Trocaire boxes

wishbone

Registered User
Messages
386
It's that time of the year when Trocaire boxes have arrived in our houses.

We have given up drink for Lent and the money we save will be put in the box...or at least that was the plan until my daughter stated that only a third of the money makes it to the people.

Now that could be some wild rash statement based on something she heard from a third cousin of a friend of a friend who lives up that road (from school) ...and if that's the case I'd rather give to Crumlin or Temple Street...so the question is...is that the case? Does anyone know for sure?
 
Does anyone know for sure?
Like all charities, Trocaire publish independently audited figures every year. Last year their overheads were 9%
[broken link removed]

More broadly, I think that overhead is a pretty bad way to evaluate a charity. Any other sort of enterprise is allowed to invest in making itself more efficient, effective, or profitable. We should allow our charities to do likewise.

I have no affiliation with Trocaire. I'm wary of their connection to the catholic church, but they seem to be doing the best they can within those constraints. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/trocaire-faces-condoms-battle-25918445.html
 
Last edited:
What's a Trocaire box ?

Where have you been..............?? :) :)

Trocaire-lenten-campaign-8.jpg
 
Thanks trasneoir, that sounds far off only one third making its way to the people themselves, we'll keep with the Trocaire box so.

Like all charities, Trocaire publish interdependently audited figures every year. Last year, their overheads were 9%
[broken link removed]

More broadly, I think that overhead is a pretty bad way to evaluate a charity. Any other sort of enterprise is allowed to invest in making itself more efficient, effective or profitable. We should allow our charities to do likewise.

I have no affiliation with Trocaire. I'm wary of their connection to the catholic church, but they seem to be doing the best they can within those constraints. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/trocaire-faces-condoms-battle-25918445.html
 
It's that time of the year when Trocaire boxes have arrived in our houses.

We have given up drink for Lent and the money we save will be put in the box...or at least that was the plan until my daughter stated that only a third of the money makes it to the people.

Now that could be some wild rash statement based on something she heard from a third cousin of a friend of a friend who lives up that road (from school) ...and if that's the case I'd rather give to Crumlin or Temple Street...so the question is...is that the case? Does anyone know for sure?

Take this scenario

I work as a fund raiser for Trocaire. €200,000 is raised from the Trocaire boxed from schools and 100% of it goes to pay my wages and bonus. I raise €2m for Trocaire each year. Is that good money spent or would you prefer the €200,000 to go directly to helping the poor instead?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Air_Force

The Trocaire box in the photo mentions Ethiopia.

Their Air Force has 146 aircraft.

Our Air Corps has 24.

We borrow billions each year to fund public services.

They need to change their priorities, and spend on their people's welfare instead.
Ethiopia like many African countries is an extremely complex society. While technically the country is a democracy it's current president Miles Zenawi is effectively a dictator and any dissention is dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly. The ruling tribe generally enjoy a higher standard of life than all others and they are still technically at war with Eritrea.
Yes you are correct in saying that the Government is not prioritized to cater for the large element of impoverished and starving people that inhabit the more remote areas of the country. having Sudan as a neighbor has added to the mass emigration of people who struggle find adequate food and water to exist. Disease is rife and while the Famine that prompted Live Aid is over, there is still mass starvation and deprivation in that country.
I have experienced all this at first hand and while I accept the fact that many of Ethiopia's problems are caused by their own Government I do not agree that the World should turn it's back on these people due to that unfortunate circumstance. Both Trocaire and Concern do excellent work in Ethiopia and the funding that we give them has saved numerous lives and provided some small element of comfort to men women and children that struggle daily in conditions that are far worse than anything we can imagine.

With apologies for the rant!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could give to Bóthar. This is their website. http://www.bothar.ie/
We'll say one family gets a goat. They are taught how to take care of the animal and they must give the first born to another family so it's not just a handout. They also have to help other people.
 
They need to change their priorities, and spend on their people's welfare instead.
I take the point that social disorder, corruption, and bad governance can make charity work less efficient, but citizens of countries with perfect governance tend not to need international humanitarian aid, at least not for long.

You could give to Bóthar. This is their website. http://www.bothar.ie/
We'll say one family gets a goat. They are taught how to take care of the animal and they must give the first born to another family so it's not just a handout. They also have to help other people.
I can't give to charities who employ chuggers. I know chuggers are really effective, I don't fault them for it, but I'm going to be a good consumer and use my charity euros to vote against it.

While we're pitching our favorites, I like givedirectly.org and kiva.org I'd love to hear AAM's opinions about them.
 
I work as a fund raiser for Trocaire. €200,000 is raised from the Trocaire boxed from schools and 100% of it goes to pay my wages and bonus. I raise €2m for Trocaire each year. Is that good money spent or would you prefer the €200,000 to go directly to helping the poor instead?

Are you actually raising more money for charitable causes, or just causing it to be diverted via your particular organisation?
I don't know... there just seems to be an assumption from some people working in the sector that they are raising more money, but I suspect there must be a significant element of diversion going on...
 
UNICEF had chuggers going door to door in Kilkenny today. Checked with UNICEF HQ in Dublin 01 878 3000 and they confirmed names and descriptions. I was presented with a UNICEF iPad to sign up for a credit-card contribution on the door-step.
 
I've been taken in by what happened in the Central Remedial Clinic (two years ago, I would have argued to give every spare cent you have to them).I have been turned and unless I see 100% or thereabouts of all contributions going to real charity they don't get a cent from me. I know Vincent de Paul has its problems with some undeserving claimers but I feel it does its best in the circumstances.

I think the charities have got to become more transparent and clean and inform us what really happens with all the money they receive. Publishing accounts on the internet is just not acceptable in itself. I would go so far as to say that all the recipients of wages working for the charity should be named and how they are or are not related to the main people of the organisation.
 
Are you actually raising more money for charitable causes, or just causing it to be diverted via your particular organisation?
I don't know... there just seems to be an assumption from some people working in the sector that they are raising more money, but I suspect there must be a significant element of diversion going on...

I'm not talking about diversion at all. People are obsessed with 100% of their donation going to directly to the good cause. You need a lot of people giving €21 a month for them to make a difference. Why not use the money to pay someone who can run a massive promotion or fundraising event that will generate multiples of the amount you give and 100% of THAT larger amount is used to help the needy?
 
I'm not talking about diversion at all. People are obsessed with 100% of their donation going to directly to the good cause. You need a lot of people giving €21 a month for them to make a difference. Why not use the money to pay someone who can run a massive promotion or fundraising event that will generate multiples of the amount you give and 100% of THAT larger amount is used to help the needy?

I understand that point, but it assumes that the amount of money that can potentially be raised through charity is very flexible and has significant scope for increase... and I just don't think that's true in 2015 Ireland.
The people who are concerned about what % is going directly are likely the ones who have a certain amount that they can afford to spare, and want to put it to the best use - and it won't matter what the next fundraising event is, they've already given what they can. From that perspective, I think the criteria is the best one.
 
I understand that point, but it assumes that the amount of money that can potentially be raised through charity is very flexible and has significant scope for increase... and I just don't think that's true in 2015 Ireland.
The people who are concerned about what % is going directly are likely the ones who have a certain amount that they can afford to spare, and want to put it to the best use - and it won't matter what the next fundraising event is, they've already given what they can. From that perspective, I think the criteria is the best one.
The charity industry is very competitive. When they advertise they are seeking to get people to give money to their charity instead of other charities.
It’s a grossly ineffective model in a grossly ineffective industry which is dominated by well meaning but grossly ineffective people.
Here is a good source of information and informed opinions about what’s wrong with the sector.
The most fundamental problem is that no charity can ever admit when they screw up and waste money so nobody learns from anyone else's mistakes and so they are doomed to repeat them. Don't get me started on duplication of services and administration costs.
 
You could give to Bóthar. This is their website. http://www.bothar.ie/
We'll say one family gets a goat. They are taught how to take care of the animal and they must give the first born to another family so it's not just a handout. They also have to help other people.
The whole Bóthar model is flawed. Giving a grazing animal to people in areas where land is poor is a really bad idea. Sub-Saharan Africa needs fewer grazing animals, not more of them. Chickens or pigs work in some circumstances but there are much better ways of helping people.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Air_Force

The Trocaire box in the photo mentions Ethiopia.

Their Air Force has 146 aircraft.

Our Air Corps has 24.

We borrow billions each year to fund public services.

They need to change their priorities, and spend on their people's welfare instead.
We are surrounded by friendly nations who spend billions on defence each year. In any conflict situation we will rely totally on them defending us.
In other words we don’t spend money on defence because our neighbours do.

In that sense we are not, and have never been, neutral. Switzerland is neutral because it can defend itself.
For us to suggest that developing nations in unstable parts of the world shouldn’t spend money on defence because we don’t is ridiculous.
I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t reduce military spending but any comparison between them and us just doesn’t stand up.
Their neighbours would not tolerate such behaviour. Lucky for us ours do.
 
Back
Top