Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Or whatever a proliferation of them might be referred to as...

The New Year's Day tv is on, the charity adverts are on requesting donations.

I have standing orders set up for charities and watching the ads today, something struck me, do we need with all of them? Surely one charity PER CAUSE is needed?

For Example:

The current ad being spammed on ITV3 is for WaterAid, which provides clean sanitation and water in poor parts of the world. That's very noble, but one of the charities I donate to is Oxfam. Oxfam already does this and they've been around a long time. Why then has another charity been created to perform the exact same task? It will just divide the monies being donated and more will be used up in 'management' here in the 1st world.

Isn't this proliferation just absorbing money that should be going to those actually in need?

Or am I missing the point?

There are more than one place in the world having water issues, and no charity is big enough to cover a continent.

MGS, are you the guy who keeps Chuggers* in active employment? Why all the charity subscriptions?

I agree with your main point though. Used to voluntary for work Hampshire Wildlife Trust and was always bemused by the no. of groups hitting each other over the head to get funding for a similar objective.

*For non-UK, a Chugger is a Charity Mugger. They patrol UK High Streets with the singular intent of extracting bank details from your brain.

Quite honsetly that there is big money to be made on running a charity. Most charities are started with the idea to help out the needy, but as the money flows in it needs to be "professionally" managed. This is where the big money is made as fees for the administrators of the funds.

When I was setting up my charity tournament, the charity we were planning on donating to asked if I was going to keep a percentage of the money since I was acting as the administrator for the tournament. You would think that they would be saying this in a critical way because they needed more of the funds, but no. They seems surprised when I said no that all would be going to them. It almost seemed like that they thought I was being stupid for not keeping a bit of the money for myself. I was already up to 50 players at $20 USD per player with more donations to be made during the games (.25 cents per reroll).

Now, that amount of money does not sound like alot but the people that run and advertise charities on TV are making hundreds of times that much per day maybe even per hour. So you figure it the administrative fees totals normally 30 to 40 cents out of every dollar taken in then you are looking at a load of money. When a charity grows to that size then they administrators do not care about the charity now, but on how much money is donated. This is why there is so many of the same charities out there.

When I was a homeless worker I learned first hand why you give to charities and not to beggars.

When I was connected to people on overseas mission I learned why you dont give to most charities.

Charities are cash holes, some are more efficient than others but it is very hard for the punter to know which charity is worth giving to and which are not.

Most of the foreign aid charities are not worth giving ay money to, for some only a tiny fraction reaches the supposed beneficiaries. Yes yes a lot of foreign aid money and provisions goes into the pockets of Club Dictator, its also well known that greedy and corrupt third world regimes are the principle cause of distress an cause of failure of relief of the suffereing in those countries. what is less well known is that overpaid directors and marketing personnel, managers and consultants make the dicattorships of the recipient countries appear positively efficient by comparison.

It is not uncommon for over 90% of aid resources never to leave the country the aid was raised from, for some the figure is nearner 98%. There are aid organisations on TV with grossly overpaid staffing and an attitude that their actual job is to raise money for the organisation, not to actually provide any relief. This is most commonly felt over the scrabble that ocurs regarding care resources. Some more benign charities have in tme asked for help with raising cash, onkly to find that assisting someone else raising funds is the last thing they want to do. subsistence contribution based charities can be some of the most visciously grasping businesses out there.

I worked with a charity that had unpad directors, that promised that 100% of donations reached target. They could achieve tghis becasue the people running the charity were retired businessmen who had made fortunes in other fields and could afford to work for nothing for someone else. Such men are not uncommon, I have met some in other circles. Most honest charities are smal, not because they turn any resource away but because they stop lookin after a while. Its easy to raise fifty thousand for a cancer ward unit or a project in Africa, once the money grows vultures gather. harities get no equipment discount and are expected to grease wheels on the other side of international aid even if they kept themselves honest this end.
I have seen honest charities fail because they were honest. How does an honet ex-businessman deal with a recipeint nation where everything requires a gratuity, or constant guard against theft.
The people I worked with sent equipped ambulances to small towns in Africa, a laudable and practical charity goal. They even found a way to get them there without resorting to bribery, but they couldn't guard the shipment from local corruption. The ambulances arrived alright, but stipped of all equipment upojn arrival, they left ambulances and arrived vans.

I knew a girl who worked in a Romanian orphanange and mental hospital just after the fall of Communism, we went to the same school. Supplies came from donations from groups in Denmark and Germany, they needed guarding day and night or the locals would steal them. Once she had to approach a group of aid workers who naivinly gave their donations of matresses and clothes to the staff, she said that if the aid was not given to the western volunteers it would disappear from the hospital the day they left. At first they didnt beleie this but were quickly convinced when they pretended to leave early. Eventually to keep the items for the intended persons they had to be defaced with paint. The mantal patients and orphans thus got tyheir new clothes and matresses, daubed in bright orange wall paint. It was the only way to get the aid accross.

I was expecting some plan on how to stop certain charity institutions from existing.

Alas.

There is a charity for anything and everything. Sadly in some cases.

In Australia there are over 40 shildrens cancer charities/foundations/etc.

Many are founded to remember a child or medial professional/nurse who worked in the field.

I agree that they need amalgamation.

1-2 for research
1 for provision of extra 'stuff' for cancer wards
1 for palliative care
1 for family/psychological support
1 for 'distraction' i.e they have a kids camp in Oz for kids with and post cancer, and several that do 'dream trips'

So about 6 would much more effectively cover the field (and a couple could be rolled into more general 'sick kids' charities, such as the provision of equipment or the dream trip ones)

It's a complete waste of time to provide aid of any kind to third world countries. Either you give them just enough to keep them alive, but nowhere enough to actually improve their quality of life, or most of it is skimmed by corrupt governments or the charity is corrupt. I know, it sounds cruel, but them's the facts.

Amalgamating charities doesn't always work. Creating large organizations by combining small ones is a good idea to shed overhead in theory, but in practice it can create considerable issues with developing interdependence and with conflicting goals. Creating one giant omnicharity would likely just cause every charity involved to become more beholden to organizational fees.

It's a complete waste of time to provide aid of any kind to third world countries. Either you give them just enough to keep them alive, but nowhere enough to actually improve their quality of life, or most of it is skimmed by corrupt governments or the charity is corrupt. I know, it sounds cruel, but them's the facts.

Institutional aid both does and does not work. If all aid was cut from Africa millions would starve as a direct result. The aid is quite directly responsible for keeping many, many people alive. Unfortunately overzealous application of aid, especially clothing and infrastructure undermines local developing economies and aids the formation of illegal operations dedicated to skimming off of the aid.

Aid is a bandage. Put on too many bandages and you start to cause problems, don't put one on at all and you bleed out.

What bothers me is the Kevin Whately ad for Water Aid's blatant cheating.

First Kevin says "If you do one thing today, please watch this appeal."

Then at the end, he says "If you do one thing today, please donate to this charity."

But Keeeeeevin.... we already did the one thing you asked of us. You can't then cheat and ask us to done another "one thing" when we've already done one thing!

warpcrafter wrote:It's a complete waste of time to provide aid of any kind to third world countries. Either you give them just enough to keep them alive, but nowhere enough to actually improve their quality of life, or most of it is skimmed by corrupt governments or the charity is corrupt. I know, it sounds cruel, but them's the facts.

Everyone is 'corrupt' because everyone has a purpose which is not identical to that which is assigned by society. The notion that 'corruption' is problematic is based entirely on a lack of willingness to accept variation within your own understanding of financial choice.

Either way, there is usually a purpose to foreign aid. Even if that purpose amounts to little more than securing area X for the interests of nation Y.

Fifty wrote:What bothers me is the Kevin Whately ad for Water Aid's blatant cheating.

First Kevin says "If you do one thing today, please watch this appeal."

Then at the end, he says "If you do one thing today, please donate to this charity."

But Keeeeeevin.... we already did the one thing you asked of us. You can't then cheat and ask us to done another "one thing" when we've already done one thing!

But what I'm asking is, why is there a Water Aid in the first place, that money could already go to Oxfam who already provide water to 3rd world nations as part of their work. Why do we need another charity dedicated to that?

Fifty wrote:What bothers me is the Kevin Whately ad for Water Aid's blatant cheating.

First Kevin says "If you do one thing today, please watch this appeal."

Then at the end, he says "If you do one thing today, please donate to this charity."

But Keeeeeevin.... we already did the one thing you asked of us. You can't then cheat and ask us to done another "one thing" when we've already done one thing!

And that's just how far he's willing to go to get your money to those who need it.

The only charity I would donate to is the RNLI as they help people in britain and you can see the effects for yous self, also the RNLI is almost all fundied by donations and for a country that the furthest point away from the sea is only about 70 miles, i think we need them more than helping Africans

I know its harsh but lifes a bit*h

FM

FM Ninja 048 wrote:The only charity I would donate to is the RNLI as they help people in britain and you can see the effects for yous self, also the RNLI is almost all fundied by donations and for a country that the furthest point away from the sea is only about 70 miles, i think we need them more than helping Africans

I know its harsh but lifes a bit*h

FM

Or you could argue as I do that the RNLI should be considered a full emergency service and provided for adequately from our taxes instead of us funding gak like the eurofighter...

ut what I'm asking is, why is there a Water Aid in the first place, that money could already go to Oxfam who already provide water to 3rd world nations as part of their work. Why do we need another charity dedicated to that?

Because Oxfam can't cover an entire continent? Why do you need a military over there, ours is bigger and more powerful, wouldn't it make more sense for you to just send us your tax money so ours could cover more ground?

ShumaGorath wrote:

ut what I'm asking is, why is there a Water Aid in the first place, that money could already go to Oxfam who already provide water to 3rd world nations as part of their work. Why do we need another charity dedicated to that?

Because Oxfam can't cover an entire continent? Why do you need a military over there, ours is bigger and more powerful, wouldn't it make more sense for you to just send us your tax money so ours could cover more ground?

If the contribution to charities is set and then there are more charities, there is less to go to each. Why would a proliferation of charities using the same basic level of donated money have the capacity to cover more ground? If the charities were amalgamated then this would be more sensible yes?

Also you army analogy is fairly weird... Separate nations with vested interests in different parts of the world and different ideologies will only come together on certain issues. The existence of the UK army doesn't directly harm the funding for the USA army...

Also you army analogy is fairly weird... Separate nations with vested interests in different parts of the world and different ideologies will only come together on certain issues. The existence of the UK army doesn't directly harm the funding for the USA army...

And the charities don't specialize in different locations and have different specific ideologies and goals? Both are international, they draw from the same pool of money, but the multiplicity of charities doesn't particularly reduce the effectiveness of similar charities. If anything increased commercial and demographic coverage will damage other unrelated charity causes, people don't typically pick an issue like "water crisis" then go looking for a charity, they see a commercial and then call a phone number. Certain forms of charity work are more effectual small, while certain others are large, amalgamating charities in the way you suggest would certainly allow more money to be funneled into things like infrastructure improvements, but the administration costs per dollar donated to larger charities are larger than small, which have a much lower overhead.

ShumaGorath wrote:And the charities don't specialize in different locations and have different specific ideologies and goals? Both are international, they draw from the same pool of money, but the multiplicity of charities doesn't particularly reduce the effectiveness of similar charities. If anything increased commercial and demographic coverage will damage other unrelated charity causes, people don't typically pick an issue like "water crisis" then go looking for a charity, they see a commercial and then call a phone number. Certain forms of charity work are more effectual small, while certain others are large, amalgamating charities in the way you suggest would certainly allow more money to be funneled into things like infrastructure improvements, but the administration costs per dollar donated to larger charities are larger than small, which have a much lower overhead.

Actually, each time I get a pay rise, I decide what general area I would like to give more money to, then do some internet research to find out which charity to make my donations to.

I think that is fairly unusual though.

MGS: The word is collective noun.

I have nothing else useful to contribute.

This is a time i agree with ORLANTH, these charities just act as a tempary band aid to a much larger problem, that continents like Africa have to deal with other wise this band aid approach will continue for a very long time. The ads always say 'just one pound can make a difference', The difference is that the little girl that was saved from starvation will then die from being raped and murdered by a gang of (in some countries goverment paid) milita.

On the issue of the RNLI, they should be paid through taxes, these men and wemon risk their lives to save others at sea, but to get a boat children watching blue peter have to collect tinfoil and newspaper, its rediculous.

I dont like big charities like the ones your talking about.
How do i know my money is going towards whet you say it is. For all i know my money is going towards that b-celebrity you paid to br in that commercial. i only give to local like the salvation army or charity that helps abondened animals.

Although i prefer non-religous based charities, i do respect the salvation army, the work the volunteers do is highly commendable and the organisation has a high donation to output ratio that is far better than other charities.

The RNLI are all volunteers, as are mountain rescue people.

There is a lot to be said for volunteers. They are very dedicated. They don't strike, as firemen sometimes do.

IMO it makes sense for a fully volunteer organisation like the RNLI to be charity funded.

BluntmanDC wrote:Although i prefer non-religous based charities, i do respect the salvation army, the work the volunteers do is highly commendable and the organisation has a high donation to output ratio that is far better than other charities.

why do you prefer non religious. in my experiance thay are the most generous.

garret wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:Although i prefer non-religous based charities, i do respect the salvation army, the work the volunteers do is highly commendable and the organisation has a high donation to output ratio that is far better than other charities.

why do you prefer non religious. in my experiance thay are the most generous.

This does not cover all religous charities, its not ment as a blanket statement, but some charity organisations only give help when it is combined with taking their religion, for example: we will build a school, but you have to learn english by reading the bible, or Hamas, one of the worlds most charitable organisations in the world (around 85-90% of their income is spent on their community), they build schools, fund hospitals, youth clubs, after school programmes, but all this is then used to create extremists for their organisation.

The salvation army, although made up of christians, are more interested in helping people than converting them, i do try to find stuff in the shop down chalk farm to buy.

I was a charity-mugger once. I made £7/per hour.

Ah, the gak jobs you do when you're in a band....

Maybe that would be the collective noun.

A mugging of charities.

"Don't head turn that corner, front."

"But why not?"

"A mugging of charities have set up. Best hop the bridge and come back the other way."

"Thanks!"

Or a 'Mug' of charities?

'I'm sorry, I'd love to donate but I'm already signed up to a mug of charities, unfortunately.'

Haha.