Once in a lifetime trip disguised as fundraising for Charities

[staveleymum]

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for people raising money for Charity. People asking for sponsorship for things like Marathons, 1000 miles walked in a year, midnight walks, etc. I'm also on board with Red Nose Day, Children in Need, PTA fundraising, kids clubs fundraising and everything else that seems to constantly need money to run.

BUT I just don't get fundraising for things like hiking up Kilimanjaro or funding a trip to Borneo (for a 16 year old) to build a school or some such similar. Both these events need to raise £4,000 so they are on facebook, justgiving, etc trying to raise the money. My issue is that of the £4,000 needed how much will actually go to charity. This covers flights, accommodation, food, guides, etc - surely this is just something that they want to do as a personal thing and wrapping it up in Charity and getting others to pay for it?

I'd love to walk over Sydney Harbour Bridge but I wouldnt dream of masking it in Charity and hoping others will pay for it with perhaps 5-10% of the money raised actually going to the Charity?

I know I don't have to sponsor but I'd rather just give the donation directly to the Charity. AIBU?

whatsthepoint Why not send the teenagers who are studying plumbing and bricklaying. They would be more use.

Wouldn't that be wonderful! A naice private school and local community college could join forces and raise money to send some of the college students doing relevant vocational qualifications. ("Sorry, Tarquin, you just don't have the skills to go..." )

user Children raising money to support education and conservation in a different country, AND to fund themselves to visit, meet people there and get involved in their lives and work.

I agree that it's good for priviledged children to see how others in the world live. But why not raise money for the charity separately from a holiday to go and visit? A bit of transparency over where the money goes and separating out what is actually useful and for whom it is useful.

You could have the whole school/organisation raising money, lots of communication with the charity, knowing how many houses/wells/whatever you've paid for. And then those who want to go and visit to see the work in action can raise money specifically for that. (In a way, the more affordable this is for someone, the more they might benefit from experiencing less pampered living conditions...) But pretending that somehow an unqualified, inexperienced 17 year old's work is somehow the most valuable part is all wrong.

the work that the children do would not be done by locals

What is your evidence for this?

...nor would there be enough money to pay people to do it.

How much local labour do you think they could pay for, for the cost of flights? Surely they could hire people from within the country rather than import labour at such a heavy price?

but the work that the children do would not be done by locals, nor would there be enough money to pay people to do it. Caring for the rain forest, planting thousands of tress, etc, the children are doing it for free, and you don't need many skills to dig a hole!

Would be better that they just paid the locals to do the work and go on a safari or whatever. There is often a hell of a lot of unskilled labour in the places that these trips go to far better in long term to get these people doing the jobs rather then teenagers doing it for the Instagram pics and feel good factor.

I didn't realize the donation included getting them there .

DP did a charity drive half way across the world. He paid the £7k ish to buy the car and spending money etc himself and all his donations (£6k) went straight to the charity... I assumed that's what everyone did.

DP did a charity drive half way across the world. He paid the £7k ish to buy the car and spending money etc himself and all his donations (£6k) went straight to the charity... I assumed that's what everyone did.

Alternatively he could have given the charity the £7k. This is the problem. A total of £13k was spent and the charity got £6k of it - not from him, incidentally, but from his family and friends.

I agree that it's good for priviledged children to see how others in the world live. But why not raise money for the charity separately from a holiday to go and visit?

because a holiday is nothing like the same, you don't ever get to know a country anything like as well from a holiday as you do from living with local people and working there.

he work that the children do would not be done by locals
What is your evidence for this?

I've taken several groups, the children do work that locals are not doing, because there is no pay, and they can't afford to work without pay, and there is no fund s to pay them, where as the children work for free.

How much local labour do you think they could pay for, for the cost of flights? Surely they could hire people from within the country rather than import labour at such a heavy price? generally, the money raised by each child will be spent more on employing locals than on the cost of the flight, the money is split. But the way this works is that each child raises money for their own costs, and the charity too.

You have to see it for what it is, the children raise/earn the money to support conservation and education in their area, and to visit their area, and to help there for a while.

user For clarity; I meant a "holiday" including staying with the locals - not holed up in a luxury hotel. I suppose it would make sense to give them something useful to do whilst they're there, but touting it as if their work is the vital part (rather than the money raised) is just wrong in so many of these kind of trips.

I'm intrigued as to where you have taken groups and with what scheme (obvs if you don't mind sharing!) - it does sound a bit more useful than a lot of them! But at the end of the day, it's still basically only useful as a srt of marketing thing to get people to raise money. The charity could do better work with just the money - but perhaps the money would not be raised without the incentive of a trip.

No, the best of care in a children's home really isn't just as good as in a children's home the carers go home to their families. In foster care the children are part of the family.

No, the best of care in a children's home really isn't just as good as in a children's home the carers go home to their families. In foster care the children are part of the family.

yu are very wrong, very very wrong indeed, and doing a huge disservice to people who dedicate their lives to the children in their care, living with them 24/7 for long stretches, the two homes I mentioned were both run by husband and wife teams who considered that to be their home too.

In many situations, a child would see more of a staff member during the year than they would of a working foster carer.

this is what I mean by the fashion for slating children's homes, by people who don't know what they are talking about.

I''m a foster carer in the uk. I have worked in children's homes in the UK and in Africa, I know what I am talking about.

The standard of care in many children's homes hugely outstrips the standard of care experienced by many children in the uk foster system.
experience of fostering, of course there is, and there are children who have a bad experience of children's homes, but to say one is automatically better than the other is just not true.

particularly when you are comparing a country with a few tens of thousands of children in care to a country with fewer resources and several million children destitute or orphaned.

I'm intrigued as to where you have taken groups and with what scheme I don't really want to say, I hope you don't mind. Yes, the work the children do is useful, not all of it, I am a bit dubious about some of it, but overall, I am confident that the children benefit hugely, and so does the community. After all, they keep inviting us back!

The charity could do better work with just the money - but perhaps the money would not be raised without the incentive of a trip. like I said, you just have to see it for what it is. The benefit to the children, from the hard work and discipline of fund raising, travelling, meeting people, working hard in harsh conditions, and growing up! This is part of the benefit of the whole set up, not just benefiting the local community. And the international friendships, and links made, which last decades in some cases....

fter all, they keep inviting us back!

Most of the voluntourism schemes are run by for profit companies, it's a billion pound industry, for the majority of cases it's a company not a community, so that's why they keep getting "invited back"

A few schemes might be good but the majority of the "build a building", paint a school (there's a school in machame Tanzania that anfriend of mine lives near that pretty much gets painted every year !)or the worst of the lot: teach at a school (seriously please no one send their unqualified 18 year old teen to teach at a school for 2weeks please, it is an awful, awful idea) are bad ideas that do very little to actually help communities and provide long term sustainable appropriate help.
Yes I'm sure the children get a sense of achievment from fundraising for their holiday and taking selfies with poor children etc but why should all that come at the detriment to a country, developing countries are not just there to provide ego boosts for priveledged Western teens. Voluntourism needs to ideally be scrapped but at least regulated, the majority are businesses that are pitching the feel good factor to western customers first and foremost, rather then ensuring that the projects are suistanable, suitable, appropriate and not detrimental to the local community.

Most of the voluntourism schemes are run by for profit companies, it's a billion pound industry, for the majority of cases it's a company not a community, so that's why they keep getting "invited back"

well, no its the community that keeps inviting us back.

(there's a school in machame Tanzania that anfriend of mine lives near that pretty much gets painted every year !)

so what! No harm done - the school is kept in good nick, the children have done something nice for someone, really, why is it a problem?

I know a school in Tanzania for which the only maintenance ever done is from the volunteers of a particular organisation. Without them, the school would have long since fallen down!

or the worst of the lot: teach at a school (seriously please no one send their unqualified 18 year old teen to teach at a school for 2weeks please, it is an awful, awful idea)

again, you don't really know what you are talking about. One school I have been in, has a few volunteers every year, and for many children, these few weeks are the only TA type support they get for the whole year. I know of children with ADHD, dyslexia, etc who just don't get any other help - and the school may only have volunteers for 6 weeks out of 52. it is a very valuable service to those children, and makes a big difference to them. Again, there are schools that cannot run a full time timetable without volunteers, and if they only have volunteers again for maybe 6 or 8 weeks a year, the children may actually only have 2-3 hours a day for the rest of the time.

Uk teens may well be "unqualified", but still have a lot to offer in the field of education, the reason being they are very experienced at receiving it! And have ideas and enthusiasm that can be put to very good use. It makes a big difference.

Volunteers are not just thrown in and told to get on with it. They are overseen and directed by the class teacher.

And I don't really hear anyone complaining about it happening in UK schools, student ambassadors for example volunteer for around 10 days each in UK schools, there are very few schools in London that don't take them, use them and benefit from them, although again, the benefit may well be mostly for the ambassador.

As for "unqualified teens" being a bad idea in schools in generals, how many unqualified young, or older people are volunteering or being paid in your local school?

Certainly, UK schools are in receipt of more volunteering than any of the schools we visit abroad. Many of these volunteers are young, many unqualified, and many short term. Again, the volunteer benefits as well as the school, its a two way thing. I don't know why you think it is a good thing for uk schools to run this way, but not schools abroad, where actually the need is far greater.

As for being unqualified, many staff in UK schools are unqualified, many teachers in the schools we visit are unqualified.

I have some reservations myself about some of the volunteeers, some of the expectations ( on both sides) and some of the schools visited, however, no more so than I do in the UK.

I have volunteered in schools in the uk, and abroad, I have benefited from both, and the schools I have volunteered for have benefited from me, and the teens I have brought with me, but certainly the schools abroad have benefited more. In those cases, you are talking about schools which could triple the hours they are open for the day at times when there are volunteers there, ie open 9-4pm when we are there, but only 10-12 when we are not. And with classes of 60+, often no books etc of course the teacher can give very little individual one to one attention, normally, and of course they benefit from having those extra pairs of hands for those few weeks.

I volunteered at one school some years ago, with three teens, and have sponsored one of the children I met ever since, so I keep in touch either the school, the teacher, and the class. They have had a couple of volunteers since, but for all except those few weeks, my bright enthusiastic, hard working little sponsee gets two hours of lessons a day, in a class of 70 with one teacher,

Why would you begrudge her the extra enhancement to her education that she occasionally gets from the uk "unqualified teenagers"?

Someone I know fundraised for nearly 2 years to raise 4k for a trip to walk the great wall of China. The sponsorship for the great wall walk itself raised about 700 - when I suggested the charity would have done better with her donating the 4k I was told I 'didn't understand'.

The next trip was Machu Pichu and she raised even less with that one...

I've just noticed there are 14 pages! How on earth did it get onto childrens homes??

Volunteers are not just thrown in and told to get on with it. They are overseen and directed by the class teacher.

Yes in lots of cases they are, the teens don't follow any curriculum and it massively disrupts learning and in some cases it's the holidays are for all year around so the education is constantly disrupted by teens coming in teaching the same stuff, nursery rhymes, then a party before they go then rinse and repeat in a couple of weeks.

well, no its the community that keeps inviting us back.
In your one case, but as I said the majority are run by for profit companies and it is them not the community "inviting back"

again, you don't really know what you are talking about.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about

so what! No harm done - the school is kept in good nick, the children have done something nice for someone, really, why is it a problem?

Because it's ridiculous that out of a 3-4K trip branded as some sort of charity work expedition, that about 5days sandwiched in doing work that's not even needed between safaris and climbing Kilimanjaro.

If people actually want to do good, call these trips what they are holidays, not doint "charity work" then go on these trips, take part of the money and donate it so a local can paint the school.

It's not really up for debate user. I'm telling you my son was better off with his foster family than he would have been in a children's home. that's a fact. There's a reason why children's homes are being phased out in the U.K. I can't speak for situations outside of the UK. However, the idea of privileged white kids turning up to "teach" children, "build" houses, "look after" babies doesn't sit well with me at all. Also, I wonder how many middle class teens within the actual country/surrounding countries do it?!?!?!

Getting back to the OP: YANBU.

I got a charity place in the London Marathon a few years back (failed to get a place in the ballot several years in a row) and so was committed to raising a certain amount of money. There is NO WAY I would ask my friends and family to pay as it was my dream to run the marathon, and I couldn't afford it myself. So instead, with a friend, we organised a series of fun evenings - DVD swap evenings, cook-a-curry for the street party, a quiz night at the pub, a silent auction etc and raised the money in a way that meant everyone got value for their contributions eg paid £10 for the beer and curry we cooked, paid £5 for the DVD swap evening etc. It was a lot of hard work but felt so much better than expecting others to pay so that I could do something I wanted to do anyway. It also built up the local community spirit and friendships in a way that has been positive ever since. (NB It's different perhaps when it comes to sponsoring children doing stuff as they can't earn the money themselves really).

User148 - bizarre that you are just ignoring all the well sourced articles & academic research that shows that Children's homes & orphanages damage children, and that foster care is unequivocally the best way to care for children.

If you read the articles, you would also see that family care is different from institutional care.

In an oprhanage, you may have staff members that deeply care about the children. But they cannot form a one-on-one family bond like you can in a family.

This partly due to safeguarding reasons (many of these countries don't have equivalents of CRB checks) AND the fact that staff in orphanages change so much.

In a family environment children can receive the one-to-one love and attention that they need.

It's not really up for debate user. I'm telling you my son was better off with his foster family than he would have been in a children's home.

I am really glad your son had a positive experience, however, as a foster carer, I can tell you that the fostering system in the uk is very poor indeed, the outcomes are horrendous, overall. That is not to say some children don't have a good experience in foster care, and I am very glad they do.

It is also true, of course that some children have a bad experience in children's homes. That doesn't mean all of them

I wish people would understand the amazing work done in so many children's homes around the world, and the need for support. They have become such a target for people following a fashion for attacking them without any reason, and it is so damaging.

Of course children do not benefit from being institutionalised.

All children need stability, security, TLC and long term relationships.

The thing is, there is this automatic assumption that these things are available in foster homes, but not children's homes.

This is an erroneous assumption. They are available in the best foster homes and the best children's homes.

they are not available in the worst of either.

It is not a given that foster homes are smaller, more stable or a safer place for a child. In fact, some children's homes do have fewer children per "house parent" than some foster homes.

many children in the UK foster care system mush less stability and a far higher turn over of carers than children in children's homes.

There's a reason why children's homes are being phased out in the U.K.

Actually, they are not, but they are rarely called children's homes these days.

they are still the best and most appropriate place for many children in this country, as well as the first choice for many too.

And in other countries, with fewer resources, foster care may not even realistically be an option, it might be the children's home, or destitution.

As I said, the uk only has a few tens of thousands of children in care, whereas some countries with fewer resources may have millions of children destitute or orphaned.

it really is not the case that we should be "pushing other countries to move towards a foster care system" at all, our system is not better.

yes I have, if you look back.....

It works at least as much, and frequently many times more, than the constant rotation of volunteers in uk schools works for hour children. Apart from which there are far fewer "rotations" in the schools I know abroad.