To think voluntourism needs to be called out?

If people want to do anything, l have always thought , why don't we build factories for people to produce their own goods, making people proud that they are earning a living and helping others and their country.
I never give to charities, all money raised never gets to where it was intended, just makes a load of celebrities feel good about themselves. Years ago when my dc were at school, l would do the shoebox gift box for xmas. I was able to track where the boxes went to, but unfortunately was told they got lost in transit. Someone somewhere is making a good living off others generosity . All the adverts l see now for red nose day is a joke. I will not be donating at all...

Countries in Africa are completely capable of deciding if they want this type of tourism or not. There are lots of paid for volunteering opportunities in Europe (in places like Greece, Italy and Spain), Australia and the USA. Are you going to 'call them out' as well? I wouldn't donate but I don't think it is something to get worked up about.

Yes...smacks of white imperialism....
Africans are a target for the western do-gooders. Aid is poured into the cesspit of corruption. If only the african men stopped butchering each other in civil wars maybe they could dig their own toilets and stop creating orphans.

Yes it's wrong, cringe, unethical. My dc's school sends students to Africa for 5K where they engage in scuba diving for a week and volunteer for less than 1/3 of the time they're out there. All culminating in the predictable photos of British teenagers posing with poor African babies. It's disrespectful and damaging to the local communities. I've heard of schemes where they tear down the newly built school, wall or what not as soon as the group has left so that the next group of British rich kids can go and 'make a difference'. My dc asked if they could go and I explained all the reasons why we wouldn't support such an activity. It's very much white / Western saviour mentality. Why not ask them to renovate and update their own school, which is falling apart in places?

One charity I know of , purportedly helping breastfeeding mothers in South Africa, is actually 2 charities . The real charity in SA does the actual work. The UK charity organises bike rides in South Africa visiting the clinics on the way. All the funds are in aid of the UK charity , 100% of which goes to admin costs of the UK charity. 100% ! It’s justified by the UK charity based in Central London, as being useful to lobby for funds for the real charity from Comic Relief ( not clear why they can’t do this themselves…..)

So I was being asked to support a jolly for the bike rider , exploiting babies and their mothers with voyeuristic photo opportunities and fund the salary of someone in the UK working in Central London! With zero money for anything happening in SA but of course the literature , promotion and crowd funding information was all about the SA charity.

The 8% was the clothing banks they are run by an independent operator and they donate on ecchangr for having charity on the bin. It does seem really low.

Possibly the hope foundation is better but I suppose it depends on whether money is being spent that properly benefits the community?

I’ve noticed an increase in people who take up these challenge type holidays. Cycling / trekking and the cost of trip is roughly half the minimum sponsorship amount plus fees paid by participant. Participant picks a charity. Essentially charity will get over £2k for little involvement. Participant will get 75% off the cost of trip for something they fancy doing.

I don’t donate to them personally, if I’m donating to charity I might as well give them the cash plus gift aid. They get £1.20 per pound rather than 50p.

So it is OK to treat poor Indian children as a tourist attraction?

Do you really think someone saying this is right.
"It's OK that this foreigner is posting pictures of you on Instagram because they given us some money"

Surely someone ethical wouldn't be thinking like that.

Then so be it. Poor children are not tourist attractions, and treating them as such exacerbates the problem.

Would they gain more from the money raised and the money spent by family going directly to them?

Yes, probably.
Realistically I don’t think that will happen unfortunately. I think donations would fall.

I think charities endorse them as they will get a proportion of the money however small.

Where did you see 8%? Is that the clothing banks? I admit I’ve been surprised at the small percentage going to charity in the case of some charity Christmas cards too. Agree reading the small print is essential.

The Hope Foundation says overall 84% of all donations go directly to projects, 16% to costs. From what I’ve looked at, it seems the fundraising trips are responsible for about half the money coming in. I don’t think that proportion sounds very small.

Your average teenager is not going to fundraise thousands (sometimes by lazily asking family) for the needy children of wherever altruistically. These experiences are transactional at best. I think charities endorse them as they will get a proportion of the money however small. A bit like clothing banks for whatever charity in car parks. I read the small print and they promised 8% of the profits would go to the charity.

I refuse to fund stuff like this as I think people should pay for their own jollies.

The charity on the ground is run by flawed people (we all are flawed), so the ultimate aim of the charity is it's own existence.

Aid that relies upon selling access to vulnerable people, fuels the creation of more vulnerable or "vulnerable" people. It's been seen time and time again, all over the world - orphanages full of "orphans" whose parents were promised an education, residential schools for "street kids" who have a family and wpild have been better off with help paying for school supplies.

It's a very complex issue, and "not ideal" is really unplaying the damage that poverty tourism can do to entire communities, for generations. A lot of it is rooted in racism and supremacy, and that does include charity bosses unfortunately. It's so easy to do better and to know better these days. Choose wisely where to send your donations, and encourage people to go on wonderful holidays to these destinations instead.

You seem to use the charity think it is a good idea as a justification a lot.

What they think is a good idea is based on what their aim is.

How do the children in Kolkata gain from the Irish teenagers coming?
Would they gain more from the money raised and the money spent by family going directly to them?

My mum always said the same. About charity climbs etc…

She worked for wealthy “ladies who lunch” society wives.

And she wondered why they couldn’t just give the money?

To be fair to the teens, the fundraising work they do funds a lot of good projects.
Yes, in many ways it would be better if they donated without visiting. But, in real life, that doesn’t seem to happen as much…at least, I don’t know of another situation where teens all over the country each fundraise thousands for a charity. This scheme does actually work to earn money to help people, which is probably why the charity is keen on it. It’s not ideal and there are obviously downsides as outlined upthread, but if they stopped it all tomorrow I’m really not sure that would be beneficial for the children Hope is helping in Kolkata either.
Does that make it worth it? I don’t know. I don’t know enough. The charity on the ground seems to think so but others on here clearly disagree.

No, they just go an gawk at the poor children. And pose for photos of course. Much better.

It’s billed as a cultural and educational visit of 1 week approx. The teens don’t work while there. (That would need a different sort of visa and also they’re kids so wouldn’t have useful skills at this age.)

@Todaywillbeok

Have you explained what these Irish teenagers are doing in Kolkata and why this can only be done by the Irish teenagers.
Why can’t they use Indian teenagers or qualified adults?

I'm Irish and think you're being very petty in picking up on a difference in terminology there. I think you are reaching by suggesting that by using the term "DBS" @CandidHedgehog was suggesting that Irish teenagers be subjected to UK police checks. It's quite obvious they simply meant that police/safeguarding checks should be carried out. No different to someone from the US saying "call 911" instead of "call 999" - mildly irritating that they aren't aware of other countries' terminology, but unlikely to be a suggestion that someone in another country call a US police department.

Agree with the sentiments on this thread. Volunteering can be helpful, but only if carefully targeted, with appropriate expertise/experience, appropriate safeguarding aspects, appropriate sustainability/longevity mechanisms, and where it's not replacing paid employment for locals.

I did mention the costs of administration. Not the actual costs, which I don’t know, but I acknowledged there would be staff costs, overheads and costs of buses etc. I also said that €400 (out of the €2500 minimum donation) was to be used to cover accommodation and partial board.

I am taking your other points on board.

My DH serves in kids church, and leadership were very put out when he wanted nothing to do with a charity trip they were trying to arrange in his home country 😂 they didn't want to hear that the entire school could be built with what they were spending on flights alone.

You’re making a lot of assumptions too. I mean, people collecting for cancer or various other charities could be putting half in their back pocket too? But I don’t hear accusations like you made levelled against them. Suggesting that ‘most’ of these students are raising money under false pretences and using it to pay for their own flights etc is quite some accusation.

It's not just inexperienced teens either - a few churches i went to often had trips to "build a church or school" in another poor country, and a large contingent of volunteers (or the only ones who could afford to go) were accountants, bank managers, lawyers, and their teen children. The sort of people who probably paid someone to hang a picture or put together a flat pack, at home. No tradies or people with practical jobs, it was dubious how much building they would actually be doing

Given you apparently know it doesn't happen, I assumed you knew if or how it was managed. You're just making a lot of assumptions about motivations and morals, which sadly is not quite how the world turns.

I’ve said multiple times on this thread that well meaning teenagers are also victims of this fundraising model. They think they are helping when they are actively doing harm.

You also haven’t mentioned the cost of administering the programme in your separate costs (both in India and in the Western countries to attract more voluntourists) which means part (possibly a significant part) of the donated amount will be covering the costs. This means the donors are paying for at least part of the trip. That fact is just being deliberately concealed.

Also, none of the above matters. The entire programme is based on an incredibly problematic model of allowing access to children to anyone who pays enough. Where the money comes from doesn’t really matter - even on what the charity says happens (bus loads of tourists regularly washing in and out of the lives of small children) this is emotional abuse, with the risk of far more serious intentional abuse by voluntourists with bad intentions.

Children in the developing world shouldn’t be toys / educational equipment for Western teenagers.