that we are not teaching our children to think straight about charity?

[Himalaya]

I am thinking abou the response to the Tsunami, where people and charities are doing fundraisers, even though Japan has said it doesn't need donations.

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16charity.html?

Its part of a broader trend of feel-good giving which starts at school it seems to me.

Events and campaigns like 'red nose' day and Make Poverty History have done a great job in making issues of poverty and development more accessible and getting resources to organisations that can use them to do good.

But they have also got us into the habit of thinking that every problem can be solved with with some kind of fun, light hearted fund raising event, and that we shouldn't look too hard at the organisations we give to.

Christ, comparing the after-effects of an enormous earthquake and a tsunami with hideous loss of life, livelihood and homes with F&M is outrageous.

Japan can't cope because they don't have the skills to cope with a disaster of this magnitude. Much like the US didn't after the floods in New Orleans. Being developed means jack shit when you're at the mercy of a huge natural catastrophe.

ChristinedePizan in what way is it outrageous? It highlights how keen we are to throw money at the other side of the world but we actually don't rally round to help our own.

Japan has around 1500 earthquakes a year. Thier building regulations include specifications on earthquake resistance, thier schools practice earthquake drills, they have whole emergency response teams set up specifically to respond to quakes (which are frequently accompanied by tsunami's in oceanic areas). To imply that Japan can't be expected to cope is absurd. The possibility of a quake of this severity has been forecasted by geologists for decades. The Japanese are probably the single most prepared country on Earth for this eventuality. If anyone can cope, then it's going to be them.

Even the DEC haven't started an appeal. Medicins Sans Frontiers (as we have already heard) say they aren't going to be setting anything new up- that Japan are organised. The Disasters Emergency Comittee have not decided to start an appeal. The Japanese people are saying actually, we're alright save a few little things here. But even in spite of all that we still refuse to respect the Japanese point of view! We still want to play the rescuer! No matter how much the people in the know say we don't need to and how much the Japanese don't want us to.

I'm starting to wonder if it's a form of casual racism actually. If the Japanese want to cope themselves then FGS let them. It's thier right.

fantastic - how about donating to the libya apeal instead poor buggers

Japan has a very strong national pride - it is highly unlikely that they will admit to needing help. However, there are stories emerging from various parts of the country indicating that they certainly do need help.

There seems to be an assumption that because they are a developed country they can cope - a disaster like this can bring a first world country to its knees just as fast as a third world country.

And to whoever said that this would cause a recession - Japan have been in a recession for about 20 years now. Their economy is completely crippled and they are now at a stage where their taxes are less than the interest on their depts. This disaster is going to completely cripple them.

So why didn't farming communities fundraise for F&M?

And who is not teachign children to think straight? Apart from knowing your kids are taking in £1 to dress in red, do you know what they are taught about Comic RElief?

I don't know of any schools fundraising for Japan. Are there many? Fundraising for Comic Relief is completely different to fundraising for Japan.

It's outrageous to compare cattle disease with the death of around 5,000 people with 12,000 unaccounted for and widespread destruction of towns, cities and villages. It's just not the same thing. At all

Euphemia - yes I agree schools do a lot of good education on the issues, it's not all at the door of schools, but still as purveyorofwoo says there is so much of this about that it seems like by adulthood the predominant idea seems to be any 'good cause' is good, and it is mean to apply economic thinking.

Harvalp and Kendodd - japan has asked for some specialist support from other governments, but not for general donations. A big influx of uncoordinated organisations trying to deliver help can cause more problems than it solves. Japan will need international investment to help in reconstruction. But it is the third biggest economy in the world and it can issue AAA bonds. Going to the capital markets for billions of dollars of investment instead of asking charitable donations is nothing to do with saving face, it's just what governments that are able to manage their own affairs do.

YANBU. Aid for disasters is essential. But I'd also like to see charities supported regularly for the quieter, less dramatic but incredibly important work they do, not just when something hits the headlines.

Charities are supported regularly for less dramatic work.

Yes pointydog but to what extent? Do schools (and the media) encourage this or do they tend towards the "feel-good" giving as described by the OP?

Happy Red Nose Day you old grouchs

Anyone else doing "Something Funny for Money?"

I buy a red nose and hand over a couple of pounds for red nose day knowing full well most of it won't be of any benefit to anyone.... Which is the case for all big charities once the directors etc have taken their huge salaries. Oh and the chuggers on £9 an hour...

Which is why I only support local charities, complete with little old ladies gossiping over a cup of tea

THIS IS FROM THE RED NOSE DAY WEBSITE

Operating Income and Expenditure statement:

?In order to run itself in a professional and effective way Comic Relief incurs necessary costs. Raising funds, making grants and organisational overheads cost real money.

Despite these costs, Comic Relief is still able to promise that for every pound the charity gets directly from the public, a pound goes to help transform the lives of people living with poverty and social injustice. If Red Nose Day raises £50 million, Comic Relief will spend at least £50 million doing just that.

It can make this promise because its operating budget is covered in cash or in kind from all types of supporters like corporate sponsors and donors, suppliers, generous individuals and government (including Gift Aid) as well as from investment income and interest.?

Candleshoe -

That?s the thing though, admin/overhead/operating cost is not a useful measure in assessing whether a charity is any good, but it is the one that people focus on.

You wouldn't do this for any other kind of organisation ? ?is it a good restaurant? Yes its great it only has 10% admin costs?.?

What are admin costs? If you are talking about say food aid is it everything other than food and transport costs? What about the logistics people on the ground? The logistics people at headquarters? The HR people who make sure those people are employed? The people who liase with the political authorities to make sure that aid gets through? The chairs they sit on and computers they use? The people who pay the bills and manage the budget? It is very hard to see how the food aid can be delivered without all those people so it is not clear what is ?admin? and what is ?program? cost.

It is also a nonsense because it can be manipulated, as in the Comic Relief example ? ?100% percent of your donation goes to help people because someone else is paying for the operating costs??it is a bit of a fiction for people who think they are being savvy. You are supporting an organisation that spends £x per year (made up of your donations and everyone else?s) to achieve y impact. In what way can they meaningfully say that one set of donations is paying for impact and the other set is paying for something else (what would that be?)

All the donations are paying to support the organisation?s impact ? the important question is what is the impact, not how much is spent on admin?

% fundraising costs, would be a useful measure, but no one ever looks at this. It would include the costs to the donor. For example if you spend £2 on red hairspray and donate £1 to red nose day there is already a 66% fundraising cost before you add the money that comic relief spends on fundraising, the money and time the school spends etc..

Which isn?t a reason not to support international charities, or not to support big charities but is a reason to think about impacts rather than admin% as the way to measure effectiveness.

I don't believe it is manipulated - I have just been reading the formal auditted accounts for last year on Comic Relief website - it IS all utterly transparent.

"You wouldn't do this for any other kind of organisation ? ?is it a good restaurant? Yes its great it only has 10% admin costs?.?"

That's not a pertinent comparison. Comparative percentage costs are routinely used to compare businesses in the same sector as an efficiency measure. You cannot compare a fundraising charity with a restaurant - they are not in the same line of business - but comparing the cost base of two or more fundraising charities with a similar mission is not just useful, but essential.

What costs do not measure, of course, is output ("good done" perhaps, for a charity). That is another issue, and the crucial one at the end of the day. But never forget costs.

Candleshoe, yes their accounts are transparent, I don't think they are doing anything underhand, but the 100% of your donations go to programs bit is not meaningful.

Bonsoir - yes costs, efficiency and value for money matter, but the admin cost measure is spurious.

Take an example.

Say 2 charities raise £100 each to spend on vaccines. The vaccines cost 20p per shot.

Charity A spends £60 on vaccines (300 shots), £20 on field staff and transport and £20 on 'operating costs' training, evaluation, management etc...

Charity B spends £40 on vaccines and £20 on field staff and £40 on overhead.

It looks like charity B with 40% overhead is half as efficient as charity A.

But if you look at impacts the picture is different. In charity A unsupported field staff, poor political liason and lack of evaluation means that half of the vaccines go off in transit, and half of those delivered go to children who are already vaccinated. So 75 unvaccinated children received the vaccine.

In better organised charity B all 200 doses they bought reach their destination and go to unvaccinated children.

Cost per child vacinated by charity B is 50p. Cost per child vacinated in charity A is £1.30.

See what I mean?

Schools I have had contact with support a wide range of charities and often it is the smaller charities carrying out work locally.

excellent posts, himalaya. Spot on.

Himalaya and candleshoe I agree with your posts.
Making the fund rasing fun grabs the attention of the youth of today, most secondary schools spend some time discussing the issues already mentioned, tonights show will entertain but will also enlighten the public on the charity's aims.
As for buns/cake/biscuit sales not covering costs....WTF? I donate my time/ingrediants/fancy toppings (!) for the charity - I am not there to make money myself!? I just enjoy making the produce for the schools to sell on. It's just another way of donating.
Can't wait for Fake That tonight - looks good!

Primary schools also cover the issues. Comic Relief and many other chairites have excellent education resources. The youngsters can learn a huge amount from a well-planned series of lessons using these resources. Most schools will at least watch the film clips during an assembly.

Himalaya - indeed, you need a "wastage" line in your example to capture costs and output effectively. But they all matter.

Comic Relief uses the 'Golden Pound Principle' - as other posters have said, every pound that is donated by the public goes to directly help those that need it.

The overheads (celebrities' pay, ads etc) are paid for by the corporate sponsors and interest accrued from the money waiting to be distributed.

pointydog yes I agree, the info packs are excellent for raising awareness. Surely every little helps.

Underachieving, I don't think the desire to send money to japan has anything to do with racism at all. I think it has everything to do with people watching the news on tv, empathising with the individuals affected, and wanting to reach out and do something to help. Yes, the Japanese government is relatively well-prepared to deal with earthquakes and tsunami, and you are right that they haven't asked for financial help. However, I am not at all convinced that they are equipped to deal with a situation on this overwhelming scale, and there is undoubtedly a very real need for intervention from organisations like the Japanese Red Cross to supplement what the authorities are doing - and this all costs money.

For what it's worth, the Japanese people in my local community are very much of the view that additional funds are needed, and they are organising fundraising initiatives accordingly. This is not because they see the Japanese government as incompetent in any way, but because they know from their friends and relatives back at home in japan that the need is acute and overwhelming - and more than any country could deal with single-handedly.

I agree that charitable donations should be made quietly and without fanfare, but let's not criticise people for wanting to reach out and help when they see other human beings in the most miserable and devastating circumstances. Even if the donations are misplaced in some instances, I would rather live in a society in which people care than in which they shrug their shoulders and walk away.