Peter McVerry Trust staff and wages

One eyed Jack

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

And it's still clear you never have.

Btw. I don't.

I have worked in adjacent profession and still know many people who still work in that area.

Ahh right, my bad then, just that I’ve worked with a disproportionate number of people with your attitude towards other people working in social care than I have in any other career, not even among teachers was a poor attitude towards other people so prevalent as it is in social care. But then as you make the point yourself, it’s not an attitude that’s exclusive to people working in social care either.

tayto lover

Anyone know the total amount paid out to “homeless” organisations?
Must be huge.

easypazz

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Jesus you're an idiot.

Rehab started importing coffins from China ffs.

Instead of throwing personal insults at me maybe try and respond to my actual post.

easypazz

end of the road wrote: »

a private organisation can do what they want with their property within the legal limits.
unless rehab broke the law by renting their property, then while you can disagree with them renting the property they found to be unsuitable, there isn't really anything that can be done about it.

You have just pointed out the issue here.

Taxpayer gives charity money, charity buys property and taxpayer has no control of the property they have just funded.

If the opw, hse or dublin corporation owned the building then at least the charity are restricted to using them for the correct purpose.

One eyed Jack

tayto lover wrote: »

Anyone know the total amount paid out to “homeless” organisations?
Must be huge.

In Dublin alone, in 2016, €96 MILLION was paid out to organisations providing services for people who are homeless -

https://www.homelessdublin.ie/content/files/Public-Expenditure-on-Homeless-Service-Provision-2016.pdf

€120 million in 2017, and I don’t have the figures for 2018, 2019, but that document above gives you some idea where vast amounts of public funding is going.

Subcomandante Marcos

easypazz wrote: »

You have just pointed out the issue here.

Taxpayer gives charity money, charity buys property and taxpayer has no control of the property they have just funded.

If the opw, hse or dublin corporation owned the building then at least the charity are restricted to using them for the correct purpose.

How. Can. You. Be. So. Vocal. Yet. So. Wrong.

easypazz

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

How. Can. You. Be. So. Vocal. Yet. So. Wrong.

Instead of writing all silly with capital letters and full stops, can you add any value to the debate and contribute something useful.

BDI

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In Dublin alone, in 2016, €96 MILLION was paid out to organisations providing services for people who are homeless -

https://www.homelessdublin.ie/content/files/Public-Expenditure-on-Homeless-Service-Provision-2016.pdf

€120 million in 2017, and I don’t have the figures for 2018, 2019, but that document above gives you some idea where vast amounts of public funding is going.

That is absolutely sickening.

LirW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In Dublin alone, in 2016, €96 MILLION was paid out to organisations providing services for people who are homeless -

https://www.homelessdublin.ie/content/files/Public-Expenditure-on-Homeless-Service-Provision-2016.pdf

€120 million in 2017, and I don’t have the figures for 2018, 2019, but that document above gives you some idea where vast amounts of public funding is going.

Since you worked in fundraising for 2 decades as project manager, what would you say should be changed in the charity sector? If someone from the field criticizes it I think it would be interesting to hear the other side.

Jamie2k9

tayto lover wrote: »

Anyone know the total amount paid out to “homeless” organisations?
Must be huge.

Whatever it is, its one big gravy train. Multiple overstaffed charities costing a fortune. There should be one charity who receives funding.

Worst thing is anybody can call SVP and get a handout, you could be earning 100k and they would send you out various vouchers.

wiggle16

BDI wrote: »

So you can’t take an out of business hotel and convert a room to a safe room?

So you can’t segregate violent people from families and from sex offenders? You can buy two abandoned hotels.

You are making excuses.

Oh for f*ck sake.

There is no such thing as an "abandoned" hotel, or an "abandoned" building for that matter. Someone somewhere owns it. If a building is vacant then there is a reason it is vacant. It could be damaged, it could be subject to court proceedings, it could have been repossessed, the owner or developer could be waiting on planning permission (or have had it withdrawn). There is a reason it is sitting idle, and just because it's empty doesn't mean the owner wants to, or even can, part with it.

Really it doesn't matter what is done about this - there will be people like yourself watching, with the wisdom to find fault with everything about it.

How would you fix the homeless issue, BDI?

Give us your plan. Tell us how you'd fix it and how you would do it for a fraction of the cost of running the PMV Trust.

BDI

wiggle16 wrote: »

Oh for f*ck sake.

There is no such thing as an "abandoned" hotel, or an "abandoned" building for that matter. Someone somewhere owns it. If a building is vacant then there is a reason it is vacant. It could be damaged, it could be subject to court proceedings, it could have been repossessed, the owner or developer could be waiting on planning permission (or have had it withdrawn). There is a reason it is sitting idle, and just because it's empty doesn't mean the owner wants to, or even can, part with it.

Really it doesn't matter what is done about this - there will be people like yourself watching, with the wisdom to find fault with everything about it.

How would you fix the homeless issue, BDI?

Give us your plan. Tell us how you'd fix it and how you would do it for a fraction of the cost of running the PMV Trust.

That’s it curse to make yourself seem like you are smart.

A lot of old tourist spots in Ireland just went out of fashion.

Jinglejangle69

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Bottom line is, the likes of BDI and kellykelly talk and talk, but they haven't done a thing in their professional life to help the current homeless crisis. Myself and a few others have, and I feel good having done that.

Self praise is no praise.

There is no selfless act.

wiggle16

BDI wrote: »

That’s it curse to make yourself seem like you are smart.

A lot of old tourist spots in Ireland just went out of fashion.

Oh. So I take it you're not going to tell me how you'd fix it, then.

end of the road

easypazz wrote: »

You have just pointed out the issue here.

Taxpayer gives charity money, charity buys property and taxpayer has no control of the property they have just funded.

If the opw, hse or dublin corporation owned the building then at least the charity are restricted to using them for the correct purpose.

it's not really an issue tbh.
the organisation ultimately owns the property, however they got the funding, unless an ownership agreement is implemented by where the funder decides they want the ownership of the building, assuming such an agreement is possible.
obviously the funder, as in the government, for whatever reason do not want to take up that option if it is even available to them.

wiggle16

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Self praise is no praise.

There is no selfless act.

Did you read those two gems on the back of a box of matches?

end of the road

BDI wrote: »

That’s it curse to make yourself seem like you are smart.

A lot of old tourist spots in Ireland just went out of fashion.

and? so?
doesn't change the fact that every building has an owner, and that charities can't just take that building because they feel like it, or that the building will, or could even be made available.

LirW

BDI wrote: »

That’s it curse to make yourself seem like you are smart.

A lot of old tourist spots in Ireland just went out of fashion.

But do they have the infrastructure close that chronic homeless need, like hospitals, state treatment facilities and several other necessary amenities?
It's a pretty bad idea moving people in need to depriving communities that often already unsuccessfully deal with social issues due to the lack of infrastructure.

At the start of the year we had a criminal addict moved into a flat on our road, 30 meters down from my house. She has several convictions and isn't capable of looking after herself. A local counsellor thought it's a great idea. Our village is so small, we have one shop, no school, not even a church. She didn't drive and the closest town is 25 minutes away, the closest hospital 55km. No public transport.
She abandoned the unit shortly afterwards because she was left on her own in a remote council flat with no access to anything.
Please tell me how this is a good idea.

BDI

wiggle16 wrote: »

Oh. So I take it you're not going to tell me how you'd fix it, then.

Read the thread. The answers are there. People are willing to pull a 37.5 hour week on industrial wage to end homelessness but when asked to read my points to end homelessness resort to name calling.

Jinglejangle69

wiggle16 wrote: »

Did you read those two gems on the back of a box of matches?

Do they still sell boxes of matches?

Jeff2

In the news today was a homeless service helped 16.000 people.

Now when you go to them they want your pps number so they can list it. Or name..... And garda vet.

Then no help if single male but they helped you by getting your pps number and info.

BDI

LirW wrote: »

But do they have the infrastructure close that chronic homeless need, like hospitals, state treatment facilities and several other necessary amenities?
It's a pretty bad idea moving people in need to depriving communities that often already unsuccessfully deal with social issues due to the lack of infrastructure.

At the start of the year we had a criminal addict moved into a flat on our road, 30 meters down from my house. She has several convictions and isn't capable of looking after herself. A local counsellor thought it's a great idea. Our village is so small, we have one shop, no school, not even a church. She didn't drive and the closest town is 25 minutes away, the closest hospital 55km. No public transport.
She abandoned the unit shortly afterwards because she was left on her own in a remote council flat with no access to anything.
Please tell me how this is a good idea.

Enniskillenhospital for one could do with the traffic

wiggle16

BDI wrote: »

Read the thread. The answers are there. People are willing to pull a 37.5 hour week on industrial wage to end homelessness but when asked to read my points to end homelessness resort to name calling.

Where did I call you names?

And that's the thing. People are happy to complain and criticise but it's always someone else's problem to solve.

end of the road

BDI wrote: »

Read the thread. The answers are there. People are willing to pull a 37.5 hour week on industrial wage to end homelessness but when asked to read my points to end homelessness resort to name calling.

because your points won't end homelessness, and the job of the professionals who are paid a wage for their work isn't to end it nor could they end it.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Do they still sell boxes of matches?

they do indeed.

BDI

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Do they still sell boxes of matches?

Probably have a warehouse full of matches.

Probably got five million to raise funds for something.

Probably bought matches at a little over full price from a relation of the fella that approved funding.

Thug life

One eyed Jack

LirW wrote: »

Since you worked in fundraising for 2 decades as project manager, what would you say should be changed in the charity sector? If someone from the field criticizes it I think it would be interesting to hear the other side.

I’d change one very simple thing - organisations should be made up of individuals who are willing to provide their services for free, as that’s what charity is.

It wouldn’t have to mean that the services and the users of those services would be provided with a lesser standard of care (wouldn’t be hard really as current standards are fairly shoddy generally speaking), but it would mean that it’s unlikely that care would be provided by the same people as are being employed by these organisations now.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against professionals being compensated for their skills, but it’s not charity, it’s a business, and it’s a lucrative business, and in order to secure funding from the HSE for example, these organisations have to run themselves like a business. Poor management and waste of resources is rife in the sector, and for a while I did try and implement changes, but there are far too many vested interests in the sector to implement the kind of changes that are required.

The further up the management chain you go of course, the more detached you become from the purpose of the charity which is that they exist to provide services for people, and that was never more clear to me than in one meeting I was present at (representatives of the various homeless organisations at local level and representatives from the HSE and the local council), and they spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the frosting on the god damn buns! :pac:

LirW

BDI wrote: »

Enniskillenhospital for one could do with the traffic

So you suggest having a hospital as main point of contact that's out of state? Wow.

end of the road

BDI wrote: »

Enniskillenhospital for one could do with the traffic

that's 1 hospital.
1 hospital that is probably overstretched in reality itself.
LrW's point still appliesto this area.

BDI

end of the road wrote: »

that's 1 hospital.
1 hospital that is probably overstretched in reality itself.
LrW's point still appliesto this area.

One hospital that was built and is struggling to hire staff because the surrounding area needs an injection of people and funding.

I know a fella that runs a barber shop and train museum up there, does a lot of work with autism(trains), decent people up there doing charity for charity, it’s not a career.

That’s real charity. Making poor people or disadvantaged people have a better time of it, not decide that you live in Dublin so the best place to have funding is Dublin and you need a payrise.

LirW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d change one very simple thing - organisations should be made up of individuals who are willing to provide their services for free, as that’s what charity is.

It wouldn’t have to mean that the services and the users of those services would be provided with a lesser standard of care (wouldn’t be hard really as current standards are fairly shoddy generally speaking), but it would mean that it’s unlikely that care would be provided by the same people as are being employed by these organisations now.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against professionals being compensated for their skills, but it’s not charity, it’s a business, and it’s a lucrative business, and in order to secure funding from the HSE for example, these organisations have to run themselves like a business. Poor management and waste of resources is rife in the sector, and for a while I did try and implement changes, but there are far too many vested interests in the sector to implement the kind of changes that are required.

The further up the management chain you go of course, the more detached you become from the purpose of the charity which is that they exist to provide services for people, and that was never more clear to me than in one meeting I was present at (representatives of the various homeless organisations at local level and representatives from the HSE and the local council), and they spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the frosting on the god damn buns! :pac:

I totally get what you mean with the mismanagement and I suppose this field has its bad eggs like everywhere else.

What bothers me though is the definition of charity: you yourself have been working in the field for a long time in fundraising and you were paid (I took notice of your voluntary work, don't worry). See, if I'd go to volunteer I wouldn't be put on a fixed roster and have somewhat of a control over the time I put in.
I'm not expected to do a full working week.
And surely we can agree that certain jobs do require skilled people because it would be a liability otherwise. How would cases work if you wouldn't have a structure of professionals doing it?
If your proposed solution is to turn charities into businesses they would have to sell a service to make money and this is privatization in a way. I don't know but would most still be able to provide services with no cost for the "client"?

I get where you are coming from but I can't see how it would work if the wider body is expected to work for free for the sake of meeting the definition.

LirW

BDI wrote: »

One hospital that was built and is struggling to hire staff because the surrounding area needs an injection of people and funding.

I know a fella that runs a barber shop and train museum up there, does a lot of work with autism(trains), decent people up there doing charity for charity, it’s not a career.

That’s real charity. Making poor people or disadvantaged people have a better time of it, not decide that you live in Dublin so the best place to have funding is Dublin and you need a payrise.

But they are not running a homeless facility with the requirement of 24/7 staff dealing with addicts and mentally ill people and all the joys of it.

But that aside, the whole point doesn't matter because you can't ship Irish citizen over the border and expect the NHS to shoulder the cost of the issues a facility like that brings. It doesn't work like that and the local government wouldn't let this happen.
While the NHS is on the verge on privatization, the HSE is dealing with overcrowding, long waiting list for inpatient treatments and a lack of beds. You picked a poor example, sorry.

One eyed Jack

LirW wrote: »

I totally get what you mean with the mismanagement and I suppose this field has its bad eggs like everywhere else.

What bothers me though is the definition of charity: you yourself have been working in the field for a long time in fundraising and you were paid (I took notice of your voluntary work, don't worry). See, if I'd go to volunteer I wouldn't be put on a fixed roster and have somewhat of a control over the time I put in.
I'm not expected to do a full working week.
And surely we can agree that certain jobs do require skilled people because it would be a liability otherwise. How would cases work if you wouldn't have a structure of professionals doing it?
If your proposed solution is to turn charities into businesses they would have to sell a service to make money and this is privatization in a way. I don't know but would most still be able to provide services with no cost for the "client"?

I get where you are coming from but I can't see how it would work if the wider body is expected to work for free for the sake of meeting the definition.

I wasn’t though.

I absolutely agree that any role requires a person with skills applicable to that role, but I don’t agree that highly skilled and highly qualified people can’t be got without a salary comparable to what they could be earning in the private sector so to speak (a business that is not a charity at least).

Certainly a charity would be a lot smaller if it were completely dependent upon volunteers and voluntary donations of time and resources (I’m not including donations from private donors, donations of €100k upwards from individuals weren’t uncommon), but they would be a more dedicated bunch of people in my experience.

It could be organised if the will to change practices in the sector were there, but when there are far too many people involved who simply IMO don’t care about the people who are keeping them in employment (the people they are providing services for, is who I mean, not their employers), then I don’t foresee any impetus on charity organisations to change a business model that appears to be working exceptionally well for them, but failing dismally to serve the needs of the people they were established to provide services for.

Having said all that though, I have met some fantastic people working with people who are homeless who genuinely care about their welfare, but they are overshadowed by the small number of people who are milking “the homeless crisis” for all it’s worth, and it’s worth plenty given how some of these organisations have expanded their services and the amounts they are receiving in public funding combined with as I suggested earlier taking advantage of government employment schemes to employ people to fill roles that the organisation doesn’t have to pay their wages, and housing schemes where these organisations act as the landlord on behalf of the council.

They’re essentially for all intents and purposes no more than fund management organisations, middle men as such between the State and it’s citizens who are in need of assistance from the State. By all means if an organisation is providing it’s services to the State they should be compensated, but these organisations calling themselves ‘charities’, is a stretch.

Subcomandante Marcos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn’t though.

I absolutely agree that any role requires a person with skills applicable to that role, but I don’t agree that highly skilled and highly qualified people can’t be got without a salary comparable to what they could be earning in the private sector so to speak (a business that is not a charity at least).

Certainly a charity would be a lot smaller if it were completely dependent upon volunteers and voluntary donations of time and resources (I’m not including donations from private donors, donations of €100k upwards from individuals weren’t uncommon), but they would be a more dedicated bunch of people in my experience.

It could be organised if the will to change practices in the sector were there, but when there are far too many people involved who simply IMO don’t care about the people who are keeping them in employment (the people they are providing services for, is who I mean, not their employers), then I don’t foresee any impetus on charity organisations to change a business model that appears to be working exceptionally well for them, but failing dismally to serve the needs of the people they were established to provide services for.

Having said all that though, I have met some fantastic people working with people who are homeless who genuinely care about their welfare, but they are overshadowed by the small number of people who are milking “the homeless crisis” for all it’s worth, and it’s worth plenty given how some of these organisations have expanded their services and the amounts they are receiving in public funding combined with as I suggested earlier taking advantage of government employment schemes to employ people to fill roles that the organisation doesn’t have to pay their wages, and housing schemes where these organisations act as the landlord on behalf of the council.

They’re essentially for all intents and purposes no more than fund management organisations, middle men as such between the State and it’s citizens who are in need of assistance from the State. By all means if an organisation is providing it’s services to the State they should be compensated, but these organisations calling themselves ‘charities’, is a stretch.

This is literally the most stupid pile of ****e I've ever read on boards.

What ****ing dream world are you living in?

You're typical of the bar stool expert of everything who knows **** all about **** all.

wonski

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

This is literally the most stupid pile of ****e I've ever read on boards.

What ****ing dream world are you living in?

You're typical of the bar stool expert of everything who knows **** all about **** all.

Well done for getting your point across and for all the knowledge you brought to the table.

Glad you know it all and can share it with us in a polite manner, like most posters did in the thread.

FixdePitchmark

looking at figures there , there is about 12 K per person going into homelessness. That would actually build a home over 25 years.

Back to my original point , I would ban street food as degrading and possibly distracting from solving root causes and delaying desirable outcomes.

fantastic contribution here , that people in the area provide a service, but have no interest in solving it. If that is the case take it out of their control.

says everything.

it's time for Dublin to take back it's streets and end the industry that wants to keep these people from solutions.

Maybe then government will build public housing again.
This public / private partnership is a complete cop out / FG solution

Anyway, anyone know who is pushing this street food strategy.

easypazz

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

This is literally the most stupid pile of ****e I've ever read on boards.

What ****ing dream world are you living in?

You're typical of the bar stool expert of everything who knows **** all about **** all.

More insightful input there.

PS. You forgot to put a capital letter at the start and a full stop at the end of each word.

lightspeed

Auguste Comte wrote: »

It's not their job to solve the issues, that's the government's job. Their gig is to provide services to the people left behind by government policies.

The facts are that it appears in many cases people set up a charity with goal of paying themselves a decent salary from proceeds received and then give a small percentage to the benefit of the charitable cause akin to a franchise fee from one business to another.

By decent i mean 100k and above for senior positions.

i recall the public downfall of a charity that was for suicide and the whole board were family member that approved their huge living expenses , cars trips away etc. Im sure they would gave argued they were helping out were government was failing back when suicide was more trendy on facebook than homelessness.

eviltwin

BDI wrote: »

Read the thread. The answers are there. People are willing to pull a 37.5 hour week on industrial wage to end homelessness but when asked to read my points to end homelessness resort to name calling.

No we don't work to "end homelessness". We work to support the service users with what's going on in their lives. Homelessness is complex, giving someone a house doesn't undo all the problems they have. It's our job to help them get to a point they no longer need our support.

Ending homelessness is the job of people in government and other experts to deal with. Its not the remit of a front line worker but you know that.

Idbatterim

eviltwin wrote: »

No we don't work to "end homelessness". We work to support the service users with what's going on in their lives. Homelessness is complex, giving someone a house doesn't undo all the problems they have. It's our job to help them get to a point they no longer need our support.

Ending homelessness is the job of people in government and other experts to deal with. Its not the remit of a front line worker but you know that.

We have experts in government now ? Experts in waffle , spin, deception etc. they are experts are claiming huge expenses , trying to make out that they are relevant etc.

In far better run countries. That’s everywhere , I’ll narrow it down. Does this racket go on in the likes of Germany , Austria, Spain etc ?

corner of hells

Idbatterim wrote: »

We have experts in government now ? Experts in waffle , spin, deception etc. they are experts are claiming huge expenses , trying to make out that they are relevant etc.

In far better run countries. That’s everywhere , I’ll narrow it down. Does this racket go on in the likes of Germany , Austria, Spain etc ?

Who are you angry with ?

Reading the last few pages and it’s becoming very clear that homeless charities are health care centers by another name. Social workers, councillors, psychologists, etc.
PMV has 500 staff plus 40 volunteers. How many “service users” do they cater for out of the 10,000 homeless?

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Reading the last few pages and it’s becoming very clear that homeless charities are health care centers by another name. Social workers, councillors, psychologists, etc.
PMV has 500 staff plus 40 volunteers. How many “service users” do they cater for out of the 10,000 homeless?

Why not contact the Trust and ask?

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Why not contact the Trust and ask?

I thought that I’d ask the well informed Boardsies first.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I thought that I’d ask the well informed Boardsies first.

Why has anyone here identified themselves as an employee or a volunteer of the PMVT ? Personally I think you want to keep the 'outrage' trundling along. Sad really.

weldoninhio

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So other than your sniping from the sidelines can you offer a better and more cost effective solution to what the NGO's/Charity sector currently provide at present?

Revoke the majority of charity licenses. Allow only 2 charity licenses per sector i.e. 2 homeless, 2 cancer, etc. Bring in a rule that 90% of donations have to reach the source they were donated to.

Wanderer78

weldoninhio wrote:

Revoke the majority of charity licenses. Allow only 2 charity licenses per sector i.e. 2 homeless, 2 cancer, etc. Bring in a rule that 90% of donations have to reach the source they were donated to.

Do you really think that's going to happen?

Plumbthedepths

weldoninhio wrote: »

Revoke the majority of charity licenses. Allow only 2 charity licenses per sector i.e. 2 homeless, 2 cancer, etc. Bring in a rule that 90% of donations have to reach the source they were donated to.

Religious groups operate as charity's, so which religions would you deem unworthy of a license if only two are available?

weldoninhio

thenightman wrote: »

How is it a ponzi scheme? do you know what a ponzi scheme is?


Also, if the government provided adequate services to the homeless (paying private landlords and hoteliers millions of euros of taxpayers money doesn't count) and vulnerable and at risk people these charities wouldn't exist.


But government after government has chosen not to, arguably to satiate ignorant 'people' like yourself, who prefer to sneer at people like PMcV who have dedicated their lives to helping people in poverty. You also sneer at their staff for making on average less than the industrial wage for dealing with very difficult people in very difficult situations. CEO's on big money are needed these days to devise and execute fundraising strategies and navigate through endless layers of bureaucracy in order to secure funding grants for housing projects etc.



God forbid you find yourself out of a job or suffer a relationship breakdown and in need of food and shelter, you certainly won't get much help from state agencies beyond a number for an emergency hostel bed which will probably be taken by the time you walk to it. It will be charities like PMcV who will pick up the pieces.

Those at the bottom, donate thinking their money is going to a good cause.

Those at the top hoover up all of the money.

salmocab

weldoninhio wrote: »

Revoke the majority of charity licenses. Allow only 2 charity licenses per sector i.e. 2 homeless, 2 cancer, etc. Bring in a rule that 90% of donations have to reach the source they were donated to.

But what’s reaching the source? If someone with mental health issues sees a paid healthcare worker then does that count as reaching the source?

Plumbthedepths

weldoninhio wrote: »

Those at the bottom, donate thinking their money is going to a good cause.

Those at the top hoover up all of the money.

So you are accusing the people running the charities of theft/misappropriation?