Support NeoGAF

[Shawsie64]

A few months ago got ambushed by some aggressive arsehole who guilt tripped me into signing up for a direct debit of $40 a month to the "Save the children" charity.. Now I don't mind that at all but iv read a few articles on this particular charity and it has raised a few questions about how much of my money actually benefits the children.. If any at all reaches them.

Anyone have any insights to this? and also are those "hand drawn" pictures you get in the mail every few months actually from the sponsor child?

 

[Moppet13]

I believe the statistic is something like 10 cents of every dollar given to a charity actually goes to the person/thing you donated to, the other 90 cents goes towards running it.

 

[outunderthestars]

I believe the statistic is something like 10 cents of every dollar given to a charity actually goes to the person/thing you donated to, the other 90 cents goes towards running it.

that is an absurdly broad statement and in no way reflects the majority of actual charities.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Second Mile gives it all to the kids.

 

[entremet]

Guilt tripped? You could always say no. It's not like they're putting a gun to your head.

I never stop for these guys. I just ignore them.

 

[Shawsie64]

that is an absurdly broad statement and in no way reflects the majority of actual charities.

This is the article I was reading before and although I haven't read it fully yet (busy at work) he might not be that far off the mark with this particular charity

http://michaelmaren.com/1996/12/save-the-children-a-different-kind-of-child-abuse/

Guilt tripped? You could always say no. It's not like they're putting a gun to your head.

I never stop for these guys. I just ignore them.

Yeah I know.. I should have told him to get lost but what happened happened

 

[Cyan]

A few months ago got ambushed by some aggressive arsehole who guilt tripped me into signing up for a direct debit of $40 a month to the "Save the children" charity.. Now I don't mind that at all but iv read a few articles on this particular charity and it has raised a few questions about how much of my money actually benefits the children.. If any at all reaches them.

Anyone have any insights to this? and also are those "hand drawn" pictures you get in the mail every few months actually from the sponsor child?

Why in the hell would you ever sign up for something like that.

 

[Shawsie64]

Why in the hell would you ever sign up for something like that.

Well im not poor and I can easily afford it.. But if its going to some fuck wits salary and not helping out a poor child in another country ill cancel it immediately

 

[Forkball]

I give all my charity money to the Human Fund.

 

[eudaemonic]

Second Mile gives it all to the kids.

...

Well played.

 

[ianp622]

I also donate to Save the Children, and according to their website, 90% actually goes towards the children, and the rest is marketing and fundraising.

I signed up with them because they have an A rating on charitywatch.org. Plus it's nice to get letters and the little activity pamphlets that your sponsored child makes.

Note that even though you sponsor a child, the money doesn't go directly to that child. It goes towards supplies and materials for their school and the community they live in.

 

[wenis]

I never let those charity guys stop me and even start talking about signing up for this shit. I have to fully investigate a charity before I will even begin to consider donating money to the cause.

 

[entremet]

Well im not poor and I can easily afford it.. But if its going to some fuck wits salary and not helping out a poor child in another country ill cancel it immediately

40 seems a bit much, but if you can swing it, go for it. I do Children's International and it's like 24 bucks a month. I get pictures of the kid, letters, and reports on where my money is going--a young girl from the Dominican Republic.

 

[Shawsie64]

40 seems a bit much, but if you can swing it, go for it. I do Children's International and it's like 24 bucks a month. I get pictures of the kid, letters, and reports on where my money is going--a young girl from the Dominican Republic.

Should also mention that its Australian dollars so that maybe the difference seeing as we get jacked for everything here when it comes to pricing

 

[onken]

I know the people that accost you on the street and get you to sign up earn a pretty decent wage, double the minimum at least (in the UK at least). I guess that money has to come from somewhere.

My mother is a trustee at a fairly well-known homeless charity. The building they operated out of was bought by the founder, so no rent payments (which they eventually turned for a profit and got a bigger place). Heavy discounts on council tax. A lot of the printing is done pro-bono. All the staff work there for free except a couple of full-time staff, who make just over minimum wage. Although there are times where some funds could be spent better, the vast majority of it does get where it needs to go.

I can't speak for other charities of course but that's my experience.

 

[Fuzzy]

But their site has this chart. It has to be true.

 

[Dice]

I like Medical Teams International and World Vision.

 

[TheFightingFish]

I like to check organizations out on here:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Breaks down charities by their policies and % spent on fundraising versus promotion. "Save the children" is four star so they are solid enough.

Doesn't really tell you everything (I prefer groups where I know the individual in question) but is a good way to get a basic idea.

 

[Cyan]

The program is called "Save the Children"?

A glance at their financials doesn't reveal anything obviously wrong. Large proportion of their expenses are program-related. The amount they spend on external grants is higher than I'd like, and travel is high but that's not odd for what they claim to do.

Charity Navigator seems to think they're all right.

 

[TheProDaniel]

You're a fool! haha.

Sponsoring a child would be better from what I've seen. My mate's mum sponsors a child and she flys over a few times a year to see her, give her presents ect. I think it's a lot better when you can see your money is actually helping. Dunno how much of the actual sponsorship goes towards her though.

 

[agrajag]

 

[Cyan]

Skimmed through the article, and it's a bit troubling. It's not clear, on the surface, if the things that were a problem 15 years ago are still a problem or not.

 

[Shawsie64]

But their site has this chart. It has to be true.

Exactly. From the article I linked:

The second misleading thing is neither the pie chart nor the pamphlet explain exactly what "program services are." The reason Save the Children and Money emphasize the program services statistic is, presumably, that it is seen as a rough approximation for "money that actually helps people," as opposed to funds spent on overhead and fundraising expenses. "Program," one would assume, is what should go to the children in the folders. Why else trot out the statistic to use for rankings and as pie charts in promotional literature?

But Save's idea of "program" is probably broader than that of its sponsors. In fiscal 1994, it included nearly $4.5 million for travel, $3.5 million for supplies, $15.5 million for salaries, and $2.2 million for rents. Save's non-public financial statements show that film, holiday cards for sponsors, the gift shop, and craft catalog were also charged to program expenses. The total of the sponsors' dollars that actually went in grants to field programs was 45.1 million, less than 50 percent. In turn, just over half of that money was given in grants to other organizations to actually implement projects. Those organizations presumably have their own salaries and administrative expenses to pay as well. None of that is reflected in Save's official representations.

 

[j_k_redtail]

GAF, look what you've done. I saw the first four words of this thread's title in the Last Post column on the main page, and cynically assumed this would be about a depressing news article of some kind: "'Save the children' charity sponsors child trafficking" or some such nonsense. It's been a rough day. So glad to be disappointed.

 

[Shawsie64]

You're a fool! haha.

Sponsoring a child would be better from what I've seen. My mate's mum sponsors a child and she flys over a few times a year to see her, give her presents ect. I think it's a lot better when you can see your money is actually helping. Dunno how much of the actual sponsorship goes towards her though.

Its eating into my West End funds

 

[Dice]

This is the article I was reading before and although I haven't read it fully yet (busy at work) he might not be that far off the mark with this particular charity

http://michaelmaren.com/1996/12/save...f-child-abuse/

If you get more involved with humanitarian work, as in actually doing it yourself, you realize that the most valuable thing and the most expensive thing is you being there. Someone who actually gives a shit about the kids, trying to help in some way. I don't like the term "salaries" being used for all workers for charities, because getting what you need to not become an unhealthy, impoverished person in the place you're staying yourself costs some money. Keeping you healthy there is a benefit to all the kids you help.

When you do get the backing to be able to stay, there are many ways to help, and a lot of them end up being shockingly cheap. Stuff like medicine, food, and clothing can be a sort of "why did no one do this?" thing, but then obviously other things like providing a proper shelter are pretty expensive. Something like Medical Teams International is set up with volunteers who raise their own funds to stay in a location, so what you donate is primarily for mobilizing the supplies they will use and organizational issues, which can also be very complicated (legally, bureaucratically) working in foreign countries and many people don't seem to realize that.

Something like World Vision has a huge scope of different programs and the needs vary on them all. Obviously everything will be different between educating a child who is still staying with their parents in a Bolivian village, getting a stable community farm going in Uganda, or helping a girl in India recover and find a good life after being rescued from child prostitution. The manpower and specialists, supplies, facilities, organization, and cooperation with local government are all going to be vastly different. You can't just look at a charity in a general way and go "what was spent on food?" and consider anything else a waste.