Burden of charity regulations too high?

[arbitron]

I have been following this story with interest: Founder of Dublin soup run feeding the homeless says she has ‘no intention’ of becoming a registered charity

No doubt the group have positive motives, have put huge effort into this work, and have done a lot of good. At first I thought this was all a bit heavy handed of the regulator and could have a negative effect on volunteering and non-profits in general.

But then you read the details about money going to an account in a butcher shop....

They have no website, just a Facebook page that doesn't identify anyone involved other than the founder - in fact she is the only person in any media interviews, so it may be just her holding the whole thing together.

This is not a running club or a tidy towns committee. It's providing an important service to vulnerable people. They say they have hundreds depending on them. Yet they are not able/willing to set up structures to ensure the services provided are legal, safe (e.g. food standards), and sustainable (basic accounting).

There are several of these soup kitchens operating around Dublin, I don't know why they don't coalesce into one charitable organisation. My own view is that these sorts of efforts inadvertently let the government off the hook by papering over systemic failings. Feels very Victorian and allows ministers to offload some responsibility when hunger should absolutely not be an issue in 21st century Ireland.

People giving donations also have a right to expect transparency and accountability. If an informal group like this were to end up doing something seriously wrong there would be an outcry that the regulator and the government had not intervened.

 

[Leo]

Once anything like this gets to a certain scale, there's just too much scope for fraud and embezzlement. The charities regulator was set up in response to multiple such scandals. The regulator are regularly uncovering issues of non-compliance. If you want to take public money, you should at least be willing to do a little administration and keep the required records to show how money is spent, and decisions are arrived at.

My own view is that these sorts of efforts inadvertently let the government off the hook by papering over systemic failings. Feels very Victorian and allows ministers to offload some responsibility when hunger should absolutely not be an issue in 21st century Ireland.

Don't forget there's also a cohort of people making a very nice living in managing and running these services!! We have north of 10,000 registered charities operating here, there are huge inefficiencies in such replication.

 

[Dr Strangelove]

Once anything like this gets to a certain scale, there's just too much scope for fraud and embezzlement.

That scale is tiny and the lady mentioned in the article is already well above it. As well as scope for fraud and embezzlement there is money laundering risk.

Don't forget there's also a cohort of people making a very nice living in managing and running these services!!

No one gets rich out of charity work but you are correct there is huge overlap between charities.

The inefficiency is by design of course - donors want to see buckets being shaken and a visible street presence even if the work can be done more efficiently quietly and at scale.

 

[joe sod]

Just have to mention Angela Kerins and the rehab scandal to see why charity regulation is needed, it acted like the wild West for many years

 

[Purple]

No one gets rich out of charity work but you are correct there is huge overlap between charities.

The inefficiency is by design of course - donors want to see buckets being shaken and a visible street presence even if the work can be done more efficiently quietly and at scale.

There's not just huge overlap and inefficiency, there's also no way of establishing best practice. If a charity does something (funds a project etc) that turns out to be a complete waste of money they can't let anyone know about it or they will lose funding.
Anyone who wants to set up a Soup Kitchen (there are no actual Soup Kitchens and nobody is going hungry due to a lack of funding from the State) they should just raise money for one of the existing charities that hands out food and clothing to whomever gets in the queue.

 

[Leo]

No one gets rich out of charity work but you are correct there is huge overlap between charities.

Charity CEOs were earning €100k+ in 2010. At one stage prior to that, the CEO of one of the biggest charities regularly spoke of their own low pay only for it to be revealed later they were paying their children far more.

 

[Purple]

Charity CEOs were earning €100k+ in 2010. At one stage prior to that, the CEO of one of the biggest charities regularly spoke of their own low pay only for it to be revealed later they were paying their children far more.

The figures for average wages can be misleading as many employees work part time and it's usually unclear of the average salaries they quote are full time equivalent. That said I don't know too many people of the right calibre and skill set that would run an organisation like Concern, turning over well in excess of €100 million, for €100k a year.

Conversations about pay are a distraction, just as they are in most large organisations. The conversation should be about efficiency, removing duplication of process and which activates add value and which don't. That's probably 30% of your labour cost base removed.

 

[Leo]

The conversation should be about efficiency, removing duplication of process and which activates add value and which don't. That's probably 30% of your labour cost base removed.

Given the number of charities and the amount of cross-over I'd suspect you could save more, making a significant cut from the 10% of donations going on salary. Reducing the competition for donations would likely realise further savings on the ~30% some of them spend on marketing and collections (payments to chuggers).