Peter McVerry Trust has 'financial issues'.

Activelink is there as well of course.

The internal promotions happen but you don't need to be qualified life experience can get you a key worker position with some of these services.

A lot of these staff have been there for years and can be grandfathered in.

All kinds of hostels mens, womens, mixed and family.

PMVT or other homeless services are not going to hire hundreds qualified social care workers to work 24/7 365 on €35k to €55k a year.

The qualified social care workers mostly work normal hours Monday to Friday.

They hire what they call caretakers, relief workers,support workers etc these take up the majority of jobs these services use and very few if any of them are work a 39 hour week the hire lots and lots of casual workers and none of them need social care qualifcations.

This is the same for private home care services that are funded by State minimum staff number of staff qualified social care and the majority training to do level 5 etc

So your just trolling annoying the thread for you own amusment then instead of actually participating.

Fair enough.

I did explain my claims, quite clearly with links to their accounts. You are deflecting. What are you trying to hide about PMVT? Is there more hidden away?

No you haven't. Lets try once more.

Your claim was they spend a fortune and make the problems worse and that's some of the reasons you don't like them.

I asked you to explain that, what's your reference for such a claim. How do they make the problems worse and...

Have you a cost analysis?

Does the government or agencies of the government provide the same services, do these cost less are they more efficient?

Lots of charities employ nurse both general and psychiatric others employ various types of counsellors , tradesmen as part of maintenance teams , IT staff and so on , all to work free ? Never mind the various types of project worker s and social care workers. Would you be willing to work at night ,over the Christmas and public holidays for free ?

Ok, they are spending €50m a year, more and more each year, and the problems of homelessness is getting worse. Which bit of that is so hard to understand? The Government are throwing more and more money every year at the poverty industry yet things get worse. It is such a waste that the government would be much better off shutting down those charities and giving the money directly to the public.

So

(1) Is PMVT spending more and more money every years? Yes

(2) Is the problem getting worse? Yes

So now that I have answered your question, dealt with your distraction and whataboutery, maybe we could get back on topic to the financial shenanigans in PMVT, and you can answer the questions I have raised about their accounts, which happens to be the topic of this thread.

If you want to ask a further question about the government and homelessness, I'll only answer that on the government thread. I am here to talk about PMVT financials and not get diverted.

If true, this is absolutely appalling- but perhaps explains why the staff are ineffective.

Bottom line to me is if they receive money from the gov, tax payer then no matter what services they supply their accounts need to be open honest accurate and completely above board.

Whoever is on the board needs to be hauled up to answer every question.

And they shouldn't be allowed to do a 'Dee Forbes'.

An awful lot is wasted on the begging letters. From what I have gleaned from accounts, it can be up to 60% of the amount raised. Now, if charities were more transparent about their accounts, I would be able to verify that, or clarify and change it.

The model is wrong PMVT should not own any property themselves, the provision of the actual housing could be anything a housing association or a professional landlord for profit, the support should come from PMVT and they should only be providing the support which should be evidence and outcome-based and monitored to check that all visits and supports take place, and other services should come from mental health services, GP's, and the like.

They should not be employing policy advisors or communication people themselves.

In my view, if you are employing all those people you are a business, not a charity.

If a psychiatrist or a nurse or a banker wants to give some of his time for free to a needy person, that is charity.

You may have a different view.

Volunteers can in some cases play an important role in helping charitable organisations.

However if the charity is providing services which require full time professional staff they cannot rely on volunteers.

The staff have bills to pay, they need a place to live, food etc. therefore they need an income.

Lots of charities are incorporated as limited companies. The question of what legal structure or form an enterprise has is quite separate from the question of whether the enterprise is charitable in nature. One looks at how the enterprise organises, manages and controls itself and the other looks at what the enterprise actually does.

It would probably be more accurate if we could shift to describing such enterprises as "not for profit" rather than "charities" as is common I think in the States.

They have to pay staff it's a daft idea they shouldn't. Any nursing or mental health support should be provided by an HSE-regulated service they should not be employed by the homeless charity or NGO directly. The Homeless NGOs should only be employing the hostel staff and community support staff and staff who direct the money from the HSE to the service, numerous other staff and departments have built up around services and that should not be happening.

But who decides what level of services is needed? An NGO could say we need a service staffed 24 hours a day by clinical psychologists that's what they do in Canada and Norway when they get pushback from the HSE saying they won't fund it, the NGO contacts the media in the hope that that pressure can be brought to bear on the HSE that way, it's a ridiculous way to conduct business.

Homeless services or any services should be very accountable for any funding they receive including close scrutiny as to whether the services are effective.

If you talk to the on the ground staff working for the NGOs you will get very mixed responses about what the service are providing.

Same with most businesses.

Why would they need to fundraise, they provide the services to agreed standards they get the money? I looked up a service that stays under the radar somewhat they provide wrap-around services, and they are looking for a special needs assistant, special needs assistants are provided by schools and childcare providers why do they need their own? when does the wrap-around care fade out? or will the next generation brought up with wrap-around care need care and support when they are adults?

I know they are more philosophical points but if services are being funded by the taxpayer they need to be answered.

I am all for individuals and families getting support as long as it's open to scrutiny and not just financial scrutiny.

The poverty industry charities aren't interested in the aim of fading out services, or supporting self-sufficiency. If they succeeded in that, they would need less money. That doesn't work for their highly paid senior staff.

You’re very limited , still you got a thanks , that’s what counts?

The service works based on what professional experts with decades of experience in funding and operating such services know will actual work on the ground.

It doesn't work based on half-assed theories from people with zero experience of funding and operating such services who want to impose their own personal values on others.

And they go back four or five years. I have been warning of issues for a long time.