Live Aid - Where's our money gone?

Glen_Clark

According to this our money has gone to fund a dictators army http://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/ - making a bad situation worse

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

There were plenty of bags of rice in Al Kharj in 1989!

imho

Look at Children in Need. They are just sitting on £millions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11992247/Children-in-Need-investment-holdings-rise-to-94-million.html

kelpie35

Most of charity money donated goes on admin fees, that is why I never give to charity

Enterprise_1701C

I never give to any of the televised charities, or the ones that spend a fortune employing people. We have a few local charities that I prefer to give to if I feel the need.

I have a relative who used to live in Africa, he has seen first hand the corruption, the donations being sold off, but also being taken by the elite, and there are plenty of elite in Africa, even more so now.

Spoke to one person on a bus once, an African who was doing their best to publicise a fact as they saw it. With all the TV adverts about so many people not having access to clean water, they came from the area that that was talking about and said 10-15 years previous it may have been the case, but not any longer, everyone had access to clean water, at least in that area.

Silvertabby

There is a famine in Kenya.

The shelves of my local supermarket are full of fresh vegetables from that area.

What am I missing?

Glen_Clark

imho wrote: »

Look at Children in Need. They are just sitting on £millions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11992247/Children-in-Need-investment-holdings-rise-to-94-million.html

I see nothing wrong with investing it until it can be spent wisely, rather than blowing it all at once. I suppose children are the easiest to raise money for and invariably the ones that celebrities latch on to. If they give their own money, or perform without fees, all credit to them. But I don't see why they should be worshipped like Sir Jimmy Savile was for collecting and giving away other people's money.
The charities I prefer are non-discriminatory. We have charities exclusively for the young, the old, women, ex servicemen, etc - but what of those who fall outside those exclusive groups?
I like non discriminatory charities like the RNLI because they don't discriminate over age, sex, past employment or anything else. If you are in need they will fish you out of the sea whatever your age, or sex, or previous employment. The RNLI is well funded though fortunately. I think a lot of wealthy Navy people, possibly with little family connections because they have spent so long at sea, leave their money to the RNLI, which is great.
So I tend to donate to other non discriminatory charities, like the local foodbank or homeless shelter. The people most in need tend not to be the most photogenic or popular. As the manager of shelter put it, its easier to raise sponsorship for a football team than a homeless people's shelter.:(

Glen_Clark

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

the ones that spend a fortune employing people. .

Yes, I know what you mean. To get charity tax status they have to publish salaries on the charity commission website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission They don't tell you more than they have to, just salary band, pension contributions undisclosed, and are as coy over their expenses as Members of Parliament, but you still see many charity managers on many times the UK average salary. I expect they have fundraising targets and 'earn' their salaries by the money they fundraise.
If it was a commercial business and they spent half a million pounds on a fundraising campaign that raised one million that would be a success. But should charities be judged in the same way? Should 50% spent on fundraising be OK? Bearing in mind thast much of that money will have been taken from people who can't aford it, and would otherwise have gone to other charities who spend less on fundraising - people have only so much they can give. Would it be right if they give it to the charities who spend most on fundraising?

Glen_Clark

kelpie35 wrote: »

Most of charity money donated goes on admin fees, that is why I never give to charity

Thats why I prefer giving to local foodbank or homeless shelter so you can see where its going.
Unfortunately politicians seem to ignore poverty in Westminster, and prefer going abroad being treated like royalty whilst they are handing out our money in foreign aid.

kr147

Hi all, Live Aid sadly was a bad example of poor fundraising/delivery, but please always remember that admin fees are often a GOOD THING! Why do I say this? Well... firstly, if Live Aid had done proper research, found out the best place money should be spent, followed up and checked it was all going where it should, what would this be called? ADMIN FEES. This is really important.

Charities need to do a fair amount of paperwork to make sure they are compliant with the relevant governing rules and legislation, that the money they receive is being properly invested, and that the services they employ are efficient. These are ADMIN FEES.

Did you run a marathon for a charity and nobody even thanked you? Well, most people would be miffed about that, so most charities take really good care to make sure that people who fundraise for them are well loved and appreciated (because ultimately it means they will raise more money for their great cause). What does this cost? ADMIN FEES.

Everything costs, whether it is having an office, or the electricity to keep the lights on in the office toilets. These are never free, even for a charity. Charities ought to be checking that the work they are doing remains top notch, relevant and getting to the people who need it. all his costs money. Charities that don't do any of this work end up throwing money away at what looks like it is going to the cause, but who knows? Nobody is checking.

Yes, theses shouldn't be over the top, but I am very skeptical about charities that have virtually no overheads (unless you are talking about shoe-string local charities) as it means they aren't critical enough, and that is something to be worried about. There is a balance to be drawn in these things

I hope that helps! I just want to make the point that admin is there to make sure charities are doing a good job, and isn't always a bad thing!

ElefantEd

Silvertabby wrote: »

There is a famine in Kenya.

The shelves of my local supermarket are full of fresh vegetables from that area.

What am I missing?

It's a question of power and money. Historically food has often been exported from famine struck areas (for an example closer to home, the Irish potato famine of the 1840s). This is simply because the people owning the land can sell the crops for more overseas than the locals can afford. Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze examine and explain this brilliantly in their book Hunger and Public Action (written in the 80s I think - it included material on the famines then hitting East Africa).

You can bet that the well off people in Kenya aren't starving - food is available there, so long as you;ve got the wherewithal.