in the mid 70’s and did not recommence until the 90’s. Besides, while poverty is still a major issue, Ethiopia currently has one of the fastest growing economies in Africa.

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I never referenced Oxfam, not once!

No, you didn’t. However, you did appear to tar all ‘NGO’s and charities’ with the one brush.

So which charities are “swimming in money”?

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

It will take years and years
.

...as oppossed to years, or years and years and years.....

walshb wrote: »

Sure aren't they still begging for Ethiopia and others.
.

Are Ethiopia and others "fixed" ?

FlutterinBantam

I concur with Mr Crown's concern re the fiscal rectitude of these organisations.

Goal for instance, what are the O'Sheas getting out of it.

Likewise Fergus over in Barnardos.

There are millions involved here and the Irish are great for putting their hand in the póca, but how much reaches the bottom line.

Also we have African states such as Ethiopia with questionable Govt.

The idealist and dreamers see nothing to worry about here, but I would certainly not be too happy to contribute.

There is certainly a rancid whiff of corruption there.

Fulton Crown

Thread has gone slightly off centre...I was asking in my initial post how these agencies were regulated.

Iam not saying it is big business ..but if an agency had an income of 2.5 million and admin expenses of say 1.3 million for a staff of say 5...thats a nice little earner !

What effect has this "snowing" of the radio airwaves by these agencies (how much does this cost ?) have on the income of... say Irish based charities like Alone or St V de P ?

Agree with OP that asking for a specific sum ..like €40 smacks of arrogance and opportunism - who are these advts aimed at ?

Never heard any of these agencies scrutinised by the media in any great detail...sounds to me like SOME people are making a nice career / few bob out of it.

But maybe i'm just cynical...blame the little dapper man with the moustache

donkey balls

a big cost involved in aid relief is the chartering of acft(mainly cargo) to fly foodstuff&medical supplies to these areas.costs would be anything from 150k-300k depending on fuel uploaded.

FlutterinBantam

:eek: For how many flights.

Aer lingus did one for nowt recently, covered the fuel and operating costs.

Uplifted circa 79 tonnes .

donkey balls

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

:eek: For how many flights.

Aer lingus did one for nowt recently, covered the fuel and operating costs.

Uplifted circa 79 tonnes .

im going from past operational experience here my costs per day for a wide body jet operating from europe to the USA was $100k a day.

that was over 5 years ago so if you factor in fuel&crew exxpenses it would bring the costs up, also my old company sent 7 widebodies(freighters) to sdq and a 727-200f to pap. FOC

Sand

The major charities, the ones you hear of on the radio are probably relatively above board.

But Irish law on what a charity is, and how it can be constructed: well, its an eye opener.

I mean, okay, they are lawyers. But do they have to be that conniving? Is it a job requirement?

Essentially, if hedge fund speculators can operate as an Irish charity then there is pretty much no regulation worth speaking of.

Fulton Crown

Sand wrote: »

The major charities, the ones you hear of on the radio are probably relatively above board.

But Irish law on what a charity is, and how it can be constructed: well, its an eye opener.

I mean, okay, they are lawyers. But do they have to be that conniving? Is it a job requirement?

Essentially, if hedge fund speculators can operate as an Irish charity then there is pretty much no regulation worth speaking of.

Thanks Sand...pretty much as cynical Crown Boy expected.

Now I am not suggesting that any of the Agencies are anything but above board.

To give a Dumbo example - an agency with say 2 million income who has a head honcho drawing 900,000 in salary and expenses is above board - but clearly in need of regulation !.

The example is not as far fetched as it might appear...think the Mayo man or Audi man or even Greystones man ?

Can we say what are the admin expenses in say Goal or Concern ?

walshb

Nodin wrote: »

...as oppossed to years, or years and years and years.....



Are Ethiopia and others "fixed" ?

Well, it depends on who you listen to. Concern and Goal and others aren't gonna' come out and say they are fixed. If poverty and destitute disappeared, these NGOs wouldn't exist. They thrive on poverty, their very egos and livelihoods depend on poverty, and continued poverty. And, as long as they exist and as long as they are interferring in thses countries, problems will always exist. Part of the problem with the third world, and a big part I would say is the first world.

Fulton Crown

walshb wrote: »

Well, it depends on who you listen to. Concern and Goal and others aren't gonna' come out and say they are fixed. If poverty and destitute disappeared, these NGOs wouldn't exist. They thrive on poverty, their very egos and livelihoods depend on poverty, and continued poverty. And, as long as they exist and as long as they are interferring in thses countries, problems will always exist. Part of the problem with the third world, and a big part I would say is the first world.

Eh ?

walshb

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Eh ?

Eh what?

Fulton Crown

walshb wrote: »

Eh what?

Just could not make sense of your post pal.

Never mind - I'm sure it's my fault

walshb

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Never mind - I'm sure it's my fault

I'm sure it is.

Fulton Crown

I would have to say that nobody has come up with any thing concrete on how these agencies are regulated....one for our media watchdogs methinks....

P. Breathnach

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I concur with Mr Crown's concern re the fiscal rectitude of these organisations.

Goal for instance, what are the O'Sheas getting out of it.

Likewise Fergus over in Barnardos.

There are millions involved here and the Irish are great for putting their hand in the póca, but how much reaches the bottom line.

Also we have African states such as Ethiopia with questionable Govt.

The idealist and dreamers see nothing to worry about here, but I would certainly not be too happy to contribute.

There is certainly a rancid whiff of corruption there.

Have you any basis for naming particular people in a post where you are suggesting that Irish charities are corrupt?

Laminations

I dont think they are suggesting corruption. I think the question is why isn't there regulated pay scales. If a charity is raising money to give to a cause, is there a limit on what they can off take for salaries. You'd like to think that people who work for charities are charitable but it can be seen right from the bottom with chuggers that you cant get people to help collect money without paying a good hourly rate.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

I dont think they are suggesting corruption. I think the question is why isn't there regulated pay scales. If a charity is raising money to give to a cause, is there a limit on what they can off take for salaries. You'd like to think that people who work for charities are charitable but it can be seen right from the bottom with chuggers that you cant get people to help collect money without paying a good hourly rate.

I have no problem with the idea of proper regulation of charities: I'm for that.

What I do have a problem with is naming people who work for charities in a context like this: it implies that they might be corrupt.

FlutterinBantam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have you any basis for naming particular people in a post where you are suggesting that Irish charities are corrupt?

If you read the post Sir you will surely understand that regarding Goal, fiscal rectitude is the issue.

All I want to know is what the CEO earns and how much admin costs.

Nobody is even remotely suggesting that Irish charities are corrupt.


Now African countries might be, that's what I am referring to.


If people are looking for money from me, I feel that i need to know where that money is going,and the kind of bang I get for my buck.


Is that OK?

edanto

The OP is right, we urgently need proper, active regulation in this sector. Last year, there was a major step made, in that the Charities Act 2009 was signed into Law (details here http://www.wheel.ie/user/content/view/full/3092). The problem since has been that only one of the 99 sections of the law have been brought into operation.

Why? The reason is that the Department concerned have not yet made decisions about staffing, location, funding for the Charities Regulator and the other 98 sections of the law refer to the Charities Regulator. So, until the Charities Regulator exists in Ireland, the law cannot come into force.

The one section that is in force relates to mass cards.

If anyone would like to suggest to the Department that they speed up this process, you can contact them through www.pobail.ie, or write a good letter to the editor.

Recently, I heard from someone working in the Department that there was a problem securing agreement about how the regulator would be funded, that "now was the worst time in the world to start a new quango".

I feel that now is probably the best time in the world to start this particular quango, and that it should not cost very much at all to run. Until it is in operation, the only oversight when it comes to CHY numbers is by the Revenue (they decide if an organisation pays corporation taxes).

An important point that has to be made is that there is ongoing regulation by people that fund charities. No matter if the funds come from government, private foundations, or public donations, there are detailed budgets and proof of expenditure provided as appropriate.

All charities that have income above a certain level have to file accounts with the CRO and like other companies, those will have to be audited above a certain level of turnover.

Let me just say at the end that I fundamentally disagree with walshb's understanding of charity (in the sector, we call it 'development') work, I think it's oversimplistic and tabloid. If he's prepared to put some time into understanding the issues at play, say two hours a week for the next six weeks, then he'll have a better understanding and we'll have a basis for discussion. Go here if interested http://suas.ie/global-issues-courses.html

edanto

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

how much admin costs.

This is a more complicated question than it looks. Let's say that we are comparing two charities and they both provide food and shelter for the homeless. Let's say that they raise and spend the exact same amount of money, on the same things.

Depending on how they do their accounts, they may have different levels of admin expenses. If they have a person that makes the beds in the shelter is that an admin cost? Or is it a charitable cost? What of the cost of bed sheets? Electricity for the kitchen? Rent for the shelter? Rent for the office space?

Obviously, there is some level of agreement about how to report these things (e.g SORP in the UK) and there is also clear guidance from Dochas in Ireland on how to report charity accounts so that they are clear.

But as Sand's example above shows, the problem may be in the 'charities' that you have never heard of, the ones that are just taking the mick.

... and that's why we urgently need the Charity Regulator to be set up as set out in the legislation. If anyone knows Minister O Cuiv, you might ask him how long it's going to take ( I recently heard that it might be another 2 years, which I think is a disgrace)

FlutterinBantam

Thank you for your understanding of the issue.

Let me reiterate that at NO TIME would I ever even suggest that there was corruption in mainstream Irish Charities.

What I am interested in is the wedge which goes to the person on top and the office and backup teams.

Not remotely suggesting that these people shouldn't be paid, but it would be nice to be able to access this info, and make your donation based on that.

That is the issue which interests me, and indeed would appear to concern the OP, Mr Crown.

Fairly straightforward really.

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thank you for your understanding of the issue.

Let me reiterate that at NO TIME would I ever even suggest that there was corruption in mainstream Irish Charities.

What I am interested in is the wedge which goes to the person on top and the office and backup teams.

Not remotely suggesting that these people shouldn't be paid, but it would be nice to be able to access this info, and make your donation based on that.

That is the issue which interests me, and indeed would appear to concern the OP, Mr Crown.

Fairly straightforward really.

Straightforward in some senses, but tricky in others. As edanto points out, the results won't be entirely comparative between similar charities - and comparison between different charity sectors/types will be nearly meaningless, like comparing the cost base for a restaurant and a factory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edanto

@ FB But what of the right to privacy of those people?

With all due respect, why should a punter on the street who is donating €20, (which may only be 0.00006% of the charities income if we take Concern as an example) be privy to the salaries of the entire office team?

It's a different story when it comes to institutional donors (e.g Irish Aid) - they would of course know the exact salaries of everyone involved and would sign off on them.

Currently, you can get the accounts of any charity you like from the CRO and work out the average salary. But you need more information than that to know if they are fairly paid or not. For example, if you have someone in an office in Galway overseeing a project with a budget of €2m which will improve the healthcare of 100,000 people in rural Africa.... what should their salary be?

Your other option is just to contact the charity you are interested in directly and ask them. But imagine if someone contacted a widget-making company and asked how much the manager got paid... what would HR say?!

EDIT: The other thing to consider is the type of charity that is concerned. A charity which focuses on disaster relief work would be expected to spend a large proportion on tents/food/water etc. But a charity which is more focused on developing communities and creating stable societies in poor countries might spend almost all of it's money on staff costs. Is one wrong? (I would say that both are right in concept, but you need to see detailed numbers to judge)

FlutterinBantam

I think people are misunderstanding me here.

What I want to know if I donate my €100 to Charity X, is how much of that 100 Eurons reaches the bottom line.

If I could explain:Suppose I donate €100 and it turns out that €20 worth of aid eventually reaches the area where it is needed and €80 goes on admin costs.

Wouldn't I be much better donating my €100 to a charity where €80 goes to the area needed and €20 on admin costs.??

How do I differentiate ,if I don't know the cost base of the charity involved.?

I have no wish to be prurient in these issues

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I think people are misunderstanding me here.

What I want to know if I donate my €100 to Charity X, is how much of that 100 Eurons reaches the bottom line.

If I could explain:Suppose I donate €100 and it turns out that €20 worth of aid eventually reaches the area where it is needed and €80 goes on admin costs.

Wouldn't I be much better donating my €100 to a charity where €80 goes to the area needed and €20 on admin costs.??

How do I differentiate ,if I don't know the cost base of the charity involved.?

I have no wish to be prurient in these issues

How does one tell what "goes to the area needed" consists of? Does lobbying and media spend "go to the area needed" for a charity involved in providing medical service in Africa?

If you try to use a metric like this, you'll run into the same problem all metrics have - they result in maximisation of the metric rather than anything else. If we use money "going to the area needed" versus "admin" as our metric, then the charity can maximise that metric by buying a load of food aid, and simply handing it over to "local powers" to distribute, because that's simpler and cheaper to administrate than working out how to get the food to the people that really need it. The result will look good on paper - on the ground it will result in the charity fostering corruption and the power of local elites. Is that a good use of your charity money? No, but it will look like one, on paper.

cordially,
Scofflaw