Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

Agreed Jereboam

Even to start, a bank account is necessary and that is likely to be a business account which will cost money.  Then you need to send out receipts and acknowledgements which costs postage.

Although some small charities use the funds directly (like the old-fashioned missionary-type activity) it is seen as far more appropriate nowadays to use resources to enable local people to do the front-line work. Then you need to have a way of ascertaining that your donations/effort are being used effectively/honestly.

All that has reduced to zero the possibility of "every penny" going to service the need.  The nearest anyone can come to achieving that is to maintain separate funds for admin and "aims & objectives".  Getting help with the admin funds then becomes a struggle believe me.

It does sicken me to see waste and inefficiency in charities and it seems that it is almost automatic past a certain size.

It would seem that there's no elegant solution to this difficult but nevertheless understandable problem.

At the very least however a breakdown of the expenses involved for each charity operator and the sums anticipated to be dispersed for each cause, on an appeal by appeal basis, would put contributors minds ease.

You probably know this Zulu77 but any registered charity of any size has to publish detailed figures viewable on the charity Commission website.  So, for instance the charity I mentioned earlier here and you can browse the Accounts for 2009 and see pie-chart on page 19, geographical breakdown on page 31 and so on - far too much for me to analyse but there is a lot of transparency forced on them.

Thanks for that link Chris, I was about to add something else but realised I'd over-thought the matter and confused myself - not difficult - but i'll return to this when my thought process returns

[pscocoa]

There is another dimension to this that I personally struggle with and that is the leadership of our governments.

In terms of the numbers - as British tax payers we fund something likke £6 billion per annum of spending on International Development which includes Humanitarian aid. We pay a fortune in taxes on everything in life and should expect our governments to take into account the regularity with which such emergencies are encountered.

Of this £6 billion our government is obliged to give something like 40% to be spent via the EU in Multilateral aid.

When viewed at the EU level there is something like euros 60 billion per annum available for International Development and there is an acceptance that at least euros 7 billion is wasted via duplication, bureuacracy etc - there is a detailed report out on this lack of aid effectiveness.

I do my bit - I (and colleagues) have funded an orphanage extension in Ghana and we are doing something on a larger scale in Ivory Coast.

This comes from private money working with a recognised charity where we see results from our input.

We then come to comic relief and red nose day - and I start to struggle. Compared to the numbers given above contrbuted by tax payers - the sums raised by other events are somewhat small but do have an impact if properly used.

My real concern is that I fear our national government development agencies see this additional money as a means of cutting back on areas that they would/may have covered because it is coming from elsewhere.

They have huge staff numbers and budgets and they are arguably the biggest beneficiaries of the money- go-round than the people they are supposed to be helping.

If you have time take a look at:
Dark Star Safari - Theroux
Dead Aid - Dambisa Moyo
The End of Poverty - Jeffrey Sachs

I have met the last 2 named.

The whole system is very flawed and opaque - in the meantime I do my best to see that what I contibute is well spent but agree that for an emergency I would tend to take a view and put a small amount into the pot even if I have my doubts.

[Chris_H]

There is another dimension to this that I personally struggle with and that is the leadership of our governments.

In terms of the numbers - as British tax payers we fund something likke £6 billion per annum of spending on International Development which includes Humanitarian aid. We pay a fortune in taxes on everything in life and should expect our governments to take into account the regularity with which such emergencies are encountered.

Of this £6 billion our government is obliged to give something like 40% to be spent via the EU in Multilateral aid.

When viewed at the EU level there is something like euros 60 billion per annum available for International Development and there is an acceptance that at least euros 7 billion is wasted via duplication, bureuacracy etc - there is a detailed report out on this lack of aid effectiveness.

I do my bit - I (and colleagues) have funded an orphanage extension in Ghana and we are doing something on a larger scale in Ivory Coast.

This comes from private money working with a recognised charity where we see results from our input.

We then come to comic relief and red nose day - and I start to struggle. Compared to the numbers given above contrbuted by tax payers - the sums raised by other events are somewhat small but do have an impact if properly used.

My real concern is that I fear our national government development agencies see this additional money as a means of cutting back on areas that they would/may have covered because it is coming from elsewhere.

They have huge staff numbers and budgets and they are arguably the biggest beneficiaries of the money- go-round than the people they are supposed to be helping.

If you have time take a look at:
Dark Star Safari - Theroux
Dead Aid - Dambisa Moyo
The End of Poverty - Jeffrey Sachs

I have met the last 2 named.

The whole system is very flawed and opaque - in the meantime I do my best to see that what I contibute is well spent but agree that for an emergency I would tend to take a view and put a small amount into the pot even if I have my doubts.

Very interesting pscocoa not only because you have covered quite a bit of ground and Red Nose Day is about the only thing I recognise there.  It is indeed a complicated subject to be summed-up in a small word like 'charity'!

What it undoubtedly boils down to is caring for our fellow man.  It only appears to work properly when contributors (donors, distributors, administrators etc.) are trustworthy - hence the OP.

What tires a lot of people is the effort needed to authenticate the charitable organisations, the fact that 'we' constantly need to support 'others' (an oblique statement that we are very blessed ourselves) and the barrage of poorly-targeted appeals.

I suspect that you don't need advice judging by your posting, but I would strongly recommend that you keep focussed on your West African involvement to avoid the enormous overhead of getting informed about other projects/disasters.  There is surely enough need there to last a lifetime?!  If you haven't visited your project(s) I would strongly recommend doing so if possible.

I will look up the references you listed.

[pscocoa]

Yes - I have visited the projects and/or got others to attend and substantiate - I agree this is vital.

I am off to Ivory Coast on Sunday but that is unfortunatley not related to the fund raising issue on this occasion.

I take your point on focus.

[jereboam]

i had an e mail yesterday asking for donations. not that i would give my bank details to them or give them a penny anyway. i only give to charities to british causes.

While I wouldn't in any way criticise your point of view, I must say that I am often very reluctant to contribute to UK charities. 

Given the level at which we are taxed, many of our charities support causes that, in my opinion, ought to be supported by tax money.  I don't think we should have to pay extra to support things like Cancer Research or the NSPCC.  As I write, there's an appeal on the radio for funds for Rheumatoid Arthritis - it's humiliating that they need to beg for money, and I think it's shameful that such research has become "optional", in the sense that it only gets paid for if good people choose so to do.

I know this may make me unpopular, but while I'm quite fond of small furry animals, I can't bring myself to contribute to animal charities.  Human beings are always more important, so if I have any spare cash, it goes to humanitarian charities. 

This way of thinking has been reinforced by hearing that, when the Icelandic banks went t*ts up, some bl**dy cat charity lost out to the tune of £16,000,000 that they had on deposit.

[STMO999]

i had an e mail yesterday asking for donations. not that i would give my bank details to them or give them a penny anyway. i only give to charities to british causes.

While I wouldn't in any way criticise your point of view, I must say that I am often very reluctant to contribute to UK charities. 

Given the level at which we are taxed, many of our charities support causes that, in my opinion, ought to be supported by tax money.  I don't think we should have to pay extra to support things like Cancer Research or the NSPCC.  As I write, there's an appeal on the radio for funds for Rheumatoid Arthritis - it's humiliating that they need to beg for money, and I think it's shameful that such research has become "optional", in the sense that it only gets paid for if good people choose so to do.

I know this may make me unpopular, but while I'm quite fond of small furry animals, I can't bring myself to contribute to animal charities.  Human beings are always more important, so if I have any spare cash, it goes to humanitarian charities. 

This way of thinking has been reinforced by hearing that, when the Icelandic banks went t*ts up, some bl**dy cat charity lost out to the tune of £16,000,000 that they had on deposit.

I agree wholeheartedly, but still give to cancer research and NSPCC. I, too, think these charities should not exist, the government should provide all the funding necessary. But you have to remember, there are more important things for the government to fund. For instance, there is The Haringay Black Lesbian Asylun Seeker programme and The Newham Alcohol and Drug users Society, both extremely worthy organisations.

[Dishevelled Den]

Agreed Jereboam

Even to start, a bank account is necessary and that is likely to be a business account which will cost money.  Then you need to send out receipts and acknowledgements which costs postage.

Although some small charities use the funds directly (like the old-fashioned missionary-type activity) it is seen as far more appropriate nowadays to use resources to enable local people to do the front-line work. Then you need to have a way of ascertaining that your donations/effort are being used effectively/honestly.

All that has reduced to zero the possibility of "every penny" going to service the need.  The nearest anyone can come to achieving that is to maintain separate funds for admin and "aims & objectives".  Getting help with the admin funds then becomes a struggle believe me.

It does sicken me to see waste and inefficiency in charities and it seems that it is almost automatic past a certain size.

It would seem that there's no elegant solution to this difficult but nevertheless understandable problem.

At the very least however a breakdown of the expenses involved for each charity operator and the sums anticipated to be dispersed for each cause, on an appeal by appeal basis, would put contributors minds ease.

You probably know this Zulu77 but any registered charity of any size has to publish detailed figures viewable on the charity Commission website.  So, for instance the charity I mentioned earlier here and you can browse the Accounts for 2009 and see pie-chart on page 19, geographical breakdown on page 31 and so on - far too much for me to analyse but there is a lot of transparency forced on them.

Thanks for that link Chris, I was about to add something else but realised I'd over-thought the matter and confused myself - not difficult - but i'll return to this when my thought process returns

For various reasons I've been thinking about this for a while and find that I'm no nearer reaching a simple solution of how the accountability of these organisations should be demonstrated to the potential contributor other than delving into their respective internet sites.

I was really looking for simplified version of how efficient the charity is being shown in the text copy of printed appeals, especially  for such disasters as this - maybe that's unreasonable, I don't know :-/ :-/ :-/

[Chris_H]

Agreed Jereboam

Even to start, a bank account is necessary and that is likely to be a business account which will cost money.  Then you need to send out receipts and acknowledgements which costs postage.

Although some small charities use the funds directly (like the old-fashioned missionary-type activity) it is seen as far more appropriate nowadays to use resources to enable local people to do the front-line work. Then you need to have a way of ascertaining that your donations/effort are being used effectively/honestly.

All that has reduced to zero the possibility of "every penny" going to service the need.  The nearest anyone can come to achieving that is to maintain separate funds for admin and "aims & objectives".  Getting help with the admin funds then becomes a struggle believe me.

It does sicken me to see waste and inefficiency in charities and it seems that it is almost automatic past a certain size.

It would seem that there's no elegant solution to this difficult but nevertheless understandable problem.

At the very least however a breakdown of the expenses involved for each charity operator and the sums anticipated to be dispersed for each cause, on an appeal by appeal basis, would put contributors minds ease.

You probably know this Zulu77 but any registered charity of any size has to publish detailed figures viewable on the charity Commission website.  So, for instance the charity I mentioned earlier here and you can browse the Accounts for 2009 and see pie-chart on page 19, geographical breakdown on page 31 and so on - far too much for me to analyse but there is a lot of transparency forced on them.

Thanks for that link Chris, I was about to add something else but realised I'd over-thought the matter and confused myself - not difficult - but i'll return to this when my thought process returns

For various reasons I've been thinking about this for a while and find that I'm no nearer reaching a simple solution of how the accountability of these organisations should be demonstrated to the potential contributor other than delving into their respective internet sites.

I was really looking for simplified version of how efficient the charity is being shown in the text copy of printed appeals, especially  for such disasters as this - maybe that's unreasonable, I don't know :-/ :-/ :-/

I guess some sort of kitemark accreditation scheme might achieve what you're looking for but there are problems with that too.
a) it will cost money that has to come from somewhere.
b) Different people 'approve of' different aims and objectives and the methods used to achieve them may be abhorrent to some but not others.

My solution is to satisfy myself about a small group of organisations that cover the needs I feel strongly about and ignore the rest.  It takes a bit of time and effort up-front but the 'ignoring' bit can be quite rewarding psychologically.

The nub of the problem is that charities are trying to give away money (that's what it boils down to) so lots of undesirables are going to sniff around.  One protection would be to be secretive about it - and I think you can see where that argument is going to end up!

[Dishevelled Den]

I guess some sort of kitemark accreditation scheme might achieve what you're looking for but there are problems with that too.
a) it will cost money that has to come from somewhere.
b) Different people 'approve of' different aims and objectives and the methods used to achieve them may be abhorrent to some but not others.

My solution is to satisfy myself about a small group of organisations that cover the needs I feel strongly about and ignore the rest.  It takes a bit of time and effort up-front but the 'ignoring' bit can be quite rewarding psychologically.

The nub of the problem is that charities are trying to give away money (that's what it boils down to) so lots of undesirables are going to sniff around.  One protection would be to be secretive about it - and I think you can see where that argument is going to end up!

I'll probably use those footsteps to plot my course Chris - thanks.  8-)