Like all charities, Trocaire publish independently audited figures every year. Last year their overheads were 9%Does anyone know for sure?
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?
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.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.
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.They need to change their priorities, and spend on their people's welfare instead.
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.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 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...
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?
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.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 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.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.
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.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 use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?