Are charities a bit of a scam?

lazygal

Anyone I know who's involved in a charity seems to get a bit evangelical about it. As in, they don't understand why people don't care about dogs/obscure illness/old people with leoprosy/the missions. The 'charity industry' seems to be more about making those working it feel smugly good about themselves rather than doing hard graft. I know there's groups out there doing sterling work and I really admire people who work on the soup runs or muck in with the care of animals in shelters, but surely some of the charities should merge, like how many third world charities are there that would benefit from merging and consolidating their IT/fundraising/admin stuff, thereby freeing more money for those in need?

eviltwin

I work for a charity and of course I can only speak for my experience where I work but I have to say I agree with you Lazygal.

We do great work and we've helped scores of people who would have been left up **** creek without us, we provide a lot of education and advocacy, have helped change laws for the better etc etc but the amount of WASTE of our funds is a total disgrace.

The salaries paid to the higher ups are eye watering, they seem to do very little apart from take journalists out to lunch. We are lucky that we are held in high esteem by the public and get a lot of support but when you see how little of that money trickles down to the services we offer on the ground you can't help but get angry.

stripysocks85

I'm also involved with a charity and can agree to an extent that some of the funds are wasted. However, I disagree with the 'evangelical' comment. Before I became involved with the charity, obviously I hadn't the same level of emotion or connection to it as I do now, so naturally this is going to translate through my comments/opinions on the charity. I don't speak down to anyone because they're NOT involved with it, but I would praise/encourage the work that is being done by it.

mikemac1

Could we wonder also why do we need to give to certain charities

I'm sure friends of Crumlins childrens hospital do good work but why charity, my and your taxes go the State and it's for the HSE and James Reilly to fund this.

Maybe that's looks nasty to say don't donate to Crumlin but is it letting the State off the hook, they are supposed to manage this

I suppose I'm just looking at charities doing what the State should be doing themselves

Battered Mars Bar

I like people who do charity work, I'd rather just not hear about it. Seems a bit self serving tbh. I'd love to start a charity however, quickest way to a million.

lazygal

mikemac1 wrote: »

is it letting the State off the hook, they are supposed to manage this

I suppose I'm just looking at charities doing what the State should be doing themselves

THIS! This is exactly one of the things I have a problem with-ie the hospital can spend money on tug at the heartstrings ads rather than lobby the government for money, the state should be paying through the taxpayer.

eviltwin

mikemac1 wrote: »

Could we wonder also why do we need to give to certain charities

I'm sure friends of Crumlins childrens hospital do good work but why charity, my and your taxes go the State and it's for the HSE and James Reilly to fund this.

Maybe that's looks nasty to say don't donate to Crumlin but is it letting the State off the hook, they are supposed to manage this

I suppose I'm just looking at charities doing what the State should be doing themselves

Its not all about money though. Okay for a place like Crumlin that needs trained staff, specialist equipment etc its a huge part of it but most of the smaller groups get zero funding at all and work well purely based on the idea of people coming together, sharing their skills and time etc.

Its a line thats trotted out a lot about charity but you get more out of it than you give. You really do.

folamh

Charities are not equally good, a lot of them are in a Catch-22 situation where they have to spend the majority of their funds on keeping themselves going. If you are interested in giving to charity, you should do some critical research and identify the ones who concentrate on political action and fostering entrepreneurship to solve problems to do with health and living standards.

sbsquarepants

lazygal wrote: »

Anyone I know who's involved in a charity seems to get a bit evangelical about it. As in, they don't understand why people don't care about dogs/obscure illness/old people with leoprosy/the missions. The 'charity industry' seems to be more about making those working it feel smugly good about themselves rather than doing hard graft. I know there's groups out there doing sterling work and I really admire people who work on the soup runs or muck in with the care of animals in shelters, but surely some of the charities should merge, like how many third world charities are there that would benefit from merging and consolidating their IT/fundraising/admin stuff, thereby freeing more money for those in need?

That would be great for the people in the third world, but not so much for the ones driving their mercs around to and from the first world headquarters. That's why it will never happen.

RichieC

Not all of them. Though most are a way for Rich families to create a good well paying job for the runt of their litter.

Pedant

Any else getting the charity advertisements on this thread - "Niger Hunger Appeal - Irish Redcross".

Lol.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Why do charities need CEO who are paid massive salaries, surely a group of half sensible people can come up with ideas to raise money and then decide where its to be spent/donated without the need for some pompous a**hole in a suit sitting at a desk signing there name to other peoples work. There is absolutely no need people being paid €100,000+ in charities. What they should all do is suspend these people for 1yr and see how the charity gets on without them, if after that year the charity has lost or is down more than what those people are paid then they can be re-instated but if not then point proven!

A few years back there was massive fundraising to buy some piece of equipment or other for the Louth Hospital. The usual busybodies got all over the papers etc. and the machine was bought. Pretty sure it's still lying idle because there was no-one there to operate it. But at least some people got to feel good about themselves.

PlainP

I for one am sick and tired of people calling to my door asking me to sponsor this and that.

It has gotton so bad in my area nearly one a week that I very politely tell people now that I just don't sponsor anyone because if I did I would be flat broke. They give you the guilt trip of saying but it's only the cost of a cup of coffee or whatever...

Whatever about them being scams my patience is running very thin for charities at the moment....

summerskin

I used to work for the WorldWide Fund For Nature(wwf) and the pay was excellent. The people in the field were passionate and did everything they could for the "cause".

Head office was mental though, particularly when we had foie gras at the christmas party(for which many of us were flown in from different parts of the world for. it was just a (well paid) job for those in management.

mikemac1

Deleted User wrote: »

A few years back there was massive fundraising to buy some piece of equipment or other for the Louth Hospital. The usual busybodies got all over the papers etc. and the machine was bought. Pretty sure it's still lying idle because there was no-one there to operate it. But at least some people got to feel good about themselves.

Very active Friends of Nenagh hospital group, fair play to them
Equipment bought, sat there idle doing nothing as there was no staff to operate it

Then it got transferred to Limerick Regional and there was much moaning over it. Understandable, you help Nenagh, then Nenagh gets downgraded and your donation is sent to Limerick
Maybe that seems small minded but I think it's understandable

hots

CJC999 wrote: »

Why do charities need CEO who are paid massive salaries, surely a group of half sensible people can come up with ideas to raise money and then decide where its to be spent/donated without the need for some pompous a**hole in a suit sitting at a desk signing there name to other peoples work. There is absolutely no need people being paid €100,000+ in charities. What they should all do is suspend these people for 1yr and see how the charity gets on without them, if after that year the charity has lost or is down more than what those people are paid then they can be re-instated but if not then point proven!

I do agree that there is too much waste in Irish charities (a serious lack of regulation in this country) but governance is extremely important in any organisation. Can you imagine taking the management team of any large company out of the equation altogether? And the reason these people are paid well is because to make the charity the best it can be it needs the best leadership, and the best leaders come at a price.

I don't agree with 100k salaries btw, that's just the way it is...

PlainP

summerskin wrote: »

I used to work for the WorldWide Fund For Nature(wwf) and the pay was excellent. The people in the field were passionate and did everything they could for the "cause".

Head office was mental though, particularly when we had foie gras at the christmas party(for which many of us were flown in from different parts of the world for. it was just a (well paid) job for those in management.

Foie Gras?? and you worked for a nature fund???

Do they not know how this is manufactured????

chris_ie

I have given to charity before, but the guys collecting on the streets annoy me. "Alright, mate? Hows things?" Shaking your hand etc.. Alot of them just try and guilt trip you into donating. Not saying that what they are collecting for isn't a worthy cause but its the way they go about it.

Also, whats the deal with people doing a mountain climb for charity..........in another country. Surely they could raise money to do something local that wouldn't involve travelling and use the money that would have been spent travelling on the charity also.

smash

mikemac1 wrote: »

Maybe that's looks nasty to say don't donate to Crumlin but is it letting the State off the hook, they are supposed to manage this

The point is that they're not managing it. Look at the cancer or CF wards in Crumlin. There's nowhere else for these children to go and the wards are a disgrace with a serious lack of funding.

for what it's worth, charity starts at home. I would only support an Irish charity.

cocoshovel

Id donate to a local charity like the crumlin hospital fund or some other charity I know is doing good work around the country (not vincent de paul, thats for sure). However, the huge charities companies that advertise on tv and ask for money to give to Africa can get lost. A lot of them are complete scams.

I feel a lot of the funds dont go directly to helping them and also I think that if the billions being pumped into the countries every year for the past 50+ years hasnt changed anything then no amount will.

There's also the argument that some of the towns/villages/countries are relying too much on charity aid and half become less self sufficient.

summerskin

PlainP wrote: »

Foie Gras?? and you worked for a nature fund???

Do they not know how this is manufactured????

That's my point. They don't care. They(including myself at the time) are professionals being paid a good wage to do their jobs. The people that care are working in the field.

I worked there and my ambition in life is to eat giant panda before they die out. couldn't give a monkey's about the animals.

mikemac1

mikemac1 wrote: »

Maybe that's looks nasty to say don't donate to Crumlin but is it letting the State off the hook, they are supposed to manage this

I have a monthly DD to crumlin but I agree with you, it is letting the state off the hook to a certain degree. It's sickening tbh, but I'm not going to get into that.

I think there are a lot of charities that are "a bit of a scam" but there are so many out there that are worthwhile too. There are some causes that will be closer to people's hearts, and there's nothing "evangelical" about that, it's just the way it is.

scholar007

CJC999 wrote: »

Why do charities need CEO who are paid massive salaries, surely a group of half sensible people can come up with ideas to raise money and then decide where its to be spent/donated without the need for some pompous a**hole in a suit sitting at a desk signing there name to other peoples work. There is absolutely no need people being paid €100,000+ in charities. What they should all do is suspend these people for 1yr and see how the charity gets on without them, if after that year the charity has lost or is down more than what those people are paid then they can be re-instated but if not then point proven!

I say old bean, thats not fair, thats not exactly cricket!!!

I know of a CEO of a charity who actually gets out from behind the desk and rolls up his sleeves and and and and......oh...er...um...."accompanies" the fundraisers to their overseas destinations for their trek / walk / challenge paid for by other people who are hassled and in some cases embarrassed by said fundraisers to contribute to sending them out foreign.

This is in effect paying for their holiday and that of the CEO who is on a significant salary. The CEO has to go along to make sure that the "fundraisers" are looked after don't ya know.

Seriously, if someone wants to do charity work, then by all means do it for nothing and quietly, i.e. don't be broadcasting it all over the place and trying to get other people to pay for your junket. I don't agree with so called charities having well paid managers and executives, surely that day is gone! :mad:

vangoz

lazygal wrote: »

Anyone I know who's involved in a charity seems to get a bit evangelical about it. As in, they don't understand why people don't care about dogs/obscure illness/old people with leoprosy/the missions. The 'charity industry' seems to be more about making those working it feel smugly good about themselves rather than doing hard graft. I know there's groups out there doing sterling work and I really admire people who work on the soup runs or muck in with the care of animals in shelters, but surely some of the charities should merge, like how many third world charities are there that would benefit from merging and consolidating their IT/fundraising/admin stuff, thereby freeing more money for those in need?

http://nethope.org/

All the big NGO's do collaborate on large scale IT projects in order to reduce costs and leverage from each others experience.