How much of your money goes to charity? Feck all to be exact

Rabies

Looking at the opening post in this thread got me thinking about what is going on in the new over here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056567955


Charities hire companies to get the money for them. But shag all goes to the organisation.

Have a read of this

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10789631

Sure some of it gets there in the end.

Was shocked when I read it.

I'll quote a snippet to tease those to lazy to click the link

The Appco Group's own documents contain a pricing schedule of charges for collecting door-to-door for its charity clients, including WWF and Barnardo's. It shows that if donors agree to pay $20 a month, APPCO takes 100 per cent in the first year - all $240.

Madness

chin_grin

Rabies wrote: »

Madness

Isn't it?

summerskin

Yep, they take the first year's donation as a fee, the average person donates for 5 years, ie. a 400% return on investment.

Which is exactly why the charities pay them. it's business sense.

Rabies

chin_grin wrote: »

Isn't it?

It is.
Do you like cake?

summerskin wrote: »

Yep, they take the first year's donation as a fee, the average person donates for 5 years, ie. a 400% return on investment.

Which is exactly why the charities pay them. it's business sense.

Do you no think its too much to take?

The J Stands for Jay

I thought in Ireland most people cancelled their dd after a year?

Seachmall

Rabies wrote: »

Do you no think its too much to take?

Seems fair to me tbh.

If they charged a fixed rate the charity could end up paying them 100e (for example) when they only collected 60e. This would be better for the company but could be disastrous for the charity.

By basing the fee on what is actually returned the company is taking a big risk in even covering costs and that risk should be rewarded. This also works out for the charity as they're averaging 400% returns and only paying relative to what is brought in.

Good system, imo.

Rabies

McGaggs wrote: »

I thought in Ireland most people cancelled their dd after a year?

That is what I would expect.
5yrs seems quiet a long time.

Rabies

Seachmall wrote: »

Seems fair to me tbh.

If they charged a fixed rate the charity could end up paying them 100e (for example) when they only collected 60e. This would be better for the company but could be disastrous for the charity.

By basing the fee on what is actually returned the company is taking a big risk in even covering costs and that risk should be rewarded. This also works out for the charity as they're averaging 400% returns and only paying relative to what is brought in.

Good system, imo.

Seems like they're giving away a lot.

Maybe a good team of trained volunteers would work better.

It must work and be beneficial for both parties, but I think the company is taking too much. It is charity after all

starbelgrade

There is absolutely no regulation of charities in Ireland - they have no governing body, no regulator & effectively answer to nobody.

A lot of charities list themselves as a "Registered Charity". This is a very misleading term. What it actually means is that they are registered with Revenue for tax purposes as a charitable organization.

Charities choose to use the term "Registered Charity" to imply a lot more than it means, which is to me, entirely dishonest.

I also believe that in a modern & wealthy society like ours, that charities should not exist. We have enough money to provide proper health care & social services for everybody and the fact that the likes of children's hospitals or cancer screening services have to rely on hand-outs from people is proof that we have failed at providing one of the most basic foundations of society, which is to look after those who need our care.

Charities let us off the hook in this respect by making up, or partially making up for this shortfall. Essentially, they allow us to deflect away from the true extent of our responsibilities by throwing a few quid into a box every now & again.

It is entirely unnaceptable that the sick & needy have to depend on the crumbs off our tables for their very survival.

CardBordWindow

Charity starts at home.

And I have to donate often!

cloptrop

I did a day working with one of these companies , you got a tenner for every sale , no basic .
They told me to come into dublin city centre for an interview around 11, brought me to Kildare in a car had me selling door to door with another dude , then at 7 pm I was told I could have a half day because I had to get the train home , I was pointed in the direction of the train station.
The kick in the balls was I thought I was going to a half hour interview in dublin so I only brought bus fare with me so I had to bunk on the train . I was starving and the train took ages to come . Around 9ish I got to heuston station and I got a phonecall from the boss of the place demanding I go abbey street to fill out a questionaire . He was quite agressive . I declined the offer .

Rabies

Charities should try cut out the middleman where possible and get more for their cause.

summerskin

Rabies wrote: »

Charities should try cut out the middleman where possible and get more for their cause.

The charities have tried that, Concern still do it, but for the most part the set-up and administration costs are far higher than those incurred by using an agency.

I have worked for an agency and also for a global charity. The charity i worked directly for decided to use an agency, as the cost of doing it in house was more than double.