OT Where our foriegn aid goes.

[harryagain]

[Harry Bloomfield]

harryagain was thinking very hard :

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities. Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected, see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by millionaires.

[Cursitor Doom]

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area. Peeps, if you're feeling charitable, please give *directly* to those you're satisfied are genuinely in need and NOT via intermediary organisations!

[charles]

In what way? They offer an extremely friendly banking service to charities.

[Adrian]

That's true. If you believe the Daily Mail...

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

TBH, I don't care if Cancer Research spend £10m on fundraising or internal management or professional services. So long as that £10m brings in £15m, it's been money well spent.

The problem with many smaller charities is that they AREN'T willing to pay the going rate for something, so skimp and shoe-string, which at the end of the day hurts their aims rather than benefits them.

[alan_m]

Its also the way a lot of these charities obtain much of their "£15M". They tend to prey on the vulnerable and elderly in society. Having obtained a name/address of someone who has once parted with cash they will bombard that person with mail shots on a weekly basis with rather devious methods of extracting more money. They will send books of raffle tickets or packs of Christmas cards etc. stating that they MUST be purchased or sent back at the recipients cost.

I once purchased a raffle ticket for the Poppy appeal. For around 18 months afterwards fat envelopes would drop through my letter box all containing begging letters. One contained a A4 size wooden cross for which it was suggested should be returned with a large donation. As soon as the Poppy appeal mail-shots eased off I started getting the same kind of crap in the name of other charities. Obviously my name/address had been sold on. This one charity and its s**t money raising methods has put me off for life about giving to any other charity.

And there are the army of door to door cold callers bussed into an area with their over-priced goods being sold in the name of charity.

[Nightjar]

So, if you are sitting in a sinking boat in the middle of the channel, I should fly over and drop you a £50 note with the message 'here, hire yourself a rescue boat', rather than give the money to the RNLI, so they can have one ready when you need it?

If I give £25 to Oxfam on the understanding that they will use it to provide a family in Africa with a goat, I don't really care if the goat only cost £5 and the rest went on admin, if the family end up with a goat.

[The Natural Philosopher]

However if you pro9vcide £25 to Oxfam, and £20 goes on the people who staff it, and £5 goes on marketing and nothing goes on a goat at all, you are justified in stopping your donation.

[Nightjar]

However, despite what the DM wants people to believe, that isn't very probable. It is simple enough to check out any large charity and find out where the money goes. In the case of Oxfam, 44% goes on development work, such as the goat, 32% on emergency response, 6% on campaigning for change and 9% each on fund-raising and on support and running costs.

The real rip-off merchants are the companies who employ chuggers to stop people in the street and get donations in the name of a charity. They guarantee the charity a minimum income, but the law allows them to pass on as little as 10% of the money they collect.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 27/05/15 09:33, Nightjar In the case of Oxfam, 44% goes on development work, such as the goat,

[Tim Streater]

Campaigning for change? What does *that* mean?

[Nightjar]

Trying to eliminate the problems that create the need for aid, instead of simply handing aid out.

[Adrian]

Oooh, I wonder if there's anything on their website that might help answer that...?

successes

[Adrian]

Only if you regard people not dying of thoroughly avoidable starvation as "political".

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ah. Interesting. If it was so avoidable, why didn't they avoid it then?

[whisky-dave]

And how would one do that say with teh recent Nepal earthquake ? unless yuo know an indiduals bank details how can you donate without going through a large organisation. Or what do you do if someone comes up to you in the street with a bucket ? even if they have valid ID. IS Oxfam OK as thier chief director earns almost 120k a year.

[Tim Streater]

That would come under the development heading or whatever it's called. Y'know, the goat, f'rinstance, digging wells, safe latrines, providing malaria nets, vaccination, the sort of small scale stuff which is what saves and improves lives so they have more time to spend on helping themselves.

So what is the political campaigning all about then?

[whisky-dave]

Perhaps they didn;t want to avoid it or certainly someone didn't want it avioded.

[Adrian]

Addressing the wider cause, not the local symptom.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Nightjar was thinking very hard :

So it should be stopped, made illegal - the law is entirely wrong. They are not collecting for a charity, the chuggers are collecting for themselves and their organisation.