Concern

starbelgrade

Glenster wrote: »

WARNING WARNING The quoted post is not based in fact WARNING WARNING

1. Giving out life saving food and shelter to victims of natural disasters does more harm than good.

2. There are ****ing reams of regulation regarding the publication of accounts, it is the bane of my life.

3. Concern are audited/inspected by auditors about 8 times a year, 1 of which is a full audit of everything they've spent money on, line by line. If concern were found to have published anything which went against the spirit of the findings of any of these reviews the fines and scandal would cost the company 10's of millions. AND THE AUDITORS THAT CONCERN PAYS TO AUDIT THEM WOULD BE LEGALLY BOUND TO POINT ANY SUCH INFRACTION OUT.

4. What parts of the charities act would you enforce more stringently? I'll give you a few minutes to google it.

Having called me a "cheap ****" & a "leper who talks about things I don't understand", I suggest you go off & Google the meaning of having a "civil debate".

As it stands, you are coming across as arrogant, insulting & are doing your side of the argument absolutely no favours whatsoever.

And ironically, your insults aren't exactly what could be considered "charitable" by any means.

fakearms123

I have no concern for this thread

conorbyrneirl

(disclosure: I am a non profit professional working with charities, but Im not with concern)

I suppose Im not all that surprised to read some of the comments on this thread. To be honest, Im not the biggest fan of on street fundraising, in fact I choose not to donate to on street fundraisers. But there is one simple reason why they are there day after day....it works. People do donate to them and as a result charities like Concern are able to help the people they work with.

The non profit sector is filled with choices and people choose to donate to the charity that they relate to, the one that they think will achieve the goal they want to achieve. Its like when you buy a product from the supermarket, you tend to choose the one that you can relate to. How do you know you relate to it....they advertise to you.

I think to say charities shouldn't advertise is daft! How do you know that Concern are even in Pakistan helping people, if they dont tell you. Why do they choose to advertise during the 6 news....because it works. Charities like Concern don't just have a hit and miss approach to their campaigns, they have strategy, they have plans, in fact when a disaster happens in one of the regions where Concern are working they have a plan in place that means they can start communicating and looking for donations within a matter of hours.

Yes a strategy and a plan. It would be great if people were able to think of charities as professional organisations, just like the for profit sector, the difference being the profit goes to help vulnerable and needy people.

There seems to be a perception that just because of the word Charity or Not for Profit an organisation should operate on a shoestring. Tell me which of these two organisations is more effective:
a) spends 1 million to raise 3 million (net 2 million)
b) spends 4 million to raise 8 million (net 4 million)

In my humble opinion the organisation that has a net of 4 million to spend is the most effective, but if you look at it as a ratio organisation a) is most effective.

You have to spend money to make money, and that principle holds for the not for profit sector. In fact lets lose that terminology....we are the For Impact Sector. Yes we need to be more careful about how we spend that money to make money, but should we test ideas to ensure we get it right, absolutely. Today the CEO of Heineken was asked how he got people to choose his product over the other beer brands and he said "Advertising, Advertising, Advertising". They made 1/2 billion in profits this year, imagine what a charity with 1/2 billion profits every year could do!?

This is a much larger debate, in fact a guy called Dan Pallotta has written a book about it called Uncharitable. I wrote a post on my blog about it (here) and here is a great video where Dan talks about his thinking on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYBCB5dAuc

candy-gal1

Didnt it use to be give what you can?! :mad:

Out of principal I wouldnt give squat now, not that i ever did (unless to an Irish or animal charity).

These ads have been going on for the past 10-15 years at least, What p****es me off is if people gave money when the ads first came about then it should be all sorted by now if the people of these countries stopped having kids without any money!

knird evol

There is a real pointlessness to just channeling cash into the third world.

If these countries didn't have corrupt regimes or the potential for imminent corrupt govt or coups then vast capital would flow their direction. They have the cheapest unskilled labour, a man would work a year for you for about twenty euro. All other things being equal these countries should be the fastest growing economies and self sufficient.
I think in the West we should deal with the undemocratic despots and military regimes in these countries and set them up on a reliable foundation for growth and prosperity where they are not dependent on someone else.

Sizzler

Glenster wrote: »

Asking for 40 maximizes the amount of money given. Simple.

There's no rule that says you have to give 40, you can give any amount.

Also less than 7% of total money recieved goes to overheads.

And no money given by individuals goes towards overheads.

Overheads are made up by grants from the EU, The Irish State, and various other governments.

Also, grow a ****ing soul you cheap banshees.

OK then, I implore you to telephone/email/write to any of the "big 3" charities and ask them how much their senior execs are paid, or how much was spent on "admin" last year or what % of your euro goes to charity....let me know how that goes and come back to me.......

Kooli

Sizzler wrote: »

OK then, I implore you to telephone/email/write to any of the "big 3" charities and ask them how much their senior execs are paid, or how much was spent on "admin" last year or what % of your euro goes to charity....let me know how that goes and come back to me.......

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Are people suggesting that the heads of charities shouldn't be paid much? Or that no money should go on admin?

If so, I'm just baffled...

Bill2673

Sizzler wrote: »

OK then, I implore you to telephone/email/write to any of the "big 3" charities and ask them how much their senior execs are paid, or how much was spent on "admin" last year or what % of your euro goes to charity....let me know how that goes and come back to me.......

Simple question: What charity would you recommend for people who want to donate to third world countries?

fkiely

Bill2673 wrote: »

Simple question: What charity would you recommend?

Alan Kerins African Project.

starbelgrade

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Are people suggesting that the heads of charities shouldn't be paid much? Or that no money should go on admin?

If so, I'm just baffled...

There are a lot of questions that could & frankly should be asked about all charities in Ireland. At present, there is no regulatory body for charities in this country which has almost 7,500 registered charities.

A Charities Bill that allows for the creation of a regulator was enacted in February 2009. But more than a year later, the legislation is lying idle.

Few small charity organisations publish annual accounts, as they are not registered companies. Revenue, which is responsible for granting organisations charitable tax status, can carry out audits for taxation purposes, but these are not made public.

This year, at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the ICROSS charity has repaid €97,000 in grants provided by Irish Aid, the Government’s development aid section & there are still investigations undergoing as to the whereabouts of a further "missing" €150,000.

Add to that any type of accountability for how & where donations to charities are actually spent & distributed, you would really have to have an amazingly naive belief in human nature to blindly accept that your charitable donations are always being put to the use for which you intended them.

Kooli

starbelgrade wrote: »

There are a lot of questions that could & frankly should be asked about all charities in Ireland. At present, there is no regulatory body for charities in this country which has almost 7,500 registered charities.

A Charities Bill that allows for the creation of a regulator was enacted in February 2009. But more than a year later, the legislation is lying idle.

Few small charity organisations publish annual accounts, as they are not registered companies. Revenue, which is responsible for granting organisations charitable tax status, can carry out audits for taxation purposes, but these are not made public.

This year, at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the ICROSS charity has repaid €97,000 in grants provided by Irish Aid, the Government’s development aid section & there are still investigations undergoing as to the whereabouts of a further "missing" €150,000.

Add to that any type of accountability for how & where donations to charities are actually spent & distributed, you would really have to have an amazingly naive belief in human nature to blindly accept that your charitable donations are always being put to the use for which you intended them.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But I still want to know if the people who moan about admin and salary costs are saying that no money should go to admin, or that all charity staff should be lowly paid.

Threads about charities come up regularly, and it always seems to me that people want to find reasons to see charities as somehow corrupt or useless to justify the fact that they don't donate to them. It's a much more comfortable feeling to say 'I won't donate because I don't trust where my money goes' than to say 'I won't donate because I have better things to spend my money on'.

The same for the people who say they won't donate to a charity because they use chuggers, like they're standing up for some sort of principle. I don't believe that for a second - I don't believe they donate to any alternative charity either, they just don't donate to charity. (Which is fine, by the way, but just stop with the mental gymnastics to justify it!)

spiralbound

Sizzler wrote: »

OK then, I implore you to telephone/email/write to any of the "big 3" charities and ask them how much their senior execs are paid, or how much was spent on "admin" last year or what % of your euro goes to charity....let me know how that goes and come back to me.......

Why don't you have a look on their website?

http://www.concern.net/about/how-money-spent

88% of funds raised are spent on relief and development. 9% are spent on fundraising.

You can find their annual reports on there too.

Sizzler

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Are people suggesting that the heads of charities shouldn't be paid much? Or that no money should go on admin?

If so, I'm just baffled...

Its a bit of a contradiction in terms to have someone working for a charity yet creaming blue chip salary wages at the expense of the unsuspecting donor. Anybody I have ever mentioned this to is honestly flabbergasted. Is the donor regulating their salaries? Whats to stop them giving bonuses to themselves if they want? Just dont agree with it. Lets face it, if you want to give to these people your euro might never get past the charities slush fund on AIB / BOI.

Bill2673 wrote: »

Simple question: What charity would you recommend for people who want to donate to third world countries?

Niall Mellon to name but one but to be fair thats a decision for you, see previous post, ring around and educate yourself and see which charity will answer the difficult questions, if they are willing to at all ! Once you find one that answers the questions straight out and you like what you hear, then thats the one

Kooli wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that.

But I still want to know if the people who moan about admin and salary costs are saying that no money should go to admin, or that all charity staff should be lowly paid.

I guess you need to seperate the acceptability versus the need, once you can reconcile that then you have your answer, everybody's different. Of course theres admin costs but lets be honest some of it is downright excessive and is bad spend with money that was donated in the main to be spent on good causes, not fat cat salaries and blue ribbon marketing campaigns.

Kooli

Sizzler wrote: »

Its a bit of a contradiction in terms to have someone working for a charity yet creaming blue chip salary wages at the expense of the unsuspecting donor.

Well I just disagree with that. The biggest charities, that have the potential to reach the most recipients across the globe, are HUGE operations. If I had to choose who was to run that operation, who would make the best decisions on how to raise funds and how to spend them, and how to operate the company and how to manage it, I would want the best of the best.

Sure you could get someone with a 'heart of gold' who is willing to do it for 20-30K a year, and that probably works great for a small organisation with a small scope, but that is frankly not good enough for the big ones.

If you pay low wages, you don't get the best people, and you get a high turnover as people move to better jobs when they've got the experience they needed.

Charity should be treated like a business to get the best results for the people who need it.

Kooli

spiralbound wrote: »

Why don't you have a look on their website?

http://www.concern.net/about/how-money-spent

88% of funds raised are spent on relief and development. 9% are spent on fundraising.

You can find their annual reports on there too.

It doesn't matter how many people bring up this fact, people have an uncanny ability to not hear it or believe it, and continue spouting crap about how all the money is going to go on salaries and running costs, cos that's quite simply what it suits them to believe.

sponsoredwalk

Kooli wrote: »

Threads about charities come up regularly, and it always seems to me that people want to find reasons to see charities as somehow corrupt or useless to justify the fact that they don't donate to them. It's a much more comfortable feeling to say 'I won't donate because I don't trust where my money goes' than to say 'I won't donate because I have better things to spend my money on'.

+1, it's especially ludicrous when you use a man convicted of a ponzi
scheme that was mainly benefitting U.S. interest groups that were
striving to stick to the 5% tax bracket interest groups had to stick to
in order to fuel your disdain :rolleyes:

I see Trocaire's/concerns connection to that, yes I do :pac:

Sizzler

Kooli wrote: »

Well I just disagree with that. The biggest charities, that have the potential to reach the most recipients across the globe, are HUGE operations. If I had to choose who was to run that operation, who would make the best decisions on how to raise funds and how to spend them, and how to operate the company and how to manage it, I would want the best of the best.

Sure you could get someone with a 'heart of gold' who is willing to do it for 20-30K a year, and that probably works great for a small organisation with a small scope, but that is frankly not good enough for the big ones.

If you pay low wages, you don't get the best people, and you get a high turnover as people move to better jobs when they've got the experience they needed.

Charity should be treated like a business to get the best results for the people who need it.

Tom Arnold, CEO of Concern took the role after initially being in the role on secondment from the dept of agriculture, a real captain of industry :rolleyes:

Hulk Hands

Bill2673 wrote: »

Simple question: What charity would you recommend for people who want to donate to third world countries?

Afaik, Goal spend little to no money on advertising and very little on overheads. Thats where I try to direct my charity

Bill2673

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Didnt it use to be give what you can?! :mad:

Out of principal I wouldnt give squat now, not that i ever did (unless to an Irish or animal charity).

These ads have been going on for the past 10-15 years at least, What p****es me off is if people gave money when the ads first came about then it should be all sorted by now if the people of these countries stopped having kids without any money!

hahaha if the people of these countries stopped having kids without money......

you would swear that ireland's population never ballooned up to 8 million, made up mostly of large, impoverished families, followed by a thundering famine when crops failed, followed by more famine, followed by a period of massive emigration that lasted for more than a century, during which time large families continued to be the more norm despite the inherent poverty of the country. Finally we got it right, about 200 years after our population first exploded, and people no longer needed to emigrate any more. But thats ok, cause we have excuses (damn Brits). These bloody third worlders, Band Aid was twenty five years ago.....why haven't they sorted it out already.

I have to laugh.....its funny.

If people in Ireland were to give what they can, they'd be giving a lot more than €40......

starbelgrade

Kooli wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that.

But I still want to know if the people who moan about admin and salary costs are saying that no money should go to admin, or that all charity staff should be lowly paid.

Threads about charities come up regularly, and it always seems to me that people want to find reasons to see charities as somehow corrupt or useless to justify the fact that they don't donate to them. It's a much more comfortable feeling to say 'I won't donate because I don't trust where my money goes' than to say 'I won't donate because I have better things to spend my money on'.

The same for the people who say they won't donate to a charity because they use chuggers, like they're standing up for some sort of principle. I don't believe that for a second - I don't believe they donate to any alternative charity either, they just don't donate to charity. (Which is fine, by the way, but just stop with the mental gymnastics to justify it!)

I can't answer for other people, but the main reason why I don't donate to charities is that I believe that the fundamental principles of charity are wrong.

Sizzler

spiralbound wrote: »

Why don't you have a look on their website?

http://www.concern.net/about/how-money-spent

88% of funds raised are spent on relief and development. 9% are spent on fundraising.

You can find their annual reports on there too.

So what exactly did you see on the annual report? All I learnt was they earned half a million in deposit interest and they had 8 million in the bank at the end of 2008 and to top it off they have a management structure that would make the civil service look simplistic!

http://www.concern.net/sites/concern.net/files/2010_Concern_Organisational_Structure.pdf

Cant say I read it top to bottom but I didnt see anything about how much of donors money goes direct to charity or what their management team is earning. Wheres the transparency? The sad thing is the likes of concern are unfortunately becoming like a profit making corporate entity and not a charity, far from what was intended when it was founded I would imagine.

Celly Smunt

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

And do you have anything to back that up?

no.

richardjjd

Sizzler wrote: »

... and to top it off they have a management structure that would make the civil service look simplistic!

Chief executive. Four direct reports. Can't see what's difficult about that.

Sizzler wrote:

Cant say I read it top to bottom but I didnt see anything about how much of donors money goes direct to charity

See here - page 82. First page of the financial report. 88% of income on charitable activity, 9% on fundraising, 2% on Development Education and 1% on administration.

Sizzler wrote:

or what their management team is earning.

Again, see the annual report, page 96.

Sizzler wrote:

concern are unfortunately becoming like a profit making corporate entity and not a charity, far from what was intended when it was founded I would imagine.

I can't address this point, because I don't know what you mean.

Owwmykneecap

Whole lotta Ayn Rand up in here.

Sizzler

richardjjd wrote: »

Chief executive. Four direct reports. Can't see what's difficult about that.

Have you worked there?

richardjjd wrote: »

See here - page 82. First page of the financial report. 88% of income on charitable activity, 9% on fundraising, 2% on Development Education and 1% on administration.

Eaxactly, shocking stuff. Have you read this thread?

richardjjd wrote: »

Again, see the annual report, page 96.

Ambiguous at best.

richardjjd wrote: »

I can't address this point, because I don't know what you mean.

*Sigh*

weldoninhio

I don't give money to charities because i don't care about people living in some godforsaken desert thousands of miles away, or flood victims in Pakistan. Not My Problem!!

steddyeddy

weldoninhio wrote: »

I don't give money to charities because i don't care about people living in some godforsaken desert thousands of miles away, or flood victims in Pakistan. Not My Problem!!

If everyone had your lack of empathy ireland would never get aid when it needs it.

padma

Having worked with Concern in the early part of this century for 5 years and seen first hand the work they do which the regular monthly donation. With my hand on my Heart if you want to help a professional, worldwide respected, transparent, Development charity these are the guys.

Their work is trojan stuff. They budget and plan effectively like no other. Millions, and I truly mean millions of families in the harshest areas of this little planet have benefitted short-term and long term from the generosity of the Irish public. As Irish people we can be proud of Concern's efforts and effectiveness in the field. Being the most popular Irish charity they have carved a path in to this field like no other. Other charities look at Concern and build there work to mirror theirs.

At the end of the day sitting in a village which has become fully self sufficient, where the people are free from hunger makes it all worthwhile. Some of the most beautiful moments of my life were spent with the Concern crew. Local lads and international staff alike.

If you like to give, give from the Heart.

starbelgrade

padma wrote: »

At the end of the day sitting in a village which has become fully self sufficient, where the people are free from hunger makes it all worthwhile. Some of the most beautiful moments of my life were spent with the Concern crew. Local lads and international staff alike.

If you like to give, give from the Heart.

As foreign aid to Africa has increased over the past few decades, so has long term famine & poverty - and it is no coincidence, as they have a direct relationship.

Short term solutions of throwing cash at Africa have failed miserably - it has caused huge corruption, created dependancy & interefered with the autonomy of the countries.

All charity has done for Africa is given donators & aid workers a feelgood factor - at the expense of those who they naivley believe they are helping. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But Concern aren't concerned by these things. As long as the money keeps rolling in & keeps their multi-national company ticking over nicely & keeps a lot of people in highly paid jobs, they are happy.

padma

why did you highlight a certain section of that post? Whole villages, whole provinces and communities fully self sufficient. Everything organic, African style sense of community and love for one another. This is the experience many people have Local aid workers and international alike.

Your opinions count and are due the respect they deserve. Join a debate and seek more information about the positive and negative effects of development work and development aid. As for me I'm happy in the knowing that it is a beautiful thing to know friends I've made and their families are living fruitful and educated lives.

One such friend that was met. When she was 12 years old she had a hole in her Heart and the operation could only be done in Ireland. She met an aid worker who raised funds in Ireland (as Concern couldn't spend such money on this operation) and got her airlifted to Ireland where she spent her time in Crumlin hospital had a successful operation and went back home. 12 years later this woman is working for Concern as a public health nurse and helping roughly 45,000 people in her area.

It is very easy to have opinions about the politics of aid and such it is another to be in an area that has been spat on by the world bank and the IMF and the ex colonial powers and treated as a third class citizen.

That is the reality for many countries fresh from colonialism. Ireland went through a similar situation and it took a long time before we were treated as an equal citizen at the world table. In most underdeveloped countries there is many a reason for poverty, Natural and man-made and it is quite sad that there are horrible situations where aid has had a bad effect on the local populace. Usually created in some form or another of organisations (learning the ropes)

Cocern is a nice mix of emergency relief work(in times of famine and disaster) and long-term development work, covering education, food security and livelihoods and aids prevention and care. All of which are run by local staff thus being an effective charitable organisation. Concern wouldn't be a developmental organisation if it didn't have the regular monthly donation that they get from the public. As that 10 euro a month is an income to Concern. So on x day of every month hundreds of thousands of euro is going in to Concern's account. This means they can make promises to certain areas, be it agricultural schemes, building co-ops etc, or setting up woodwork shops for the youth in downtown Kenya or whatever.

So effectively what is being got at, everything you just said is a live debate and trust me Concern know this, the people in these countries know this, local governments too and it is for this very reason if you wanted to be a part of the change that is happening, your money would be best spent with Concern Worldwide. IMO...

The millenium development goals are also something which Concern is deeply involved with. This is not a western idea, but a worldwide goal set up by all leading thinkers in the field of world development.

filthymcnasty

starbelgrade wrote: »

As foreign aid to Africa has increased over the past few decades, so has long term famine & poverty - and it is no coincidence, as they have a direct relationship.

Short term solutions of throwing cash at Africa have failed miserably - it has caused huge corruption, created dependancy & interefered with the autonomy of the countries.

All charity has done for Africa is given donators & aid workers a feelgood factor - at the expense of those who they naivley believe they are helping. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But Concern aren't concerned by these things. As long as the money keeps rolling in & keeps their multi-national company ticking over nicely & keeps a lot of people in highly paid jobs, they are happy.

Thats correct: western charity in a way is a new from of colonialism- the inhabitants of these countries often end up relying on certain charities so that they can't grow themselves. Some charities want this state of perpetual neediness to justify their existence. They control the purse strings and who gets what.

The author Paul Theroux wrote some interesting insights on charity organisations in Africa, how for many young 'volunteers' it was all about partying in their hotels and pricking about in 4x4s- i wouldn't begrudge anyone a bit of a craic on a year out but should be done in Oz or some place at your own expense.

padma

filthymcnasty wrote: »

Thats correct: western charity in a way is a new from of colonialism- the inhabitants of these countries often end up relying on certain charities so that they can't grow themselves. Some charities want this state of perpetual neediness to justify their existence. They control the purse strings and who gets what.

The author Paul Theroux wrote some interesting insights on charity organisations in Africa, how for many young 'volunteers' it was all about partying in their hotels and pricking about in 4x4s- i wouldn't begrudge anyone a bit of a craic on a year out but should be done in Oz or some place at your own expense.

IMO, you are not correct in saying that Concern do this as most of their staff are local, and the people who go out are project managers and professionals.

This is an interesting link on some of the ground work Concern does http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv6isFch7-Y

sponsoredwalk

starbelgrade wrote: »

All charity has done for Africa is given donators & aid workers a feelgood factor - at the expense of those who they naivley believe they are helping. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If there was ever a way to lose all credibility this would rank amongst the
classic examples. If ever I am to write a psychology paper I am going to
use this, quoted for posterity :cool:

I just need one example, can you tell me how there is naivety in funding a
charity that gives "a new family to orphans and supporting the remaining
family of children orphaned by Aids. Our charity helps Aids Orphans and
other orphaned children in almost every country in Africa"?

Who loses out here, according to your empirically stellar logic, when people
fund a charity that provides a new home for people orphaned over aids?

cson

padma wrote: »

why did you highlight a certain section of that post? Whole villages, whole provinces and communities fully self sufficient. Everything organic, African style sense of community and love for one another. This is the experience many people have Local aid workers and international alike.

Your opinions count and are due the respect they deserve. Join a debate and seek more information about the positive and negative effects of development work and development aid. As for me I'm happy in the knowing that it is a beautiful thing to know friends I've made and their families are living fruitful and educated lives.

One such friend that was met. When she was 12 years old she had a hole in her Heart and the operation could only be done in Ireland. She met an aid worker who raised funds in Ireland (as Concern couldn't spend such money on this operation) and got her airlifted to Ireland where she spent her time in Crumlin hospital had a successful operation and went back home. 12 years later this woman is working for Concern as a public health nurse and helping roughly 45,000 people in her area.

It is very easy to have opinions about the politics of aid and such it is another to be in an area that has been spat on by the world bank and the IMF and the ex colonial powers and treated as a third class citizen.

That is the reality for many countries fresh from colonialism. Ireland went through a similar situation and it took a long time before we were treated as an equal citizen at the world table. In most underdeveloped countries there is many a reason for poverty, Natural and man-made and it is quite sad that there are horrible situations where aid has had a bad effect on the local populace. Usually created in some form or another of organisations (learning the ropes)

Cocern is a nice mix of emergency relief work(in times of famine and disaster) and long-term development work, covering education, food security and livelihoods and aids prevention and care. All of which are run by local staff thus being an effective charitable organisation. Concern wouldn't be a developmental organisation if it didn't have the regular monthly donation that they get from the public. As that 10 euro a month is an income to Concern. So on x day of every month hundreds of thousands of euro is going in to Concern's account. This means they can make promises to certain areas, be it agricultural schemes, building co-ops etc, or setting up woodwork shops for the youth in downtown Kenya or whatever.

So effectively what is being got at, everything you just said is a live debate and trust me Concern know this, the people in these countries know this, local governments too and it is for this very reason if you wanted to be a part of the change that is happening, your money would be best spent with Concern Worldwide. IMO...

The millenium development goals are also something which Concern is deeply involved with. This is not a western idea, but a worldwide goal set up by all leading thinkers in the field of world development.

Shenanigans. And fucking outrageous ones at that.

If you're going to spew this populist charity shite can you at least pick a reasonable figure. One woman helping 45k odd people? FFS.

filthymcnasty

padma wrote: »

IMO, you are not correct in saying that Concern do this as most of their staff are local, and the people who go out are project managers and professionals.

This is an interesting link on some of the ground work Concern does http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv6isFch7-Y

Am not pinpointing Concern and have no doubt they do some great work in Africa and other places, but there is a perception that after years and years of looking for money what have they really achieved?
A lot of the public are getting lethargic and questioning NGOs impact out there- how many more water pumps have to be built, how many more families have to be sponsored- what is the their real impact?
There are so many charities out there it all seems like a land grab, needs to be co-ordinated much better.

padma

cson wrote: »

Shenanigans. And fucking outrageous ones at that.

If you're going to spew this populist charity shite can you at least pick a reasonable figure. One woman helping 45k odd people? FFS.

She is the public health nurse in a ghetto in a west african country, she also works with a number of other staff. Why do you feel the need to curse? is it to show a knee-jerk reaction to something you picked up which I admit I should have made clear that she worked alongside many others. Though I felt it obvious I understand others may not.

padma

filthymcnasty wrote: »

Am not pinpointing Concern and have no doubt they do some great work in Africa and other places, but there is a perception that after years and years of looking for money what have they really achieved?
A lot of the public are getting lethargic and questioning NGOs impact out there- how many more water pumps have to be built, how many more families have to be sponsored- what is the their real impact?
There are so many charities out there it all seems like a land grab, needs to be co-ordinated much better.

I agree with some of this. Have you ever looked at the real map of the world? The whole of Europe fits in to the size of Chad. Africa is an extremely large Continent.

The public are right to question NGO'S and the more they do the more people can learn and offer their input as we the public as the donators have a right to know how effective this work actually is. What effect on communities and what effect policy makers at the big tables have. Effectively donating to a charity you are voting for them, what they do and endorse there work.

This is something big as that charity can lobby at the big tables and say hey we got x amount of people who support this work, we want change the louder you throw your voice out there the more it is heard.

Back to the people on the streets and fundraisers etc, ask them questions about Concern's policies, engage them on the streets and find out about Concern. This is the way to be heard as they are the public representatives of the charity and if they have been properly trained they should know the answers to your questions and if not they will be able to contact the Head office and find out for you. To the best of my knowledge that's their job.

BigBenRoeth

steddyeddy wrote: »

If everyone had your lack of empathy ireland would never get aid when it needs it.

Ireland did need aid,badly,when the big fcuk off famine was going on.

pow wow

I don't give to Concern and wouldn't, but it's a personal thing. Their methods seem to work though, however cheeky people find them!

mfceiling

Bill2673 wrote: »

the mealy mouthedness that pervades this website.....its really ticking me off.

So if all you punters are so fed up with concern, who do you give money to?

I'd see €40 as a very reasonable amount for the average person to give.

For the average Irish person who is in a job, this amount is really very little.

In addition, they presumably have processing costs for online donations, so it may be the case that a €5 donation is costing them money.

Bit unfair that......SVP are swamped with people "who are in jobs" who find that €40 means the electric bill is paid, food goes on the table or a doctor's visit is covered.

MonkeyTennis

Ive given 21 euro to concern a month for the last 4 years and 7 a month when I was a student. I couldnt really afford the 7 when I was a student but I did. I cant really afford the 21 now but I do

But If they ring me one more time Im going to f*cking kill them

Celly Smunt

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Ive given 21 euro to concern a month for the last 4 years and 7 a month when I was a student. I couldnt really afford the 7 when I was a student but I did. I cant really afford the 21 now but I do

But If they ring me one more time Im going to f*cking kill them

i can only imagine your frustration on how much of your money they waste on calling you,i am deeply sympathetic

RonMexico

When they ask for a specific amount it really pisses me off.

starbelgrade

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If there was ever a way to lose all credibility this would rank amongst the
classic examples. If ever I am to write a psychology paper I am going to
use this, quoted for posterity :cool:

I just need one example, can you tell me how there is naivety in funding a
charity that gives "a new family to orphans and supporting the remaining
family of children orphaned by Aids. Our charity helps Aids Orphans and
other orphaned children in almost every country in Africa"?

Who loses out here, according to your empirically stellar logic, when people
fund a charity that provides a new home for people orphaned over aids?

Africa's problems not only need to be sorted by Africa, but more importantly, need to be allowed to be sorted by Africa without our interference. It's not like this is an impossible task.

By providing short term solutions to long term problems (as in your example), the bigger picture is being missed entirely - which is - that Africa needs major political & cultural change, not more foreign aid. Foreign aid may help in times of humanitary crisis, such as natural disasters, to provide necessary aid, but simply doesn't help in the long term.

The proof of this is that after over 30 years of sending billions & billions of foreign aid to Africa, the continent is no better off than when we started throwing money at them. In fact, in many ways, it is worse off.

If you ever do write a psychology paper, you are more than welcome to quote me, but I fail to see the relevance of quoting posts from a debate that is based in political, cultural & moral issues & not psychological ones.

kincsem

There seems to be confusion about audited accounts. Businesses can spend money wastefully and incur losses. The auditors will give their opinion on whether or not the accounts reflect the annual trading fairly and if the balance sheet (assets and liabilities), are stated accurately. But they don't act as judges on the appropriateness of the spending. They do not give a "good housekeeping" certificate.

I was an auditor in Africa about forty years ago. My salary of £8k (was £5k in Ireland) was more than enough, but I saw that many of the salaries in a development organisation were £70k. I think the expression "charity begins at home" has a basis in fact.

kincsem

My few Euro go to Obera in Argentina every month.

kincsem

Bill2673 wrote: »

So if all you punters are so fed up with concern, who do you give money to?

See above.

I have experience of two people in two large Irish charity organisations. Not nice.

sponsoredwalk

starbelgrade wrote: »

The proof of this is that after over 30 years of sending billions & billions of foreign aid to Africa, the continent is no better off than when we started throwing money at them. In fact, in many ways, it is worse off.

I asked you, specifically, how donating to a charity that gives a new
home to children of parents who have died because of aids is naive - as
you implied

starbelgrade wrote: »

All charity has done for Africa is given donators & aid workers a feelgood factor - at the expense of those who they naivley believe they are helping. Nothing could be further from the truth.

was the case when people donate to charity.

You've avoided the question.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I can't answer for other people, but the main reason why I don't donate to charities is that I believe that the fundamental principles of charity are wrong.

Explain how donating to a charity that finds new homes for children
orphaned as a result of aids is fundamentally wrong?

starbelgrade wrote: »

All charity has done for Africa is given donators & aid workers a feelgood factor - at the expense of those who they naivley believe they are helping. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Explain how it's naive to fund a charity that will find homes for children who
have no-one because of aids?

starbelgrade wrote: »

Africa's problems not only need to be sorted by Africa, but more importantly, need to be allowed to be sorted by Africa without our interference. It's not like this is an impossible task.

Nobody has said it isn't, nobody has claimed that Africans shouldn't
sort out their own problems. The very fact that you would say something
like this shows how ignorant you are of what a lot of charities do.

starbelgrade wrote: »

By providing short term solutions to long term problems (as in your example)

Again, tell me how providing money to a charity that will house the children
of aids victims is a short term solution to solving Africa's problems?
How is it naive to give homes to those children who've fallen victim to
losing their parents who themselves have died due to a disease that is
preventable provided the people have access to information that,
unfortunately, isn't easily accessible - especially when priests, & even some aid
workers themselves, refuse to tell the people about condoms & when
priests in Africa explicitly exclaim that condoms cause aids directly.
I can get all of these qoutes online from priests own mouths in a quick
google.

I can't believe how ideologically blinkered you are, well it's not a stretch
after reading some of the things you've said. A simple bit of online research
will educate you on the principles of self-sustaining charity & some more
research will help you find those charities whose philosophy is strictly that - self-sustaining.
I think you'll be surprised what a few hours researching,
instead of propagating incorrect slander, will do for the mind.

starbelgrade wrote: »

If you ever do write a psychology paper, you are more than welcome to quote me, but I fail to see the relevance of quoting posts from a debate that is based in political, cultural & moral issues & not psychological ones.

I can't help it if you don't see the relavence here, I can't go off educating
people off the internet on psychology 101, go to the yale opencourseware
website & get the free psych 101 lectures by Alan Bloom, they're free &
very eduational. In fact, here you go. I think the correlations between
psychology & this discussion will become abundantly clear once you learn a
bit about that which you assert to be unrelated - you seem to be at this
constantly for some reason, professing knowledge on topics of which you
can't even muster up a truthful fact about, & maybe a bit of psychology
will help you see the nasty habit you've acquired & give you the tools to
self-critically question whether it's an aspect of your personality you're
particularly proud of...

starbelgrade

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I can't help it if you don't see the relavence here, I can't go off educating
people off the internet on psychology 101, go to the yale opencourseware
website & get the free psych 101 lectures by Alan Bloom, they're free &
very eduational. In fact, here you go. I think the correlations between
psychology & this discussion will become abundantly clear once you learn a
bit about that which you assert to be unrelated - you seem to be at this
constantly for some reason, professing knowledge on topics of which you
can't even muster up a truthful fact about, & maybe a bit of psychology
will help you see the nasty habit you've acquired & give you the tools to
self-critically question whether it's an aspect of your personality you're
particularly proud of...

Dude, you seriously need to get over yourself.

BigBenRoeth

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I asked you, specifically, how donating to a charity that gives a new
home to children of parents who have died because of aids is naive - as
you implied



was the case when people donate to charity.

You've avoided the question.



Explain how donating to a charity that finds new homes for children
orphaned as a result of aids is fundamentally wrong?



Explain how it's naive to fund a charity that will find homes for children who
have no-one because of aids?



Nobody has said it isn't, nobody has claimed that Africans shouldn't
sort out their own problems. The very fact that you would say something
like this shows how ignorant you are of what a lot of charities do.



Again, tell me how providing money to a charity that will house the children
of aids victims is a short term solution to solving Africa's problems?
How is it naive to give homes to those children who've fallen victim to
losing their parents who themselves have died due to a disease that is
preventable provided the people have access to information that,
unfortunately, isn't easily accessible - especially when priests, & even some aid
workers themselves, refuse to tell the people about condoms & when
priests in Africa explicitly exclaim that condoms cause aids directly.
I can get all of these qoutes online from priests own mouths in a quick
google.

I can't believe how ideologically blinkered you are, well it's not a stretch
after reading some of the things you've said. A simple bit of online research
will educate you on the principles of self-sustaining charity & some more
research will help you find those charities whose philosophy is strictly that - self-sustaining.
I think you'll be surprised what a few hours researching,
instead of propagating incorrect slander, will do for the mind.



I can't help it if you don't see the relavence here, I can't go off educating
people off the internet on psychology 101, go to the yale opencourseware
website & get the free psych 101 lectures by Alan Bloom, they're free &
very eduational. In fact, here you go. I think the correlations between
psychology & this discussion will become abundantly clear once you learn a
bit about that which you assert to be unrelated - you seem to be at this
constantly for some reason, professing knowledge on topics of which you
can't even muster up a truthful fact about, & maybe a bit of psychology
will help you see the nasty habit you've acquired & give you the tools to
self-critically question whether it's an aspect of your personality you're
particularly proud of...

Christ almighty tonight you clearly have some sort of point to prove