To feel a bit "hmm" about charity treks abroad

[prettybutclumpy]

I am donning my hard hat, but am interested to know if anyone feels the same as me about this!

I feel a bit unwilling to give to charity for friends who are doing a charity trek or other big activity abroad. I think for some people they are just a chance for a cheap holiday and amazing experience which they sort of shame their friends into "paying" for. I do know that most people pay a fee for joining in the activity, but I am sure this doesn't cover all the costs for the charity - I think the charity relies on each individual meeting or exceeding their fundraising targets to cover additional costs. If anyone works for a charity, I'd really like to know whether this is true!

I also feel that I should choose which charities I give my cash to which are of particular relevance to me and my family, rather than to choose charities offering these experiences. However, I do feel pressed into giving funds as it is someone I know who has asked me directly to contribute.

Does anyone else feel this way, or am I just an old moany-pants?

In all seriousness, plus I'm genuinely curious - why not just donate all the money she raised directly to the muscular dystrophy association?

It wasn't solely the money - it was also a chance for carers/family members/medical professionals to meet/bond.

But yes of course, no one should ever do anything like that, we must all be joyless & miserable waiting for our relatives to die.

One of the useful things about a bonding activity around a need, such as MD or Autism or Cancer is the sense of unity and shared experiences that occur.
The fact that people who are sufferers, survivors, carers and otherwise involved can give and receive support from others who know what it's like.

Very different to the tourism/parronising/pointless trips that are being discussed IMO.

Situation dependent I suppose. I used to work in a law firm and one of the partners (earning about £2m a year) used to get people to sponsor him every other year to go to Peru or wherever. I thought it was ridiculously cheeky!

I would rather sponsor a trek or something though than pay for someone to go and build an orphanage. I really disagree with those schemes - far far better to pay for local builders (who need to make a living) to do it properly.

Xpost Degusti

Thank you MothratheMighty

But yes of course, no one should ever do anything like that, we must all be joyless & miserable waiting for our relatives to die

No-one said that - and actually I find that really offensive from a personal POV. However, having been in that situation the money we raised went directly to the charity we worked with, with all the shared experiences, without going to Mont Blanc.

And yes - they both died at the end, but it wasn't joyless. Bloody miserable though - they are very much missed.

My sister paid for the actual trip costs out of her own money. It's also not easy for my family to get to meet up with others, they live in a sparsely populated rural area.

I am sorry if I sounded arsey, it's just an upsetting thing. & sorry for your losses.

I've got friends that fundraise and accompany people to Lourdes. Not my sort of thing, but there you go, each to their own.
They find that no one seems to expect a miracle cure, but the journey and the company and the shared prayers and activities give them the strength to keep going and the community to see the point in keeping going.
Worth it, and a skill set and mindset that is unique. As unique as knowing how to build a sand dam.

Degustibus's sister did give all the money raised to the charity, though. She just also paid for herself to go on a trek. Of course, she could have not gone on a trek and given that money to charity as well - but then, she could have also not gone on any other holiday ever, dressed entirely in used sacking, eaten only lentils that she scavenged from waste bins, lived in a lean-to shack and donated even more money to charity. Clearly she deserves criticism for not doing those things, too.

Two things in this thread - firstly, OP, YANBU to question the value the charity gets. Each of these things should be taken on it's own merits. Personally, I think sponsored events should have a specific benefit beyond the fundraising - so a litter-pick rather than walking round a field...

Read this blog - pippabiddle.com/2014/02/18/the-problem-with-little-white-girls-and-boys/ it makes some very interesting points.

And the World Scout Jamboree: DD3 went to Sweden, DD4 is going to Japan (they were both very lucky to be selected, for Japan 160 applied for 27 vacancies). There are three elements to the funding for young people going - firstly fundraising to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity to go - so it's not just for rich kids. Secondly getting the young people to fundraise to help them learn the value of the trip - that it's something to work for. Thirdly, part of the 'price' for the UK Scouts going to Japan is a 'solidarity' fee to support countries where the majority of Scouts could not afford to travel to the next village - the Jamboree is about supporting each other around the globe. (Everyone is equal on the Jamboree site, there are no hotels involved, only tents and maybe a hostel for a couple of nights). Our Unit of 36 young people have to raise £30,000 in 18 months for their portion of the funding - and that's only 20% of the total that the trip will cost. My pockets are hurting already...

Bah. Here is the link for your convenience - pippabiddle.com/2014/02/18/the-problem-with-little-white-girls-and-boys/

What an honest and interesting blog.
How many of us would be happy to send our children to school in a building constructed by enthusiastic teens?

The Scout trip to Japan still costs parents a heck of a lot of money - they are not fundraising to pay for 100% of the cost of the trip for all of the Scouts afaik? That's why we (and most of the other parents) had to say no to even the selection stage - we just couldn't afford to pay the cost of the trip plus fork out for all the race nights/car boots/ceilidhs/bake sales that would follow.

Moth - that's an interesting point. I'm sure they will be working alongside experts in their field, but yes - it does raise concerns about the quality of the build

The thing is you can have an adventure and fundraise I. This country.
My DD is riding Lands End to John O Groates at Easter. She is 13 and doing it with DH, they have booked and paid for accommodation themselves (no family holiday this year ) and are carrying all their own stuff so all money raised will go to their chosen charity. It is going to be a big father daughter bonding experience and if they make it through the 2 weeks without killing each other that will be a bonus

She did originally say she wanted to cycle across sone far flung country for charity but we said no and have funded this for her.

I never liked the idea of going to care for children in developing countries either, particularly traumatised youngsters, cared for by well-intentioned people with very little training or experience who will then disappear once their time is up

it makes more sense to fundraise to pay the locals to build their facilities. That way the locals get work and money.

oh, but look, nobody from a rich country gets a trip abroad and a tan.

And that blog is amazing. She is fab.

Exactly Special.

I won't subsidise someone else to go on a walking holiday!

I had a friend who went to India to help build a school but said that she and her fellow volunteers had no idea what they were doing and just got in the way of the Indian builders and that their presence was worse than useless.

I have another friend raising money to take untrained volunteers to work with sexualised abused children and women suffering violence in a developing country. Have to say I am a bit dubious at this. I do wonder if they will do more harm than good.

yanbu

the amount of charity workers in sri lanka the year after the tsunami was ridiculous

of course people needed support but not from a load of gap year students wanting to experience life in a poor country helping those in need while seeing the country and basically doing what other travellers do very little with a few hours work here and there and getting accommodation for their generosity

but that is not all charities some do great work abroad but there is a growing market for those who are wanting to experience something and the side line is raising money for a local cause

Most 'Teach English' treks are not in the interests of the charities. Most ex colonies have sufficient and qualified English teachers.

My family runs a long standing charity here in South Africa which has at times the misfortune of these young people pretending to be here to help but mostly there for a facebook picture with 'disadvantaged black child', sun, sea, safari and ohh to remind us how 'sad it is that they know true poverty'.

But after years of discussing this in my family, we have decided that even though they don't make much of a difference, we will allow them on our programmes because it seems to make them feel better.

Last year alone we had just over 45 young people from the 'western world', and about 13 of them had a genuine interest.
Most come here with no real understanding of our communities and work and with no interest in wanting to understand, mostly they have ideas of how we can improve.

I have to run and wish I could phrase this better but in short:
Most of these people use us as holiday.

Ohh before I go, most who come here seem to pity us and its one of the worst things you can ever do when on this programmes.

'How sad it is tht they don't know true poverty'

we have decided that even though they don't make much of a difference, we will allow them on our programmes because it seems to make them feel better

See it as outreach charity work ZuluinJozi