Absolutely honest.

mariaalice

Would you be more likely to support a charity that was absolutely honest and less political correct, especially in the area of homelessness and or addiction!

The difference between the way charities present information and what their clients are really like first occurred to me when I worked as volunteer many years ago.

I know its all about money, politics, and ideology but I feel its treating the donating public as in a very disingenuous way.

There is Bernardo's ad thats annoying me at the moment.

AngryBollix

Nobody likes to hear the truth and people are less likely to say it

Chuck Stone

mariaalice wrote: »

The difference between the way charities present information and what their clients are really like first occurred to me when I worked as volunteer many years ago.

Go on...

Not too sure about all that, but I'll always pick a human welfare charity over an animal one.

I'm always worried about someones mental state when they give exclusively to animal welfare charities.

Seachmall

I would donate more often if there was less overhead.

It's gotten to the point where you can't be sure how much of your money is actually being received, how much is going to paying staff and, worst of all, how much is being paid to tribes or dictators to let the aid through.

In one sense those are unfortunate but necessary overheads and at least your donation is doing something to help people but on the other hand it makes you feel like you aren't actually doing anything.

The PCness of the charity doesn't really concern me. At the end of the day they've got appeal to as many people as possible.

stupidusername

Sacramento wrote: »

Not too sure about all that, but I'll always pick a human welfare charity over an animal one.

I'm always worried about someones mental state when they give exclusively to animal welfare charities.

Funny, I'd say the opposite.

Seachmall wrote: »

I would donate more often if there was less overhead.

It's gotten to the point where you can't be sure how much of your money is actually being received, how much is going to paying staff and, worst of all, how much is being paid to tribes or dictators to let the aid through.

In one sense those are unfortunate but necessary overheads and at least your donation is doing something to help people but on the other hand it makes you feel like you aren't actually doing anything.

Tis a sad state of affairs.

This would be my biggest reason for not donating to charities that do work overseas - you can't see where it's going. there definitely isn't enough transparency. I heard someone on the radio not long ago that had been involved with a charity somewhere in Africa, and he was saying that there's absolutely no use in Irish people donating to them because of the little that got through, and the fact that whatever did get through wasn't ever going to go to long term solutions.

The King of Moo

I would do a good bit of research on a charity before giving, as there are sometimes elements that don't get much publicity.

For example, I found out a few years ago that SVdeP in Galway had paid quite a few thousand euro for three asylum seekers to do Arts degrees.

I have no problem with a charity providing assistance to asylum seekers. I just think that an Arts degree shouldn't be a high priority as it's not going to provide much benefit to the asylum seekers or give them any skills that might be useful.

Assisting people to gain employment or further qualifications based on their previous experience and skills.

I just think that asylum seekers have more immediate concerns than getting Arts degrees, and that we have enough Arts students already!

I'm not sure what you mean about charities being PC though OP.

saa

mariaalice wrote: »

Would you be more likely to support a charity that was absolutely honest and less political correct, especially in the area of homelessness and or addiction!

I'm not sure why you'd say especially in those areas, we all have our preferences but anyway I think a lot more of us would donate (more regularly) not only if we saw how the money was being spent and exactly what their aims and short term tasks are we seem to hear the general area but its very hard to really see what difference our few bob will make, as for overseas charities I that's a whole other kettle of fish concerning transparency I think the Irish charities have to be more transparent especially now with the prevalence of employees of charities on the street.

mikemac1

Yes people volunteer and work for free and need to raise money before they go out. Bualadh bos and well done

But....a lot of the volunteers are pretty much useless on a site, is the seven stone lady in my office going to go labouring on a site?
I'm pretty unfit so I'll say I'd be useless on a site, it's tough and physical work

So why are they not hiring locals and creating some employment?

And why is an Irish developer in NAMA which taxpayers are funding building houses in Africa while he did not give discounts in Ireland to young house buyers and now has to get taxpayer support.
Could Niall Mellon not look at building hostel for homeless people in Ireland? Someone else will look after staffing it

And it's not like build quality in the last decade was much good at all, shortcuts taken everywhere. Priory Hall was not one of his but developers are not to be trusted

mariaalice

Okay buy why are charities ( social area ) afraid to portray the reality of dysfunctional families, poor parenting, violence etc and instead focus on the minority of their client that 'fall in to homelessness through ill luck'.

I support some charities my rule is not to support any charities that employs chuggers or professional fund raisers if at all possible.

cloud493

I've given to money to the SVP before, and I'l do it again, great charity. But when I see on the tv 'save the donkey' 'save the tiger' they can **** off.

The King of Moo

cloud493 wrote: »

I've given to money to the SVP before, and I'l do it again, great charity. But when I see on the tv 'save the donkey' 'save the tiger' they can **** off.

Why?

I give to both human and animal charities. Some animals suffer horrendous cruelty in this country alone, and they can't complain about it and there's not much they can do about it.

Rangi

These days I can't give as much as I once did,but also have found my priorites have changed as to what type of charities I'd support. Tend more towards animal charities at the moment,they don't have a choice about the situations they find themselves in. I know you'll say so don't a lot of humans,but that's just the way I'm feeling at the moment. I've certainly never been pc,and have no intention of ever giving anyone the opportunity of accusing me of being so.

later12

A marketing strategy is not necessarily reflective of the views and ideals (rose tinted glasses?) of the volunteers' pragmatism in any charitable organisation.

I don't think that anybody in the homeless or prisoner charities in particular is in denial about the success story statistics, about the uphill battle they face in helping these people (some of whom almost, it seems, are doomed to a tragic life). They don't expect a very neat, Hollywood type of success story to greet them when they go to work in the mornings. They don't expect Hollywood outcomes.

These volunteers simply wish to improve the conditions of the troubled individuals whom the volunteers often wish merely to assist and comfort.

Of course, you can't often promote this fact in advertising media: people have a natural tendency to want to invest in hopeful cases, not the hopeless ones. That's unfortunate, but it is the marketing/ PR teams' job to attract the investment (donations): the volunteers on the ground are not and generally cannot be concerned with that; they are the people who will do the real grafting.

milehip1

Sacramento wrote: »

Not too sure about all that, but I'll always pick a human welfare charity over an animal one.

I'm always worried about someones mental state when they give exclusively to animal welfare charities.

was in the news today about the poodle buried in Paris with the 9000euro diamond collar,the 'tomb' was raided and said collar stolen not nice i know,
but 9000 euros ffs ?
wouldn't a fake one have been just as good?