Hard News: Where your money goes
254 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
PA - driving the news cycle...
Ripped from today's Press front page story...In his Public Address blog yesterday, media commentator Russell Brown questioned why $1.5 million of the $1.95m raised by KidsCan organisations in the year to December 2008 went in operating costs, leaving 19 cents in the dollar for its charitable programmes.
What place does the Blog have in modern media, eh? I hope Fairfax is paying you a news-feed fee :- )
yrs scoopily
Jimmy Olsen
still in the darkroom... -
JLM,
Gosh Russell, you sound so reasonable. Why can't you be black or white like everyone else!
-
Gosh Russell, you sound so reasonable. Why can't you be black or white like everyone else!
Heh. It's odd having to do something like that when it's just something I've written in my blog, rather a fully-fledged story (and when I have other people waiting on my paying work!).
But yes, I do try and remain aware of nuance and bear in mind that there might be more than one side to the story. Crazy, I know ...
-
don't let me put you off :)
Don't worry -- the city fathers don't need to put out a hit on you quite yet. Despite incubating the virus that is Starbucks, Seattle is the home of one of my favourite indie comix publishers (Fantagraphics) and they have a store, a pilgrimage to Snoqualmie is obligatory for every David Lynch fan, and random weirdness is always easier to take in foreign climes. :)
Ripped from today's Press front page story...
And Russell also did very nicely on Nine to Noon a few minutes ago -- personfully resisting the urge to snark "I did some research - try it." :)
-
Rick,
I think its really commendable that you've agreed to do what you're donig and I look forward to reading your post.
My question -- and I apologise if someone has already asked this -- is what arrangement exists between the charity, Adidas and the schools, if any? Is there a contract or an MOU? If it isn't either of those, what, if anything, is written down to manage the relationship between the three entities?
Thanks again.
-
Oh Brickley. You are *so* That Guy.
Oh, Danielle, if only you really meant that.
-
If this was a business and not a charity pulling heart strings, I'd have no problem with a 20% profit.
Since its not your comparison seems somewhat pointless.Fact is Kyle that these companies that "Maximise" your charities income are business'. They use every trick in the book to guilt you into giving to whoever gave them the contract, established charities receive more from direct donations than campaigns. A job is a job. One of the things that bothers me is that if the marketing company is not a registered charity then the Govt. grabs some of that charity money as tax and gives it to the wealthy but that is another story.
-
Russell: I caught you on the old steam radio this morning, just as I was stepping out the door. I subsequently missed my bus but it was worth it. Good stuff!
-
Having manged a few 'charities' I feel quite mixed in my reaction to this article.
On one hand I think the proof of need is a much more important question than the amount that is being spent on admin.
I am also conscious though that there are organisations out there that are able to garner wide public support because their cause is essentially conservative and they spend alot to make alot. The revolutionary in me baulks at that.
But I also think charities are an easy target for criticism from people who have no idea how tough it is to raise money in such a crowded competitive environment. Nobody really wants to fund core functions or infrastructure but without them the other work can't happen.
Private companies generally (obviously not exclusively) only support specific projects, and govt and philanthropic trusts increasingly only fund specific functions and limit overheads to around 12%. Who will pay for the building, the advocacy work, the community networking? Who acknowledges the voluntary hours? There needs to be an acknowledgement of the social good inherant in the voluntary processes as well as the 'product'?
If you want a system to compare organisations then at the least the assumptions behind this needs to be transperant - including voluntary and in-kind contributions in income and expenditure, and a clear defintion of what is administration, as well as a way of measuring primary and secondary outcomes.
Having worked in a university environment I know that they can often claim over 100% in overheads on staff hours in research grants. I have no argument with this but the looking at charities out of context does rile me.
-
I'm annoyed that the term "charities" has crept back in over the last five years (taken from the UK as part of our govt setting up the new Commission, I believe).
I prefer "NGOs" or "non-profit organisations" or suchlike that have a broader feel to them, and less of the begging, forelock tugging, volunteerism about them. It does make some impact on the conversation.
-
Does the charity identify need or is it just handing out branded goods?
For those asking this question in this thread, I share your concern. I can't help but wonder who is going to benefit more out of this telethon: Adidas & KidsCan, or the kids?
What's leftover from the exorbitant overheads looks like a pitiful contribution to treating the symptoms of poverty in this country.
If you've seen Enjoy Poverty, I'm not making direct connection, but there's a scene in a Unicef refugee camp where their logo's are everywhere. It's a sideways view into a strange ecosystem held together by middle class guilt.
Of course there's a need, I grew up in a community full of need, but to treat it in this way may put poverty in danger of sustaining it's need?
-
MSD's Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector published a summary of contributions by sub-sectors, drawing on "satellite accounts" work that tries to demonstrate the sector's economic value. More links at bottom of page.
-
I'm going to have a do a turnaround after reading those accounts (financial thereof). You raise over a million dollars and you distribute less than $100,000 of it? That's not on.
-
I prefer "NGOs" or "non-profit organisations" or suchlike that have a broader feel to them, and less of the begging, forelock tugging, volunteerism about them.
I'm waiting for the day world leaders decide to disarm completely and turn all their armies into peace corps which are sent around the world (armed with the latest technology of course) to combat drought, poverty, housing shortages, and easily solved medical problems starting in the countries most affected.
Some say I'm a dreamer or a
old hippies perhaps burnt out on one too many acid trips.
Although I only had one proper acid trip and that was courtesy of The Bear.
-
Mostly it is asking you a question that if you say no to you feel bad:
"Do you care about global warming?"
A dude tried that with me on Courtenay Place.
Dude: "Do you care about children?"
Robyn: "No." -
I like that "cake stall to buy bombers" concept myself..
-
"Do you care about children?"
Whose?
-
Actually, your answer would avoid an unwanted conversation better, Robyn.
-
I like that "cake stall to buy bombers" concept myself..
Phew, for a minute there I wondered if i was the only one who remembered that line.
But it's been done.
-
You are not alone Sam - I remember that line on a poster at VUW in the late 70's!
-
We had a copy of that poster at the Ministry of Defence. here is a modern version.
-
During a mid-80s telethon a couple of reps from Chelsea sugar took to the studio stage to announce their corporate contribution, along with a challenge to "all other sugar companies" to match their largesse. In the present climate hopefully such corporate BS won't be allowed to pass unchallenged. While there just might be rival sugar suppliers out there today for all I know, back in that era CSR were a shameless monopoly.
-
In the present climate hopefully such corporate BS won't be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Funniest thing I've read today.
-
Thanks to Jan Logie for bringing the charity view in here. I too run a charity, Big Buddy, and like Jan I have a mixed reaction to this discussion. We work hard to run a lean flat organisation but unlike Kidscan we don’t distribute “stuff” or lease shiny cars we are social workers connecting volunteer men with fatherless boys so most (70%) of our costs go to paying our people to do this work. Its real social work that takes real skills so we need to pay reasonable money for our people. Yet in the minds of some funders salaries are overheads and are frowned on, go figure.
We have to advertise to get volunteers; we keep our advertising down to less then 10% of budget but it’s a cost. The recession has hit us hard so now for the first time we will be reaching out to the broader community to ask for donations. We are doing it as a last resort considering the apparent lack of government funds and the shear difficulty in dealing with some of the gaming trusts (Hey Russell if I may, the whole can of worms called the gaming industry (what’s industrious about it?) needs a post all by itself.
Anyway to attract donations we need to get our name, message and story out there and this can cost serious money. We are competing with the big charities with big budgets. The big question around promotion costs is how much is too much before the real outcomes don’t justify the spend? We are social workers not marketers so we sort help from an advertising agency The Pond, who are doing the work pro bono but we will still have to pay for advertising space It’s a hard call from this side of the charity fence, we would really like to just be doing the work but when I am out there hustling for money I keep my integrity intact by remembering the fatherless boys we serve, I’m doing it for them not me.
-
The above links:
www.bigbuddy.org.nz
www.thepond.co.nz
Post your response…
This topic is closed.