Still feel like giving to charity...?

[aussiblue]

Recently, one of the papers published a list of what percentage of donations actually gets to the end user. And of the money donated, to Lifesavers and some other well known organisations, over 60% is swallowed up by administration.

So is that really so shocking?

In our association it's also the administration costs that absorb most of our donations. For example, one of our biggest expenses is insurance. Fishing is a dangerous sport and when you involve the disabled in fishing the risks are higher again and that is reflected in our annual insurance costs an administration expense. But in this litigious world our clients expect that we will be insured so they are covered if anything happens to them. Similarly our volunteers need to be covered for all sorts of risks; if we didn't have cover their personal assets and homes would be on the line and we would probably have no volunteers. So all the public liability, personal accident and directors and officers insurance etc adds up.

The direct costs of running a fishing events are minimal as someone usually donates the bait, the events are manned by volunteers and the cost of lost tackle and fuel (when we do boat workshops) is comparatively low. But without the insurance we would probably have no volunteers, no directors and few customers. I sure this is similar to most charities run by volunteers; its the insurance, audit fees and similar unavoidable administrative cost that eat up the donations as the volunteers do most of the real work for nothing. Get involved in working in or running a charity as a volunteer before jumping on the knockers bandwagon.

[aussiblue]

" f) the largest and most professional charities usually have their own full time professional fund raisers."

And therein lies the problem aussiblue.

Professional fund raisers don't do it to fill in the time of day.

The professional fund raisers I was referring to are paid employees. For survival most charity administrators spend a lot of their time focusing on the hard and boring work of raising funds and fulfilling administrative obligations so their volunteers can get on with is usually the more fun and more rewarding bit of directly assisting the charity's clients or beneficiaries.

[chamb0]

I read this thread and felt compelled to share my personal experience of charity. I and my family, friends and community went through the 2009 Vic bushfires. We are gratefully indebted forever to people who gave generously and freely to others in our time of desperate need. In response to the disaster, private groups, work offices, organised charities, churches, car clubs, schools, governments, individuals, you name it, lent a hand. We even received letters, donations, gifts and good wishes from people we didn't know on the other side of the planet, sometimes from people in countries much, much poorer than ours. We're still now discovering groups or individuals who helped out in some way. When I think of this outpouring of goodwill it makes me think that that's how we should always treat each other. I don't know where our particular family and community would be without it. Supporting other people in this way does change lives. Why aren't we always like that?

I gladly donate to a number of charities in gratitude for the help I recieved. Lesson learnt - the seemingly safe, secure world we build around ourselves can fall down without warning, whether it be from natural disaster, illness, accident, relationship breakdown, losing a job or a thousand other ways. When this happens and people fall on hard times, it's often charitable organisations or groups, run by people who genuinely care, who are there (and often they are volunteers doing it at their own cost).

I'm sure there are some dodgy operators out there, just like in any field of human endeavour. But it's not rocket science to do a bit of research to find out which groups you feel are truly legitimate and deserving of your support. I don't know how we've been sold the lie that across the board none of our money ever gets to the destination, and other myths about charities. If you feel bombarded by too many appeals for help/phone calls/people stopping you in the street, there's nothing wrong with saying 'no thanks' and walking on. You don't have to feel pressured to commit to more than you're comfortable with or can manage. And who says you can only support with your money anyway?

Aussiblue mentioned above the possiblity of questionable tactics by the journalist in this particular story. As an aside to this, another lesson we learnt after the fires - critically evaluate EVERYTHING you read or hear in the news, never take it on face value, and never trust a journalist (some newspapers and journalists are worse than others). They can be capable of doing anything it takes to sell a story, and sometimes don't care one bit who or what they hurt in the process.

How's this for taking things out of context - our grieving family was targeted, less than 24 hours after the fires, by two journalists determined to ignore facts and make up a far-fetched story about the deaths of my two sisters. They looked up their facebook profiles, invented a completely false story with the material they found there (a story which reflected badly on our decision-making on the day), and had the insensitivity to publish it on the front page of the Herald Sun the very next day (and wouldn't respond to our written requests to publish a correction). This wasn't an isolated case either, this sort of thing happened regularly in the fire zones to other people. I saw some absolutely distasteful, intrusive practice by ACA/Today Tonight (I forget which one), wanting their scoop. I have plenty more stories to add to that effect. IMO, seeing what the profession is capable of, I'm not surprised at all anymore to read articles like this and the conspiracy theories and emotive language they come up with, designed to whip up emotions into a frenzy. This sort of reporting can damage beyond measure the good work done by selfless people, further contributing to the general decline in donations we see these days. Misinformation creates hard-heartedness in this situation.

It's my belief that the media often tells us what we want to hear, and never mind the truth. Please read that article with your bull**** detector well and truly switched on. Just my 2c worth.

[FGII-XR6]

fund raising by commision agents should either be banned or heavily taxed. if not the fund raiser should be forced to disclose their true identity like this
" hello this is Wayne Kerr from lowlife fund raisers, we are collecting for ( name charity here) and if you donate $100 we will pass on $1.50 after covering our costs and paying our directors to go to expensive conferences. I of course will be receiving 30% of your donation as commision"
if people told the truth these maggots would dissapear

[Lightning Strike GT]

There is only 1 or 2 charities I give to Australian based - on my terms and the amount of money I want to donate
Whay the hell should I put my hand into my pocket and give to a charity that is on the other side of the world - fix our back yard first
What gets my temper up is that I can not walk from my place of employment to the middle of the Queen St Mall in Brissy (about 500 meters) without being hounded by tin rattlers, sob stories and backpackers working for the red cross - oxfam etc wanting me to give cash

[SB076]

Originally Posted by chamb0

It's my belief that the media often tells us what we want to hear, and never mind the truth. Please read that article with your bull**** detector well and truly switched on. Just my 2c worth.

Would be interesting to know what the truth is. I give to charities BUT I must admit I do so under my own free will, if I beleive I am being pushed or harrased than I simply dont give money and I make a mental note not to donate to that charity.

I suppose some people such as volunteers feel strongly about a particular cause - thats why they dontate there time - they probably dont understand why others dont feel as stongly - so they may feel compelled to be a bit pushy - but to most of us that would be a big turn off.

I know when I have been at my parents place they seem to get at least two calls a night (always at dinner time) Which I dont agree with

[GK]

My wife and I give to charities - but we choose carefully who we give to and mostly stick with them.

GK

[aussiblue]

Actually I have to wonder what the Telegraph's motives were in running the story. Most of what they reported as adverse or unethical seems to have come from Richard Ratcliffe's presentation and, given he's from the UK, it has to be questionable how much, if any, of this applies to Australian charities. Maybe the reporter just needed to justify the $3,000 the paper spent sending him to the conference.

He mentions Amnesty International, World Vision, Mission Australia, the Heart Foundation, Guide Dogs, Ronald McDonald House and ChildFund at the beginning of the story but doesn't provide any evidence these organisations did anything other than send delegates to the conference. It seems to be the old tactics of mentioning some high profile names and flinging some mud and knowing some of it will stick to the innocent tall poppies.

Unfortunately these anti-charity stories are lapped up by those who want to appease their conscience and rationalise not giving to charities (see page 26 of http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/re...y/abitrich.pdf and I guess these stories help sell papers. Charities are also soft targets as most are not in a position to launch expensive legal cases even when, as sometimes happens libel or slander is involved.

Yes some charities have questionable ethics and some religious charities have even been implicated with the abuse of those in their care but these are a small minority.

Just because professional fund raisers promote certain strategies doesn't mean that charities will take them up. The reason most people are involved as volunteers in charities is they want to make the world a better place and help some disadvantaged group. From my observations these sort of people generally won't adopt insensitive or inappropriate fundraising strategies. For example, the charity I'm involved in has spurned call centre fund raising because of its invasive nature despite it being continually marketed to us and I am sure we wouldn't consider the vulture tactics suggested in the Telegraph's story.

[Whitey-AMG]

Its funny how charity more often than not needs to be about money.

Why not get all those charity collectors that hassle you over dinner time asking for cash - to actually get out there / put some overalls and Blunnies on and go and mow the lawns of the elderly who are suffering from crippling arthritis and can't move a finger........

Seems community service and charity have become mutually exclusive and the defining act of charity is more and more becoming of the ability to donate money - but not your time or your actions. Funny how you get a tax deduction for any charitable donation over 2 or 3 dollars - but you can spend a day helping your elderly neighbours clean up their yard - remove rubbish and make them a cup of tea........yet there is no social recognition of your charity........apart from the most important thing you can hope for......a sincere THANK YOU from a needy person.

Oh well.................

[aussiblue]

Yes; we need volunteers as much as the money and they are sometimes equally hard to get. But without some money we have no insurance and no volunteers. Nonetheless our volunteers are undoubtedly our most valued asset.

[AU Mont]

yeah i just love when i go to do my weekly supermarket shop and a couple 18yo samoans built like chest freezers sitting at the the doors staring, laughing & muttering somethings to customers as they approach the entrance

so i say yeah i would love to donate, im literally broke this week but heres $15 to help out out in some way. Um no, you have to sign up to the foundation where we debit $50/$100/$150/$200 per month from your credit card to put you in the running for a house, all proceeds go to childrens hospital.

Hmm, ok, so ive gave them 15mins of my time to hear out what they are and what they do, but i cant afford to go on some payment plan. I politely say no thanks, then am given a smartass comment that "its fo' tha kidz maaaan"....... "better hope yoar kidz dont eva get sick n need this hospital"

Yerp so glad i stopped and had a chat. Nah never again.

[2011G6E]

We give to the children's hospital in Brissy, but nothing else.

"Out of context"?
What possible other "context" could there be for a high flying international expert on how to make people donate saying it's a joke that not enough people are dying these days, that they need lawyers to intevene and for charities to drive people to lawyers to get wills changed.

There's a fricking massive difference between a sking if you'd mind remembering to make a bequest in your will, and a charity saying that families should be excluded if possible and to use other dodgy tactics to squeeze money out of targetted groups.

[aussiblue]

Out of context"?
What possible other "context" could there be for a high flying international expert on how to make people donate saying it's a joke that not enough people are dying these days, that they need lawyers to intevene and for charities to drive people to lawyers to get wills changed.

I don't know as I wasn't there but perhaps tongue in cheek illustrating inappropriate fund raising strategies. His video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=MNSZk85mIlQ
suggests it might be something like that but I do have to wonder about the approriateness of his humour.

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

So is that really so shocking? ....................
Get involved in working in or running a charity as a volunteer before jumping on the knockers bandwagon.

Wow! Touchy, touchy.

As you're in the industry i can understand you being defensive, but I think you're looking through rose coloured glasses if you don't think most donors would be shocked and perhaps think twice before donating if they knew that only .40 cents of their donation dollar was going to benefit the poor unfortunate for whom they were donating.

Final comment.

[madwag]

since we are on the topic sorta.
If any vic members near the city wanna help out at the vinnies soup kitchen pm me because we can always use a few more hands.

[Daniel B]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

......that is reflected in our annual insurance costs an administration expense. But in this litigious world our clients expect that we will be insured so they are covered if anything happens to them.

...... So all the public liability, personal accident and directors and officers insurance etc adds up.

..... its the insurance, audit fees and similar unavoidable administrative cost that eat up the donations as the volunteers do most of the real work for nothing.

Hmmmmmm, wonder when the Insurance companies are gonna put there hand in there pockets and do some donating of there own, maybe in some form of cut price or free insurance for these types of organisations. If nothing else it would certainly help there image....if that's possible.....ok i'll stop there and go back to.......

[z80]

I hate being hassled by the wealthy DHL/surf life saving tin can tattlers.

All they do is fund surf days for their indulged kiddies.

Some get quite nasty when told NO.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by z80

I hate being hassled by the wealthy DHL/surf life saving tin can tattlers.

All they do is fund surf days for their indulged kiddies.

Some get quite nasty when told NO.

I like to ignore those ones. Just walk right by them.

[uranium_death]

I like charities that help animals.
Besides that, Salvos are okay too.

I refuse to help World Vision because it's too politically driven in the form of Tim Costello - who I simply don't like - though I understand why people may like him.

But there are too many charities nowadays, and many other collection agencies too.

[Sprint]

I can tell you ,cancer council is full of shonkies, most of the collectors that volunteer have questionable pasts.

Charitites are shonkies full stop.yes its sad!

[AU Mont]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

I like charities that help animals.
Besides that, Salvos are okay too.

i like the salvos becuase they come and take my old furniture, which saves me a trip to the dump

but then i see my stuff in the shop advertised for $300 and wonder why they didnt just give the stuff to someone who needed it?

[aussiblue]

It also seems they also defamed Legacy, albeit by mistake, so now Normie Rowe, the RSL and the Vietnam Vets Motorcycle Club will be after them :-) http://www.legacy.com.au/LegacyMarketingresponse
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/cha...-1226288323095

Again the emotive "behind closed doors" comment is hardly objective journalism.

Interesting comment in this blog: here https://secure.csi.edu.au/site/Home/...or-themselves/
\

It does seem the Telegraph and the Courier Mail are targeting charities for some reason:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226174616983
http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1226174582139

I don't see myself as in the industry; I have a full time job elsewhere I just happen to be on a charity's board.

In summary, it seem the Telegraph's big beef is that a lot of charities attended a Convention on fund raising. The fact that they didn't like one speaker's presentation isn't grounds to condemn charities or even the charities that attended.

I can tell you from my experience that charities do get a lot of pressure from Government agencies (Government is still a big funder of charities as Governments know charities provide a lot of services that Government would otherwise have to fully fund) to be more independent and more professional and accordingly the idea of a convention that might teach you about how to be more professional or more effective in fund raising is going to sound attractive. Most of the convention topics http://www.media.dailytelegraph.com..../programme.pdf were innocent enough - even ethics was covered. I suspect that some delegates attendance was funded by Government and private Philanthropic organisations that provide training and similar grants to charities on the basis that their attendance-would help their charities become more professional and financially independent.

[aussiblue]

Oh and our insurance broker already give us a big discount - much cheaper than all the alternatives. We also used to have a audit firm that audited the accounts for free so there are some nice companies out there.

What we would really like is a generous corporate sponsor that would pay all our bills so we would not have to fund raise. Unfortunately the ugly truth is that a number of potential sponsors have pulled out as their marketing people have advised them that the fact we have a significant number of mentally and physically disabled clients would have an adverse impact on their image and couldn't be linked to their advertising campaign. The simple truth is AFL clubs, race teams and the like are more glamorous and sexy than the disabled when it comes to corporate sponsorship.