Rival charities set up new super charity scam

CrankyHaus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Great, so full public sector pensions for all charity staff then?

Presenting a scenario where workers are adequately provided for in their dotage as some kind of appalling vista does not sound very ... charitable.


I think we need to decide what charities are, as they currently play fast and loose with this depending on the audience they're looking to tap up for cash.


Are they truly non-profit organisations devoted to selfless good works and depending solely on the generous donations of others?



Are they private service providers to the state, performing social functions at a cheaper rate than the state could manage itself, enabled by worse pay and conditions for their workers? If so then why not class and regulate them as such instead of persisting with the pretence that they are charities?

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Or we could end government funding of charities alltogether... let them be the private enterprises relying on voluntary donations theyre supposed to be and require them to publish a breakdown of what % income they spend on staffing

So do you think that all the residental disability services provided by the bunch of service providers I listed above, currently costing hundreds of millions can be supported entirely by voluntary donations?

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

That's a bit true but you don't think an industry that employs 189,000 people (a major employer by any standard) needs to be self self perpetuating? ie: needs to engage in campaigns and marketing to ensure their incomes/livelihoods? If i worked in the industry, i sure would!

Do you think we have homeless people in Ireland because Focus Ireland do ads for donations? Or maybe for the same reasons that every country in the world has homeless people?

crossman47

blackbox wrote: »

I'd far prefer this and get rid of the charities altogether except for those with no paid employees (i.e all volunteers).

That's the way it should be in a first world country.

See #28. Some paid employees are essential to running a properly organised charity unless it is small scale.

AndrewJRenko

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Presenting a scenario where workers are adequately provided for in their dotage as some kind of appalling vista does not sound very ... charitable.


I think we need to decide what charities are, as they currently play fast and loose with this depending on the audience they're looking to tap up for cash.


Are they truly non-profit organisations devoted to selfless good works and depending solely on the generous donations of others?



Are they private service providers to the state, performing social functions at a cheaper rate than the state could manage itself, enabled by worse pay and conditions for their workers? If so then why not class and regulate them as such instead of persisting with the pretence that they are charities?

There's a lot of truth here.

Just to clarify - these service providers ARE regulated today, by HIQA for disability services, AND by the Charities Regulator for governance and reporting.

I'm not sure what particular benefit would arise by separating the two sides.

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not within the power of homeless services to end homelessness. Service providers don't get to set housing policies, addiction policies, education policies and more.

They just get to clean up the mess.

It's like blaming emergency medics for ongoing road crashes.

I don't think you get the point.

It is very much in the interests of the homeless charities to create a permanent need for their services. That can manifest itself in many ways, e.g. providing services so that homeless people become dependent rather than independent. Other ways include redefining homelessness so that it is a broader concept and one that can never be cured.

You also ignore the amount of money spent by these organisations on advocacy, on promotional campaigns etc. The poverty industry is part of our poverty problem.

AndrewJRenko

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think you get the point.

It is very much in the interests of the homeless charities to create a permanent need for their services. That can manifest itself in many ways, e.g. providing services so that homeless people become dependent rather than independent. Other ways include redefining homelessness so that it is a broader concept and one that can never be cured.

You also ignore the amount of money spent by these organisations on advocacy, on promotional campaigns etc. The poverty industry is part of our poverty problem.

Making people dependent is a very specific allegation. Can you clarify what kind of practices you are referring to, and what agencies are carrying these out please?

I'm not quite sure what your problem is with advocacy? Surely advocacy is exactly what you should be looking for to address long term problems.

As for promotional campaigns - are you talking about fundraising?

Kivaro

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think you get the point.

It is very much in the interests of the homeless charities to create a permanent need for their services. That can manifest itself in many ways, e.g. providing services so that homeless people become dependent rather than independent. Other ways include redefining homelessness so that it is a broader concept and one that can never be cured.

You also ignore the amount of money spent by these organisations on advocacy, on promotional campaigns etc. The poverty industry is part of our poverty problem.

This is why these so-called homeless "charities" would like to see the continued importation of homelessness. Last year, 21% of Dublin's homeless (on the homeless list) were from outside the EU, and I am not talking about asylum seekers. They were flying into Dublin airport and going straight to these "charities" and declaring themselves homeless. This is why it is a losing battle to reduce the numbers waiting for social housing. Ultimately, it is the workers of this country who will have to pay for the houses/homes that these non-EU nationals receive.
How can that be right?
(Answer: it is not).

Richard Hillman

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

Charities are easy targets for the media these days. The media are not what they used to be since the switch to the Web.

So you won't see them going after any actual corruption in industry for example because they'd be slaughtered by powerful global legal teams.

The media are in bed with these charity's. You will always find a media person on the boards. Also former civil servants. The ex civil servants know the right people to lobby for cash from Government

The Black Oil

Muahahaha wrote: »

There would seem to be an awful lot of duplication when there are 10,000 charities. But a massive amount of them are mom and pop operations, things like parents losing a child to suicide and they set up a foundation to make charitable donations in their childs name. Or charities focused on very rare medical diseases set up by the parents because their child has it and cant get adequate funding through normal channels.

One point though- blaming charities for the privatisation of services that the State used to provide is incorrect. It was politicians who made these decisions to privatise services that the State used to provide in the first place. Its the politicians in power who created this situation, not the charities.

There's a lot of truth in what you say. Mental health and suicide in particular are not immune from duplication and may only have a helpline and not actual interventions. Even if you strip out Pieta House and the Samaritans, there are other groups like SOSAD, Turn2Me, the 3Ts, Suicide or Survive and probably more. That's before you even get into the bereavement side of it. My personal preference is the Samaritans. Pieta House are a huge PR machine, have buckets of good will from the public and get a free ride from the media and I also have some questions about how they work and who they don't support. Samaritans are less self-promoting, imo. The challenge with the mom and pop operations is that some are on a mission, to save the world. And you can't get people out of that mindset, ime. It is somewhat understandable given the nature of the bereavement.

There was a lot of fuss a few years ago asking for something like the Road Safety Authority for suicide, by the 3Ts above. I've always found the comparison to road deaths utterly ridiculous. Oh, there's already a HSE organisation, NOSP, not to mention NSRF on the research end.

blackbox

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And the services that are currently provided by those charities - so, for example, almost all residential services for people with disability in Ireland are provided by charities like Brothers of Charity, Daughters of Charity, Enable Ireland, Cheshire, Cope - are you suggesting that we just shut down those services, or we take on those employees as public servants, with all the obligations that go with that?

If those services are needed, in my opinion they should be provided directly by the state.

Recruitment should be an open process.

Just give them **** all. Problem solved.

AndrewJRenko

blackbox wrote: »

If those services are needed, in my opinion they should be provided directly by the state.

Recruitment should be an open process.

And you're ok with the State ending up paying 20% - 40% more in the long run, given the increased pension costs of directly employed public servants?

AndrewJRenko

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Just give them **** all. Problem solved.

So should we just shut down all residental services for people with disabilities provided by these charities?

Eric Cartman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So should we just shut down all residental services for people with disabilities provided by these charities?

Thats an edge case for the charity sector, unfortunately I agree that they should be provided by the government , but a lot of the charity sector is not about helping disabled irish people in Ireland. Its quite obtuse to use the edge case as a basis for rules.

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And you're ok with the State ending up paying 20% - 40% more in the long run, given the increased pension costs of directly employed public servants?

They could save more through efficiency and elimination of duplication. No more handy jobs in charities.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats an edge case for the charity sector, unfortunately I agree that they should be provided by the government , but a lot of the charity sector is not about helping disabled irish people in Ireland. Its quite obtuse to use the edge case as a basis for rules.

Not really.

Residential disability services - almost entirely charity based.
Elder care/nursing home - signficant number of charities involved, mostly old-school religious charities
Homeless sector - almost entirely charity based
Mental health - significant number of charities involved (Pieta, Samaritans, Jigsaw, small local groups)

So if you want to take all these staff for all these services onto the public payroll, you'd better be prepared for some tax increases.

blanch152 wrote: »

They could save more through efficiency and elimination of duplication. No more handy jobs in charities.

Which are the handy jobs in particular in the charities involved in residential disability services?

Eric Cartman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not really.

Residential disability services - almost entirely charity based.
Elder care/nursing home - signficant number of charities involved, mostly old-school religious charities
Homeless sector - almost entirely charity based
Mental health - significant number of charities involved (Pieta, Samaritans, Jigsaw, small local groups)

So if you want to take all these staff for all these services onto the public payroll, you'd better be prepared for some tax increases.

the homeless sector is almost all a complete money grab and not worth funding. The mental health side isn't much better, the state however does have to up its game in that regard.

the disability and elder care should be completely on the state and privately funded care.

blackbox

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And you're ok with the State ending up paying 20% - 40% more in the long run, given the increased pension costs of directly employed public servants?

Public service pay rates is a separate subject.
We already pay the revenue commissioners to collect money - why pay chuggers as well.

The public is already paying for this one way or another.

I'm not saying our public representatives are fantastic, but I'd prefer monies to be disbursed by accountable elected representatives than self appointed charities.

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not really.

Residential disability services - almost entirely charity based.
Elder care/nursing home - signficant number of charities involved, mostly old-school religious charities
Homeless sector - almost entirely charity based
Mental health - significant number of charities involved (Pieta, Samaritans, Jigsaw, small local groups)

So if you want to take all these staff for all these services onto the public payroll, you'd better be prepared for some tax increases.



Which are the handy jobs in particular in the charities involved in residential disability services?

You have some neck looking for evidence off others when you make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about it costing the State 40% more to provide disability services.

AndrewJRenko

blackbox wrote: »

Public service pay rates is a separate subject.
We already pay the revenue commissioners to collect money - why pay chuggers as well.

The public is already paying for this one way or another.

I'm not saying our public representatives are fantastic, but I'd prefer monies to be disbursed by accountable elected representatives than self appointed charities.

I'd agree with you in principle, but I'd bet the public will end paying significantly more if the services come fully in-house.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the homeless sector is almost all a complete money grab and not worth funding. The mental health side isn't much better, the state however does have to up its game in that regard.

the disability and elder care should be completely on the state and privately funded care.

So we should stop all services for homeless people now, close down all the hostels, and all the intermediate accomodation, and all the B&Bs and push all the people back onto the streets? That's your current proposal?

There's a lot more to the charity sector too than the ones I listed originally.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have some neck looking for evidence off others when you make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about it costing the State 40% more to provide disability services.

It is indeed an unsupported figure - though in fairness I said 20%-40%. What do you reckon it will cost to provide PS pensions for tens of thousands of people?

bcklschaps

I may be wrong.... But I think what the OP is getting at is that Ireland seems to have 100's of charities.... some with quite obvious overlap.

All of these charities have staff, some of whom are highly paid.

Why we have soo many charities, I don't know...
but I suspect thats its a case that the Government has effectively out sourced various services to the charity sector.. The government has to keep Public sector head count down and keep a cap on spending and its probably cheaper to do it this way.

Charities are able to raise some of their funding requirements from the public, soo it lessens the burden on the Government.

Think about it....joe public might contribute something to a charity thats semi autonomous from Government, where he wouldn't contribute to general Government. (Tax)

The optics are bad....(some charity CEO's are seriously well paid) ....but the services would cost much more if they were provided by the Government directly. Soo, its actually saving the Taxpayer money.

crossman47

You would, of course, obviate the need for many charities if
- all adults (working or unemployed) got a living wage
- all families had adequate housing
- proper care for the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill was provided by the state.

I am prepared to pay the extra tax involved - are the critics on here?

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is indeed an unsupported figure - though in fairness I said 20%-40%. What do you reckon it will cost to provide PS pensions for tens of thousands of people?

The elimination of the fundraising activities, the synergies from bringing the services under one provider and getting rid of the multiple administrative and governance structures would, in my opinion, more than offset any extra costs that you suggest.

Muahahaha

The charity Bothar is being investigated by the Charities Regulator. They dont say what it is over, only that they have opened a statutory investigation. Article says Bothar raised 6 million in 2018-9 and employ between 10 and 19 people.

https://www.thejournal.ie/charities-regulator-investigation-bothar-5228603-Oct2020/

iirc Tommy Bowe has done a lot of work promoting Bothar, I doubt he will be impressed giving up his time for free if it turns out there has been funny business going on with their 6 million in donations

AndrewJRenko

blanch152 wrote: »

The elimination of the fundraising activities, the synergies from bringing the services under one provider and getting rid of the multiple administrative and governance structures would, in my opinion, more than offset any extra costs that you suggest.

Fundraising is generally a profit centre, not a cost centre. It brings in more money that it costs. So there won't be much savings here. The question remains about the additional extra services provided from the fundraising income - will residents now get a reduced level of service, or will the State end up funding these services directly?

Admin and governance structures will still be required. Someone's going to need to pay these folks, to train these folks, to make sure all their vetting is up to date. Admin and governance doesn't go away.

AndrewJRenko

Muahahaha wrote: »

The charity Bothar is being investigated by the Charities Regulator. They dont say what it is over, only that they have opened a statutory investigation. Article says Bothar raised 6 million in 2018-9 and employ between 10 and 19 people.

https://www.thejournal.ie/charities-regulator-investigation-bothar-5228603-Oct2020/

iirc Tommy Bowe has done a lot of work promoting Bothar, I doubt he will be impressed giving up his time for free if it turns out there has been funny business going on with their 6 million in donations

I'd say the members of this football club won't be impressed either.

https://www.thejournal.ie/amateur-football-club-dublin-cab-5230167-Oct2020/

I wouldn't assume that celeb endorsements are always free btw. There was a UK documentary showing how celebs there are often paid for such endorsements. They did a hidden camera thing on Harry Redknapp and others to show them taking a good wedge for a little video message.