Corruption in charities

Furze99

Have given annual donations to Bóthar for several years, thought they were one of the better ones and the money was going more directly towards self sufficiency causes. They were taken over by a larger charity I think at some stage which I wasn't enthusiastic about. But after seeing details of the recent court case, no more..............

Something has to be done to reign in these charities and their fancy salaries.

ILoveYourVibes

joey100 wrote: »

I work in the youth sector where pretty much any youth service in Dublin is a registered charity, which starts to explain some of the reason for the large numbers.

There is a sometimes bad relationship between the tax system and charity which sometimes explains a lot of that. A lot of them are registered simply for tax purposes. But are in fact businesses.

SOME obv.

AndrewJRenko

mariaalice wrote: »

But that is often not the aim, the aim is to get the charity into the media news cycle, now the media needs the NGO or charity as much as the NGO needs the media, or else you would not have the NGO's dance classes for the homeless or what even on the evening news.

Why shouldn't they look for PR? Good OR will help them achieve their objectives through improved fundraising.

ILoveYourVibes

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why shouldn't they look for PR? Good OR will help them achieve their objectives through improved fundraising.

So long as its free pr that is fine.

upandcumming

beggars_bush wrote: »

every SVP is run separately
I wouldn't penalise every branch for the mistake of a few people

I actually didn't know they were set up like that - thank you!

corner of hells

dublin49 wrote: »

well said

Well said , yourself.

mariaalice

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they don't influence policy, they don't get to stop the same problems reoccuring year after year.

The policy should come from the state via the department that is funding the social policy, while I know it's a complex issue, for me personally, I would have an issue with the whole PR, policy analysis side of charities.

TomTomTim

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they don't influence policy, they don't get to stop the same problems reoccuring year after year.

What's the point of democracy if the unelected get more of a say in policy than the people?

AndrewJRenko

TomTomTim wrote: »

What's the point of democracy if the unelected get more of a say in policy than the people?

The people who speak up get more say in policy than the people who don't. Nothing undemocratic there.

humberklog

Sometimes something happens to make one's ears prick a little.

Back in March 2019 a cyclone hit Eastern Africa. The cyclone was well flagged by meteorologists and the lead up to land fall was getting on the news here.
The cyclone started to hit land on Wednesday, did most of its damage on Thursday and by Friday morning it had began to die down.

On Sunday morning an ad ran before each news segment on The Marian Finucane show.
The ad was by GOAL and it informed the listener of the cyclone, the countries and regions affected, the damage caused, a guess at a loss of lives and what was required to help in this crisis and who to ask.
GOAL's assessment was that money was needed and they should ask Irish people for money over the national airwaves.

So GOAL from Friday lunchtime were able to assess the damage done in at least 4 massive countries- a huge tract of land and saw what was needed.
Then they were able to script a 30 seconds ad detailing the issues.
Hire a studio and staff.
Hire a voice actor.
Edit and package the ad ready for promotion.
Secure some of the most expensive and sought after ad slots on the national broadcaster's programmes.

All that in one and a half days.

Some charities are super efficient. Surprisingly super efficient.

That's not saying GOAL is corrupt. But it is, for me at least, a reason to be more curious about the modus operandi of the charity rather than the work of the charity.

And sit back in wonderment at their PR team.

Fandymo

tayto lover wrote: »

Is the Peter Mc Verry Trust a good charity to support?

I believe they get €18m from the government per annum. Their wage bill is €23m per annum. So the first €5m they fundraise goes on wages before a homeless lad gets as much as a cheese sandwich.

Jakey Rolling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you happy to pay all charity staff at public service rates, including pensions?

The increased payroll costs will far outweigh any potential administration savings.

If they are a necessary part of providing a required service, yes of course.

FWIW, newer PS pensions are no longer the gold plated gravy train they were prior to 2010.

YellowLead

Fandymo wrote: »

I believe they get €18m from the government per annum. Their wage bill is €23m per annum. So the first €5m they fundraise goes on wages before a homeless lad gets as much as a cheese sandwich.

Just to point out that a large chunk of wage bills for charities are service delivery staff. Often food (for homeless charities for example) is sponsored by corporate donors. Its healthcare professionals - addiction specialists, doctors, nurses, outreach workers etc. that a large chunk of money needs to be spent on. I think you will agree that attending addiction counselling for example might do more for somebody homeless due to addictions than a sandwich would.

Fandymo

YellowLead wrote: »

Just to point out that a large chunk of wage bills for charities are service delivery staff. Often food (for homeless charities for example) is sponsored by corporate donors. Its healthcare professionals - addiction specialists, doctors, nurses, outreach workers etc. that a large chunk of money needs to be spent on. I think you will agree that attending addiction counselling for example might do more for somebody homeless due to addictions than a sandwich would.

They need to raise €23m, TWENTY THREE MILLION, in wages before anyone else gets a look in. They are a homeless service. They don't have doctors, nurses etc on their books.

YellowLead

Fandymo wrote: »

They need to raise €23m, TWENTY THREE MILLION, in wages before anyone else gets a look in. They are a homeless service. They don't have doctors, nurses etc on their books.

Fair enough. Simon community do so I assumed these would be the same!

mariaalice

YellowLead wrote: »

Just to point out that a large chunk of wage bills for charities are service delivery staff. Often food (for homeless charities for example) is sponsored by corporate donors. Its healthcare professionals - addiction specialists, doctors, nurses, outreach workers etc. that a large chunk of money needs to be spent on. I think you will agree that attending addiction counselling for example might do more for somebody homeless due to addictions than a sandwich would.

That is a good point, how come there are so many feed the homeless/soup run charities came across two when out and about earlier both large vans one saying x soup run and one saying x feed the homeless. There is another one I see around where I work as well so that just 3 I have spotted.

AndrewJRenko

Fandymo wrote: »

I believe they get €18m from the government per annum. Their wage bill is €23m per annum. So the first €5m they fundraise goes on wages before a homeless lad gets as much as a cheese sandwich.

The homeless lad wont get a cheese sandwich without the staff member there to hand it over. Homeless services are labour intensive services.

Unless you have some magic solution that every homeless service in the world has missed?

mugsymugsy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The homeless lad wont get a cheese sandwich without the staff member there to hand it over. Homeless services are labour intensive services.

Unless you have some magic solution that every homeless service in the world has missed?

23 million would buy a lot of cheese sandwiches and could be left at a place for the homeless to collect.

I jest but anyone that doesn't see the charities as a business is fooling themselves.

blanch152

I stopped giving money to charities over two decades ago because too much money being spent on campaigns and on administration.

Nowadays I give my time, volunteer for a number of local organisations which have nothing to do with large charities.

AndrewJRenko

mugsymugsy wrote: »

23 million would buy a lot of cheese sandwiches and could be left at a place for the homeless to collect.

I jest but anyone that doesn't see the charities as a business is fooling themselves.

Who's going to order them? Who's going to leave them out? Who's going to clean up afterwards? Who's going to look after all the other needs of homeless people that aren't met by cheese sandwiches, primarily housing?

Homeless services are labour intensive services. I'm not sure what you mean by "as a business". These are large organisations with paid, professional staff - as they should be.

Tar.Aldarion

If you want to give to charity with low overhead, best bang for buck then use the recommended charity's on www.givewell.org
They evaluate charities and give recommendations.

corner of hells

Fandymo wrote: »

They need to raise €23m, TWENTY THREE MILLION, in wages before anyone else gets a look in. They are a homeless service. They don't have doctors, nurses etc on their books.

They do employ nurses , various types of speciality nurse .. staff , clinical and addiction etc.
They have their own stabilisation and detox units,,that are medically supervised.

AndrewJRenko

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If you want to give to charity with low overhead, best bang for buck then use the recommended charity's on www.givewell.org
They evaluate charities and give recommendations.

They don't look at Irish charities, do they?

dublin49

just reading now about Bothar in yesterdays Times,after the assurances we have been given about the new reality that charities have embraced with regard to financial probity their chief executive stands accused of mis appropriating half a million while the the Charity itself had practically no controls in place to prevent fraud.Why anyone would contribute to a charity is beyond me when so many stand accused of sharp practise.Large sums of money given on trust to individuals without proper oversight will always result in similiar outcomes.I suspect at times these ocurrences are swept under the carpet to protect the charities name.

whisky_galore

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They don't look at Irish charities, do they?

Maybe they would want to!

corner of hells

dublin49 wrote: »

just reading now about Bothar in yesterdays Times,after the assurances we have been given about the new reality that charities have embraced with regard to financial probity their chief executive stands accused of mis appropriating half a million while the the Charity itself had practically no controls in place to prevent fraud.Why anyone would contribute to a charity is beyond me when so many stand accused of sharp practise.Large sums of money given on trust to individuals without proper oversight will always result in similiar outcomes.In lots of cases these ocurrences are swept under the carpet to protect the charities name.

Its for the perks and renumeration of the staff.

AndrewJRenko

JustAThought wrote: »

I fundraised for Barretstown a few years ago. Lovely people to deal with and such a valuable and worthwhile, lifechanging service. All ghe doctors and nurses that give their time there for the childrens camps are unpaid volunteers - as are the camp helpers.

The OPW have set the rent on the castle and grounds at something like e1 (one euro) a year.
Few years ago they built a fabulous new wheelchaIr accessible childrens restaurant area from a single donation that was in excess of million euro.

BUT -I was horrified to read that the CEO sits on the board AND on the specific COMMITTEE that decides her own salary - ‘but goes out of the room when it is discussed’. A totally unethical situation. Also on this committee is someone - a staff member - who reports up to her and who she also decides their salary. Currently - last time I looked - she is on a six figure annual salary of 136,000 PLUS a ‘petrol’ allowance of circa 12k.
I cannot get this out of my head - when you see the effort people make to get in a few hundred euro for the children and you then realise that most of this is just petrol money for the CEO and the next 136,000 raised will also be handed to her.

They get no funding at all from the govt for salaries.

It’s shocking when you scratch the surface - the CEO has no medical background. I am sure there are plenty of other competent charity managers/CEO’s that would also do a good job in this role - and for less than 148,000 PER ANNUM of the childrens cancer money.

I know SFA about Barretstown so I looked up their submissions to the Regulator and their Annual Report. They bring in about €7 million each year, and have somewhere between 50-250 employees. 4 of these earn more than €70k. They have several thousand volunteers involved.

I've no idea why you'd expect the CEO to be a medical person. Most hospital CEOs aren't medical people - they are health administrators, which is a specialist skill in itself. €136k for an organisation of that size and scope seems fairly normal to me.

jmayo

joey100 wrote: »

I work in the youth sector where pretty much any youth service in Dublin is a registered charity, which starts to explain some of the reason for the large numbers. Very very few if any fund raise, they are allocated funding from the government. My job is then to check how this money is spent, what it was spent on and re-coup any unspent money, as well as looking at how they are working, when they are working, who they are working with and the impact of this work. I've had to take back anywhere from 600 euro to 25,000 euro after year end. The amount of regulation on these organisations is huge, they have to account for every penny. There are strict rules about how the money can be split between wages, overheads and face to face costs. This is checked monthly by accounts and then quarterly at face to face meetings. Wages are inline with public sector wages so they don't decide them themselves, directors are not paid and are a fully voluntary position with no expenses. They might get a cup of tea at their meetings.

The administration costs are not large, most are handled centrally by ourselves, the payroll, finances, day to day management and some face to face work is provided by the managers of these youth projects. There are some organisations providing this service to a number of youth projects but this doesn't really result in any savings of money, maybe more in time.

I would love and I'm sure the youth sector would love to be funded straight from the government. They have acknowledged for years that these services should exist but are happy to put them out there for charities to run. If they were to be provided by the government every youth worker and manager in Dublin would be a public servant and so eligible for the public service pension on top of their salary which would stay the same.

This constant thing that because some charities have been found to be corrupt must mean all charities are is so off the mark. There are reasons beyond 'making cushy jobs for themselves' that there are lots of registered charities in Ireland. Not one charity I work with, and I work with a lot, has a paid position on the board of directors but if you took what people said in here as the truth everyone of them was on the take and making sure they were diverting all the money to themselves.

But you have to admit it is a business for some.
And even in your case is it your employment and source of income.

Also you mentioned how strict the enforcement is, but has it always been that way ?
How come we still keep hearing of things like bothar, Irish Red Cross, Console, etc, etc.

And is there only strict monitoring of state aid to these charities and NGOs, is there anything monitoring the charitable donations?

Some people have this idea that if you give to a charity the few quid they hand over is destined to help some poor devil somewhere when really in all likelihood only a very small percentage of that ever reaches the poor devil.

Charities never come out on their ads and say well we have to pay our advertising people, our pr team, our executives, and finally our staff.
And then whatever is left over goes to the poor devils that we keep showing you or talking about in the ad.

And if you think about it when a charity is a business, provides employment to it's staff, it is no way in their interest to ever solve the issues they exist to help with.

Now granted some of the issues are unsolvable and are ever occurring which in one way is kinda good for the staff because they should then never go out of business.

Charities and NGOs replaced the catholic church in Ireland as a means for the state authorities and politicians to do fook all to solve some issues and/or to provide adequate often very necessary services.

The One Doctor

If you're deeply involved with a charity it can be very, very tempting to just 'borrow' the money with the intention of giving it back. Also, charities like Trocaire and Concern, while extrordinarily well run, are often forced to give the money to local companies on the ground that just run off with it.

A classic example is Bob Geldof's foray into charity work with Band Aid and Live Aid. Almost all of the donations received funded Ethiopia's 1984 war and went straight into the pockets of Ethiopia's dictator. $150 million dollars, or $380 million today, went into his bank account.

That said, that was NOT Geldolf's fault, but he must have been warned that it would happen.

Essentially, Geldolf accidentally crowdfunded mass murder.

He tried his best, but the odds were seriously against any of that money making a difference to starving people. It was spent on tons of Dom Perignon, a suite at Le Crillion and a load of AK47s, ammo and tanks.

I have absolutely no respect for charities or media luminaries extolling charity now, unless I can see exactly where their money goes.

If I had no scruples and desperate desire to make money, I'd start a charity, promote it heavily, squeeze it dry and retire to Northern Thailand.

dublin49

The issue is when you say anything negative about charities you are inadvertently commenting on lots of good,well intentioned volunteers who would never take a red cent and give generously of their time and are probably out of pocket financially as well.this is certainly never my intention but for me charities are too easily manipulated and ripped off and its almost impossible to regulate given the nature of fund raising ,private donations and most importantly cash donations.In no other financial transaction do you give money to an entity on the basis that they will carry out your intentions with the donation without any recourse to proof that that actually happened.Charities by their very nature will always attract good decent well meaning volunteers and financial shysters and I cant see that changing unfortunately.