Charities

danniemcq

Ok so these days we have heaps of charities vying for our hard earned money and governments not funding them the way they used to why don’t we streamline the whole process?

Its like the HSE, they have a completely splintered system and never getting fixed. To many people, to many offices, to many expenses and not enough money to cover the whole system. So now that we are seeing a slightly improved service due to streamlining so why can’t we do the same with charities (another example is Google streamlining Motorola)?

For example at the minute according to http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/authorised-charities.html there are over 2000 registered charities in Ireland today. I know not all of these are Ireland specific but it shows my point. Like seeing 2 or more different charities asking for money for children aid the same war torn country and you seeing their aid stations side by side too.

Could all charities be cut down to some basic groups. For example, Children In Ireland could be one, Suicide Care Ireland, and you could even creak it down a bit more for some topics like Cancer (Breast, Lung, Skin etc). The whole process would be a lot easier for people to donate to, be a lot easier to manage, be a lot easier to actually see where your money is going.

For example as I said in my first paragraph I mention the children charities in Ireland, and their current state, if they were all combined and departments that were similar could be combined into one, there would be some special resources that each have could be kept to their own but they could also help other departments.

I know as with all streamlining processes there would be job losses galore and there would be complaints but in the long run could it work? Is this just wishful thinking? Am I missing some point that would mean it wouldn’t work?

Handsome Bob

It would be a complicated process for a lot of sectors as some of them don't agree on what actual services should be given to their service users. Homelessness, for example, is a sector with various different NGOs/charities at work - but they all provide different services based on differing objectives and values. They would never be able to find common ground on what primary services to provide.

With streamlining, there's a lot of NGOs/charities who already provide vital services but as it is are understaffed and depend on volunteers willing to give their expertise for free. So streamlining wouldn't really work in this regard, not on frontline services anyway.

eth0

There would be no room for 100k/year CEO's at the top of every charity. Some of the more dubious charities that are more like a lobby group such as Barnardos thrive on such waste. These are often more of a jobs club than a charity with highly paid employees who happen to be the CEO's friends doing vaguely defined 'work'

danniemcq

Handsome Bob wrote: »

It would be a complicated process for a lot of sectors as some of them don't agree on what actual services should be given to their service users. Homelessness, for example, is a sector with various different NGOs/charities at work - but they all provide different services based on differing objectives and values. They would never be able to find common ground on what primary services to provide.

With streamlining, there's a lot of NGOs/charities who already provide vital services but as it is are understaffed and depend on volunteers willing to give their expertise for free. So streamlining wouldn't really work in this regard, not on frontline services anyway.

Thats a very good point i guess it wouldn't suit every type of charity.

but you also make the point about places being understaffed. lumping multiple charites could help with this too though. For example you could have one charity struggling with tracking exactly whats being done or similer. A similer charity could have a database whizz kid that could have implimented a service for his charity that would work for others but because of red tape or whatever while he has a perfect tracking database with reports etc being so dimple whereas the other has some biddy typing with one finger into an excel spreadsheet (or a word document)

hardCopy

There are also many seemingly similar charities which are separated by religious differences

SocSocPol

Handsome Bob wrote: »

It would be a complicated process for a lot of sectors as some of them don't agree on what actual services should be given to their service users. Homelessness, for example, is a sector with various different NGOs/charities at work - but they all provide different services based on differing objectives and values. They would never be able to find common ground on what primary services to provide.

With streamlining, there's a lot of NGOs/charities who already provide vital services but as it is are understaffed and depend on volunteers willing to give their expertise for free. So streamlining wouldn't really work in this regard, not on frontline services anyway.

Wouldn,t work, many of the biggest charities in this country are actually vecicles of institutional religions, most obviously Catholicism, they use their "charity work" to pursue an RC agenda.
Other reputable charities would be unlikely to work with them in pursuit of that aim.

danniemcq

eth0 wrote: »

There would be no room for 100k/year CEO's at the top of every charity. Some of the more dubious charities that are more like a lobby group such as Barnardos thrive on such waste. These are often more of a jobs club than a charity with highly paid employees who happen to be the CEO's friends doing vaguely defined 'work'

Yeah people like that would be the main "spanners" in the works. However it could be argued that if there was a more tranparent charity where you could see that your money was being used for what you thought and not MASSIVE wages then people would be more likely to donate (i would be anyway) and eventually either the spanners will see the light or just go away!

Handsome Bob

danniemcq wrote: »

Thats a very good point i guess it wouldn't suit every type of charity.

but you also make the point about places being understaffed. lumping multiple charites could help with this too though. For example you could have one charity struggling with tracking exactly whats being done or similer. A similer charity could have a database whizz kid that could have implimented a service for his charity that would work for others but because of red tape or whatever while he has a perfect tracking database with reports etc being so dimple whereas the other has some biddy typing with one finger into an excel spreadsheet (or a word document)

Absolutely, it would be ideal if that kind of streamlining was done at an office level.

hardCopy wrote: »

There are also many seemingly similar charities which are separated by religious differences

It's more than just religious differences though. If we take rehabilitation programmes run by charities for example, they are all vastly different. Some have strict rules, some have lenient rules. Some have a person centred approach, some have a faith based approach. Some programmes will demand that you cut yourself off from all outside matters, some won't.

You could argue the merits of such policies, but one thing is for certain: you could never merge such programmes and ask them to find common ground.

mattjack

hardCopy wrote: »

There are also many seemingly similar charities which are separated by religious differences

With regard to nowadays , I don't think the religious differences matters much at the moment other than maybe the names of the charities.
I haven't heard of any modern charity asking its staff or clients their religious beliefs.

About the different types of rehabilitation ... what works for one person may not work for another person, often depending on the nature of the problem and the persons circumstance.

alastair

eth0 wrote: »

There would be no room for 100k/year CEO's at the top of every charity. Some of the more dubious charities that are more like a lobby group such as Barnardos thrive on such waste. These are often more of a jobs club than a charity with highly paid employees who happen to be the CEO's friends doing vaguely defined 'work'

Still singing from this hymnsheet - weren't you shown precisely where Barnardos are active on the ground? Any evidence of your supposed 'jobs club' - even one instance?

danniemcq

mattjack wrote: »

With regard to nowadays , I don't think the religious differences matters much at the moment other than maybe the names of the charities.
I haven't heard of any modern charity asking its staff or clients their religious beliefs.

About the different types of rehabilitation ... what works for one person may not work for another person, often depending on the nature of the problem and the persons circumstance.

hmmm i guess there are a few stubling blocks in the whole thing, from what i can see though from just these few points is that some charites would be more suited to being combined whereas others aren't.

I guess i could have seen that coming! I wonder what charites would suit best from it though. IMO it would be cancer charities with several different charites that are quite small and spread out but all concentrate on the same type be it breast or lung or any others.

These would benefit greatly i'd say from a centralised system where they could pool all the resources. I know there could be some issue with celebratt charites that rely on the name to raise interest (Marie Keating foundation) but again there could be a much greater sppeal in a multiple celebraty campaign.

alastair

The Irish charities involved in the developing world already liase to ensure they don't needlessly cross over each other's activities on the ground (even if they're operating in the same region/country).

danniemcq

alastair wrote: »

The Irish charities involved in the developing world already liase to ensure they don't needlessly cross over each other's activities on the ground (even if they're operating in the same region/country).

but when you say liase do you mean for eample share buildings for offices go together to charter planes boats etc etc. there once again is an opertunity for cost saving and when we are constantly bombarded with ads saying that just 2 quid a week could save someones life surely every attempt should be made to cut costs (not corners)

alastair

danniemcq wrote: »

but when you say liase do you mean for eample share buildings for offices go together to charter planes boats etc etc. there once again is an opertunity for cost saving and when we are constantly bombarded with ads saying that just 2 quid a week could save someones life surely every attempt should be made to cut costs (not corners)

They're separate organisations, with varying focus, ideology and methodology - and competeing for the same pool of funding - why would you expect them to share administration resources? I'm sure if the various regional health boards shared the same office space, they'd save a bit too - but you wouldn't really expect them to, would you?