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?

This is what it is.

It is a working holiday.

It benefits the communities visited, up to a point, and it benefits the children going, sometimes more so than the people they visit.

Support the children attempting to raise and earn money for these trips, or don't support them, its no big deal.

There are opportunities for adults too, if you are interested, now or at later date. It isn't easy though, both the fundraising and the trip itself can be pretty grueling, but worth while for most, I hope!

What is it specifically that I am saying that you disagree with?

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.*
Lol there is far more rotations of holiday makers abroad in schools and homes then actual volunteer rotation in uk schools. In the uk and they're generally not sticking a camera in their face for selfies and picking up random children for photos too. theres far less disruption, more structure and more checks in uk schools surrounding volunteers.

There are opportunities for adults too, if you are interested, now or at later date. It isn't easy though, both the fundraising and the trip itself can be pretty grueling, but worth while for most, I hope!

Trained doctors or trained teacher that are qualifified please knock yourself out if your going with an actual charity (not a western business that is cashing in on voluntourism trips) that is providing long term sustainability in the community and you have legit skills that are needed, that can be passed on and taught go for it.
If your wanting to "find yourself" by painting a school for a week or playing in an orphanage please no! Donate to a proper charity that is in the country that is helping people get jobs, training, education and use the rest to go on a safari to see animals not a poverty porn safari to make yourself feel better about yourself.

I don't think anyone is saying that foster homes are perfect!! However the concept of living WITH a family is better than living as part of a group of children who have rotating staff looking after them.

User, so you accept that it benefits the volunteers more than the communities then. If so, how can you be so keen on it? How can you be comfortable with kids from developed nations furthering their own already comparatively privileged lifestyles to a greater extent than those born into poverty? We must all support a system that, in the absolute majority, benefits the poor. I'm still interested to know whether wealthy kids from the developing countries themselves do it?

User148 - you are wrong. Multiple studies have shown the superiority of foster care over care in children's homes. That's why the govt. closed many of them.

Some children's homes still exist as some children are very hard to deal with in a family environment (running away, violence, cycle of abuse).

That doesn't change the fact that:

Orphanages & children's homes have been proven to damage children
The damage happens due to neglect & the impossibility of forming family like relationships in an oprhanage
It also happens due to high staff turnover, which means children are unable to form lasting attachments
And it happens because children are at a huge risk of abuse with waves and waves of unvetted volunteers coming into homes

I would suggest reading this: www.nbcnews.com/id/22341367/ns/health-childrens_health/t/foster-care-better-orphanages-kids-iqs/

"Toddlers rescued from orphanages and placed in good foster homes score dramatically higher on IQ tests years later than children who were left behind, concludes a one-of-a-kind project in Romania that has profound implications for child welfare around the globe."

And this: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600163/

"Indiscriminately sociable behavior refers to children’s lack of reticence with unfamiliar adults, willingness to approach and engage strangers, and failure to maintain proximity to attachment figures in unfamiliar settings. O’Connor and colleagues (O’Connor et al., 2000; O’Connor & Zeanah, 2003) have emphasized the lack of social boundaries among children with this behavior pattern. Zeanah et al. (2005) found that 44% of institutionalized children showed high levels of indiscriminately sociable behavior as contrasted with 18% of children who had never been institutionalized."

This kind of behaviour puts children at huge risk and makes them much move vulnerable when they become adults.

www.thinkchildsafe.org/thinkbeforevisiting/resources/Families_Not_Orphanages_J_Williamson.pdf

"Children need more than good physical care. They also need the love, attention
and an attachment figure from whom they develop a secure base on which all
other relationships are built. Research in the early 1900s and work on the effects
of institutional care and attachment theory beginning in the 1940s, especially that
of John Bowlby, established a foundation for the current scientific understanding
of children’s developmental requirements6 that led to policy change in post-war
Europe and the United States.ii"

Not everyone who does these holidays expects people to pay. My friend climbed Kilimanjaro last year. She spent almost 2 years working her arse off doing quiz nights, street collections, raffles, getting sponsorship through business connections etc and single handedly raised 14 grand. Every penny went to the charity as she paid for the trip out of her own pocket.

What I really can't stand is when people just do the Race for Life or similar short distances with no effort or training and just put 'please sponsor me' on FB with a link to a Just Giving page. No time, no effort, nothing - I'm not sponsoring that.

And yes to the skydive thing as well!

Not everyone who does these holidays expects people to pay. My friend climbed Kilimanjaro last year. She spent almost 2 years working her arse off doing quiz nights, street collections, raffles, getting sponsorship through business connections etc and single handedly raised 14 grand. Every penny went to the charity as she paid for the trip out of her own pocket.

Objectively, though, how do you show the difference between raising £14k from others for the charity and spending your own £6k on climbing a mountain (guessing for easy numbers) and raising £14k of which you spend £6k on your costs for climbing the mountain, and then giving the remaining £8k of donations plus £6k of your own money to the charity?

Depending on Gift Aid it could make a big difference, if some of her donors don't pay income tax and she does ...

It's a bit like the perennial discussion about whether it's worth going back to work if the mother's wages won't cover the new/increased childcare bill and someone will always say "both parents should pay for the childcare". Oh yes that makes all the difference to the total available to the family

When you say "she paid all the costs herself and all the fundraising went to the charity" my sceptical head says "so she bought herself a fun experience and strong-armed all her friends into giving to charity without putting a penny in the pot herself".

When you say "she paid all the costs herself and all the fundraising went to the charity" my sceptical head says "so she bought herself a fun experience and strong-armed all her friends into giving to charity without putting a penny in the pot herself".

She put plenty into the pot through her time and effort. If she had just done the old 'stick a just giving link on my FB page' she wouldn't have raised anything like the amount she did. If she hadn't done it at all the charity wouldn't have got anything at all?!

She didn't 'strong arm her friends'. A lot of the money came from people who didn't know her that well or were complete strangers. She was in the local paper and local people got to know what she was doing and admired her for doing it, so wanted to give. Yes, she got a great experience out of it, but if it hadn't been for the charity she wouldn't have lived to see adulthood, let alone climb huge mountains, so.......meh.

But like you said yourself, you are just being 'sceptical'

But why the link August?

So she had a nice holiday that she paid for herself = fine
She raised some money for charity = fine

How are they connected?

Why not a connection?

I imagine it's easier to raise money if there is some sort of 'achievement' to hang it on, rather than just saying 'please give me your money so i can pass it on to this charity'? Whether that be running a marathon, doing the Inca trail or climbing Kilimanjaro, none of which are particularly easy things, and require a good bit of training, especially for someone with the condition my friend has. Yes, obviously even then she still gets a lot out of it, but so what?

It reminds me of that episode of Friends where Phoebe is trying to do a completely unselfish act of charity that she genuinely gets nothing out off! Even if you gave 14 grand to charity straight out of your own pocket without going anywhere, it is still 'selfish' to an extent because you get to bask in your own feelings of kindness and being a great person!

When people were doing the ice bucket challenge I was rolling my eyes all over the place, as it really brought out the attention seekers everywhere. But actually, when I heard that it had raised so much money that they made a breakthrough with MND, I actually had to backtrack on my thoughts a little bit!

Some months ago I was working with someone who had recently returned from a spot of voluntourism. I'd never really thought much about it before but I just got a vague feeling that it didn't seem quite right. There was something distasteful about the way he talked about what an amazing experience he had and showed photos of himself grinning with a bunch of bored looking children in the background, like their poverty-stricken, troubled lives existed only to enhance his rather comfortable one. (Think I pissed him off a bit when I said that when I wanted a photo of myself with a brown child I just took a selfie with my son.)

I did wonder too how much good he could have done as a teacher for such a short period of time, with no training and quite appalling spelling and grammar.

And he annoyed me by saying that my own youthful backpacking wasn't a real experience because I didn't do any voluntary work while away.

Not sure I'm adding much to the thread with this post but I've found it interesting reading. PPs have put into words that vague sense of unease I had about voluntourism.

I am trying to answer some points!

Lol there is far more rotations of holiday makers abroad in schools and homes then actual volunteer rotation in uk schools.

No, there is far more rotation of volunteers in Uk schools. Take student ambassadors for example, their commitment is 10 days schools are paid to take them, we benefit from the payment, and from their labour, and they benefit from the experience. Very similar set up to these foreign trips we are discussing, but student ambassadors in this country hugely outnumber those who go abroad....

Thats just one type of volunteer, then there are all the work experience students, at ag 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, etc, tens of thousands of them, 2 weeks each, every year, then there are all the others......

There is a far greater rotation of volunteers through uk schools than through schools abroad where uk teens visit.

I don't think UK schools would have the funding or the manpower they do, without them. I doubt there is any one on here whose children havn't come across short term volunteers and done activities with them.

( actually in one school I taught in, the volunteers regularly outnumbered the students, but that is a whole different story...)

In the uk and they're generally not sticking a camera in their face for selfies and picking up random children for photos too.

Hmm, there speaks someone who has never been mobbed by dozens of local children desperate to get their photo taken........

I'm still interested to know whether wealthy kids from the developing countries themselves do it?

well, in my experience yes, they do, and children from the UK volunteer in uk schools too.....

But it is a big world, and what goes on in every district in every country I couldn't really say, just speaking from my own experience.

I gues overall, most volunteering done in the world is done by people for their own country, isn't it?

Trained doctors or trained teacher that are qualifified please knock yourself out if your going with an actual charity (not a western business that is cashing in on voluntourism trips) that is providing long term sustainability in the community and you have legit skills that are needed, that can be passed on and taught go for it.

I've done this too

Alyosha, I really don't need to read anything else, thank you, I am a highly trained foster carer myself, and an expert in the education of traumatised children.

Orphanages & children's homes have been proven to damage children

as has foster care

The damage happens due to neglect childen should not suffer from neglect anywhere, but unfortunatly it happens in both childen homes and foster care.

& the impossibility of forming family like relationships in an oprhanage

It is nt at all impossible to form family like relationships iin an orphanage. It happens in a good orphanage set up to encourage secure attatchements, and it hopefully happens in a good foster home too. However, it can also fail to happen in orphanages, and fail to happen in foster homes.

It also happens due to high staff turnover,

High staff turn over is not ideal, but it unfortunatly happens, both in some children's homes, and in some foster homes.

The difference being that in children's homes the staff move on, whereas in foster homes, it is the children made to move on, and on, and on, and on, Children's lives are disrupted far more frequently and catastrophically in foster care than in childen's homes. A key worker can leave a children's home, and a child in that home loses a key worker, but retains home, friends, other staff, pets, and school, whereas the end of a foster placement is likely to mean the loss of ALL carers, friends, pets , home , school, familiar area, etc.

And in the worst case scenario there are children who have been through the uk foster system to whom this has happened many dozens of times.

which means children are unable to form lasting attachments

I can assure you, I know many children in children's homes who have secure, long lasting attachments.

And it happens because children are at a huge risk of abuse with waves and waves of unvetted volunteers coming into homes

Unfortunately it happens in foster homes and in children's homes.

What I am trying to say about children's homes is this.

There are many excellent children's homes around the world where children are well cared for in a loving, stable family like environment and who's outcomes in life are better than those of children in the uk foster care system.

These are often in countries which do not in any case have the resources to offer foster care to their children, as it costs far ore in all terms.

The current fad to slate children's homes and try and push our very flawed uk model onto other countries, without the resources to impliment it, even if it was right for them to do so ( which it isn't necessarily) is terribly damaging to homes run by charities, who rely on donations, as it is discouraging donations.

user - you say these working holidays are beneficial to the children who go on them, they get to see different cultures and learn about different communities. You have acknowledged that UK schools also need/use volunteers, so do you fundraise to allow underprivileged teenagers from third world countries to experience the same benefits by having a working holiday in the uk? A sort of school exchange thing.

Hmm, there speaks someone who has never been mobbed by dozens of local children desperate to get their photo taken........

Incorrect - but I've never thought it appropriate to whip out my phone and start taking pictures of random children, I don't have their parents permission, I have no idea if their parents are happy with a complete stranger taking their picture. Some people end up putting them on their instagram or facebook, again have they asked the permission of the parents to take and share them online?

I'd never take out my camera and start taking random pictures of children in the uk in a school or street, so why would I do it in another country?

I've done this too
So surely you can see how qualified people, going with charities, and for much longer 3months plus+ is much more productive and should be encouraged vs people going for a week or two with no skills that are needed in the country. It would be better for the country, if the second lot just went on holiday, ate in local restaurants, buy things in local shops, would all be more productive and better for the country then faffing about for 1 week pretending to teach in a school or paint a school.

No, there is far more rotation of volunteers in Uk schools.
In your opinion, we can't provide stats of course because the voluntourism abroad sector is completely unregulated. But in some schools abroad, their is a scarily high number of tourists trying their hand at teaching for a couple of days or a week, before going on safari or whatever.

Also the two are not comparable, the balance of power is different, the system in place is different (far more structure in uk) work experience kids and volunteers in uk schools, normally speak english to a high standard (how many tourists volunteering abroad speak the language of the country they are going to or even more then just hello/thank you) there is less attachment issues involved because of the systems in place, goodbye parties arent being thrown every 5 days with sweets and toys. The disruption in the classroom is much less as the volunteers are supervised much more in the uk, the curriculum chugs along in the uk led by the teacher, the kids arent being taught the same thing over and over again in the uk because of this, camera arent being shoved in face and children picked up.

NannyR, this sort of thing happens too

so do you fundraise to allow underprivileged teenagers from third world countries to experience the same benefits by having a working holiday in the uk?
ha, yes I would love to see Tanzanian teens, who can't speak much English, in charge of a class, different one each week, not following the curriculum, just each one teaching the same basic kiswahili and songs every week, before throwing an aren't I amazing party with sweets at the end of the week before leaving, picking up the kids to take pictures of them without permissions then putting them on jamiiforums when they get home for people to see what a good person they are teaching the poor british kids something tells me that would not go down so well here!

So surely you can see how qualified people, going with charities, and for much longer 3months plus+ is much more productive and should be encouraged vs people going for a week or two with no skills that are needed in the country

no, in my experience, both have a value.

It would be better for the country, if the second lot just went on holiday, ate in local restaurants, buy things in local shops, would all be more productive and better for the country

this has a value too, but to a different demographic of locals

Also the two are not comparable

in my experience, I would say they 2 are VERY comparable! n many ways!

And both have a value, to the school, and to the volunteers, and neither are without their dangers and pitfalls.

User, I'd love to know what you do as you obviously have a vested interest in the voluntourism sector.