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?

Alyosha
They were doing the labour working with a paid local team leader and presumably someone was in overall charge. One of the group now lives in the area and it seems the block is still going strong some years on. The group in question were mainly young adults 21-30.

User - I have given you links to research that shows that orphanage care is harmful and is more expensive than foster care.

Can you prove any of your assertions? Where's the evidence?

Not sure why you say peer group remains stable - children wash in and out of residential care all the time, especially in developing countries. And children can be moved around in residential care too.

Unless you would like to prove otherwise...

Chatnanny - my point is that the money they spent on the trip would probably have provided 10 - 30 x more local benefit had they simply given the money to reputable local organisations to build locally with all local builders on local wages. And the work would be of a MUCH higher standard.

I'd also like to know that country/countries where residential orphanage care is of better quality than UK foster care. Thanks.

Alyosha, I can only assume your experience of uk foster care is extremely limited.

I don't think there is a question in these developing countries, where the answer is unskilled western teenagers.

YES, this. I have met the teen/young adult children of colleagues who have gone on the kind of trips where they help to 'build' schools or teach English, some in my father's country of origin in West Africa. It is wincingly uncomfortable to hear them talk about it-very 1800s childlike noble savages and white man's burden.

When in fact, philanthropic giving by wealthy locals is often very high, lots of educated locals volunteer, help out and sponsor good initiatives through their churches or mosques, poor rural communities are usually resourceful, hardworking and the best people to judge their own needs and frankly, if there is one region of the world that does not need to import muscle, it is West Africa.

I never contribute to these kinds of trips, they do a lot of harm in my view.

It is wincingly uncomfortable to hear them talk about it-very 1800s childlike noble savages and white man's burden.

I am getting that kind of vibe from this thread!

Teenagers doing these trips is NEVER better than local labour. The idea that these teenagers are providing rainforest surveys and music lessons that the locals wouldn't have otherwise - that is laughable, totally unsustainable. Imagine if all the money spent on the trip could be channelled into training locals to do this work? Far more sustainable and useful than a revolving door of inexperienced workers.

I don't have any problem with either the music lessons or the surveying.

I'm not qualified in music, but we take teens who are, and I am a qualified pathologist very well trained for such surveying and assessment. The surveying projects we do are normally directed by the most local university ( which could be a hundred miles away or more) into areas that they don't have the resources to survey themselves, and our data is returned to them to be combined with their own data to give a fuller picture. As they are already surveying to the maximum they are able, anything we do is extra, that would no otherwise be done.

Again, I just don't understand why it is perfectly ok for volunteers to arrive in uk school to teach music, but not a school abroad? It seems people are happy to have the benefits for their own children, but not for others! As I said, the lessons will not be compulsory, but will be full, every day.

The building work I am thinking about again, We don't have skills in this area, just muscle! And I have been asking the charity more questions about this in the last few days. No answer yet. It might be that I ask this to be missed out this year. It would be interesting to see if the work we don't do does in fact get done at all, if we don't do it.

Not sure why you say peer group remains stable - children wash in and out of residential care all the time, especially in developing countries.

not necessarily, it can be far more stable than foster care.

It would be interesting to see if the work we don't do does in fact get done at all, if we don't do it.

As people keep pointing out on this thread, if it's NOT getting done, perhaps the teenagers so keen to Make a Difference could channel their resources into a sustainable building programme.

Don't understand your point about volunteers in UK schools, I've never heard of that. Is this teenagers from the developing world who don't speak English coming to teach music?

I'm sure the university is very grateful for your work, but what a shame they can't have their own students/interns do the work and gain experience that will stay within the country.

I'm sure the university is very grateful for your work, but what a shame they can't have their own students/interns do the work and gain experience that will stay within the country.

They have that as well, of course, but think how much we depend on volunteers to maintain and monitor our own natural habitats, and we have such a tiny amount in proportion!

Don't understand your point about volunteers in UK schools, I've never heard of that There are tens of thousands of volunteers in uk schools, many of them short term, many of them unqualified, plus of course tens of thousands of work experience students, ditto, and they (mostly enhance our children's lives, and no one is saying this is a bad thing, but it is a bad thing if its in a school abroad??

I don't think so, overall, but both in the uk and abroad there can be concerns and issues.

However the school I am taking about only has 2 hours education per day for each year group, and afternoon lessons only happen when they have volunteers available, and this is also the only time music or science is taught ( In July/ August - when we take uk teens to volunteer)

As people keep pointing out on this thread, if it's NOT getting done, perhaps the teenagers so keen to Make a Difference could channel their resources into a sustainable building programme.

that's not what I mean, we build sewers, etc as we are told that there are no resources to pay anyone to do it, and it will only get done if volunteers do it, however , there are people here arguing that there ARE locals with the skills to do it, and we are putting them out of work, so I want to find out if that is true.

If we didn't do it, would someone else do it?

( we don't really have many skills in building, we do take some bricklaying students, etc)

we are told that there are no resources to pay anyone to do it

Yes, I guess they would tell you that!

I'm still not sure what you mean about the UK volunteers in schools, my children are at primary. So just to clarify - countries in the developing world send unqualified teenagers who can't speak English to UK schools to teach for a week or two at a time? That is ridiculous!

User148 - so all of what you say is based on your own personal experience and that's it? You don't have any evidence to back up what you say?

Not even your peer group point? Of course I'm sure it might more stable - sometimes. But kids can and do get moved around children's homes as well as foster care.

In terms of whether or not buildings would get done:

a) they're often very poor quality anyway (building is a proper trade, you can't just get teenagers with no experience to construct at the same quality)

b) the money raised could be better spent locally. So people should still raise the money but use it to support local people to build.

User 148 - I've even found a report which states that stability is the key factor in children's placements, and there is some evidence that longer placements in children's homes are better than short ones in foster care, but which still recommends foster care first line because:

"But fostering is the right choice for most children who cannot return home, enter
special guardianship, or who are unsuitable for adoption. And local authorities must
treat it as the first option, not least because it is much less expensive than
residential care. According to DfE, the average cost of foster care has been
estimated at around £600 per child per week compared to around £3,000 per week
for a child living in a children’s home. It would be ridiculous to pretend that such a
cost differential can be ignored. So I entirely accept that local authorities will
generally need to try fostering first. But, particularly with adolescents, the
possibility that residential care might be the better option and offer greater
permanence – not least because some older children will steadfastly resist being
fostered - must not be ignored."

See - it even acknowledges that children's homes can be good for those who don't want foster care and are old enough to voice an opinion. Nothing wrong with that!

Please note the average children's home in the UK has just 4 beds and 11-13 staff...! The children's homes also attempt to completely avoid institutionalisation. So this care which can be good in the right circumstances is miles and miles away from eastern Europe & other developing countries.

But! This paragraph makes it so clear why even nice & sympathetic care workers can't replace a family:

“From my own experience some staff are scared of the children they are
supposed to care for. Others feel that their job is to give material objects to
these children in a misguided view that the best thing to compensate for the
child’s deprivations to date is to indulge them with ‘things’ and none of the
other stuff that will adequately prepare them for the adult world; empathy,
nurturing, boundaries, consistency, problem solving skills, reflection. In
effect they are replicating the neglect that the child experienced in the
family - only this time the taxpayer is footing the bill. That’s because the
other ‘stuff’ – emotional support, unconditional love and understanding, is
far more difficult to give, far less tangible, and to fully do it you have to leave
yourself open to being emotionally hurt, rejected, ridiculed, and
embarrassed.”

That stuff about the emotions - that's what children gain from good foster care & adoption placements.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/534560/Residential-Care-in-England-Sir-Martin-Narey-July-2016.pdf

Great read.

Alyosha, I think you have misunderstood what I m saying.

I am not against foster care ( \I am a foster carer)

However, I am very much against this current fad for withdrawing support from children's homes.

Many children's homes are excellent, providing a stable, loving environment, and education, but if they are dependent on charity and that charity dries up because childen's homes are not a popular thing to approve of, those children are in very real danger of hunger.

I've worked in childen's homes. (In this country and abroad)

There are good and bad experiences in childen's homes, and in foster care.

What you absolutly cannot say, ( and some posters on this thread have tried to say) is that we should withdraw al support from children's homes and force all countries to take up our model of fostering.

I m sure you recognise, if you have had any experience at all, that our foster cre system is deeply flawed and very damaging, in many cases.

Not only that, but some of these posters I doubt would even know the difference between a children's home and a foster home. For example, look at SOS children's villages, two house mothers with 5-10 children each, the aim is for any one child being raised there to remain with the same housemother and "siblings" throughout their childhood.

Contrast that with a foster home with one carer, 5-10 children, in the carers home, with different "helpers" coming and going all the time

What is the difference? There isn't one. Except the children's home is a more stable environment.

The other issue with foster care is the cost. it is many fold more expensive than children's homes, and many places just plain and simple do not have the resources.

From my personal experience, yest , childen's homes ( in uk and abroad) have been more stable and have led to better outcomes than foster care, that isn't always the case, there is good and bad examples of both.

My arguement though, is that no one has any right to tear into children's homes, try and persuade people to stop supporting them, try and insist our own personal ideology is imposed on other people ( although children's homes are very much on the rise in the uk, anyway) and not really understand anything about it.

User148, foster care is not more expensive! I'm not sure why you think it is though? I've provided quite a few studies from the UK & elsewhere...!

And I think it's perfectly acceptable to say the appalling condition of the vast majority of children's homes (even ones where the people in charge really care) means we shouldn't support them.

Lumos seems to be a great charity that I will support to help move children from residential to foster care.

Secondly, although some children in residential care are orphans, most are not. There are lots of investigations which show that supporting orphanages can lead unscrupulous people to set up their own orphanages as money making ventures.

By promoting orphanage tourism as a legitimate thing, you help this practice to continue.

Finally, encouraging unqualified people to volunteer in orphanages is bad because even if you went to the best run orphanages in the world, where all children were genuinely orphans, the staff cared and the only thing they needed was teaching expertise, the negative effect on children of forming multiple emotional attachments every two weeks and then being abandoned is huge.

These children often have far far lower boundaries than children should and this puts them at huge risk for abuse and exploitation when they get older.

What I am saying is that no volunteers are trotting off to Switzerland, Denmark or Germany to volunteer in their children's homes.

Those countries probably have well run systems where outcomes could well be OK.

People are volunteering in Thailand, India, Africa - places where the children's home system could be easily and cheaply replaced by foster care which would have dramatically better outcomes, and would not risk unscrupulous people taking children away from their families as a profit making venture.

Asking people to sponsor you to run the marathon is pretending that you are sacrificing your time and energy to help the needy

Have namechanged as I am getting a bit identifiable on here. I disagree - I run a lot but I would never run a marathon because it is really hard work - the training is hard. So I think it is an achievement and worth £10 of my money if someone is doing one for the first time. I do think the price of charity places for the London marathon is scandalous though. But then I dislike all the marketing done by the biggest charities, and I also think there are far too many charities - a lot of them could merge and save on costs.

Going back to running - many years ago I ran what was then the Flora Light Challenge, a 5k ladies-only run in Hyde Park. It was a big undertaking for me at the time, I wasn't sporty at all. People sponsored me because they knew it was a big thing. I raised £250 and my employer matched it, so I was able to donate £500 to the Normandy Veterans Association.

A few years ago a colleague of mine raised over £1000 running the Race for Life. Again, people realised that it was a big deal for her.

I raised less money doing a sponsored cycle ride in Europe - probably because people thought it was a jolly (which it kind of was, although it was a big thing for me to cycle 100 miles a day) and because they were work-related charities which probably did not resonate with people.

Yeah I don't sponsor these kind of things. I'm more of a "yeah I'll sponsor you to do the three peaks challenge in the middle of November" kind of person.

Anywhere exotic is an instant no-no for me.

User148, foster care is not more expensive! I'm not sure why you think it is though?

Aylosha, it is manyfold more expensive, and I am confused bout why you think differently?

I've had a look at the website of the charity you mention, and find it incredibly vague and unclear, however it does have JK Rowling on it, who has done terrible damage to the quality of lives of children....

But it says it wants 8 million children into families.

So , even if they are all placed 2 by 2, that means 4 millions families need to be moved into larger accommodation, up to 4 million homes may need adapting, 4 million carers cut their earning potential very significantly, 4 million helpers employed, ( or the part time equivalent) and so on and so on.

And that is if every single placement succeeds, but you know very well that in foster care, something like 25%will become long term, if you are lucky.

The according to the uk govt statistics, placements in homes are on average twice as stable,

they also state that the state spends roughly equal amount on a weeks residential care in a children's home, and a weeks foster care, this is an AVERAGE. In other words, the hundreds of thousands of children in special guardianship, for whom the state pays NOTHING, and the entire cost of their upbringing is born by the foster carers are going to be included in this average as 0 ( zeros)

not only that, but the state makes a very small contributiion to the cost of foster care. Just because the state isn't paying, soed not mean there is not cost - a foster carer of over a decade, 75% of the cost of raising my foster children has been born by me.

so take what the govt SAYS it costs (the govt) and x4 for the true cost of a fostr care placement in money, then remove the huge skew from counting special guardianships as 0 cost ( the cost of these is HUGE- but not picked up by the state to any great extent)

and you are looking at foster care costing at least 6 times care in a children's home, and that is before you factor in the cost of buying a house with a spare bedroom ,and the impact on earning potential of the carer.

That is purely in quantifiable financial terms, then factor in the other costs, and there is basically no comparison.

foster care is a lot more expensive, a LOT more, and you think it is ok to try and force it onto communities which have so much fewer resources? That is just one reason why it is impractical.

the negative effect on children of forming multiple emotional attachments every two weeks and then being abandoned is huge.

Its not every two weeks, is it, its once a year in a school. People volunteering just once need to be taught about taking care with attachments, just the same as volunteers and staff in schools (and children's homes) in the uk have to

Why is it ok for unqualified volunteers to work in UK schools and children's homes, but not abroad. Have your children never benefited from short term visitors and volunteers, I am sure they have. With no attachment issues!

and as for the children's home I've worked in, it is excellent, children once accepted are there until adult, and some have returned from uni to work there themselves, so 20+ years in some cases, and there is n't a single teenager there who hasn't been a permenant resident or associate for 10+ years.

many children's homes do work with the whole family to reunite them, and provide a safety net if parents can't cope or provide for their child, many families have only survived due to the services of children's homes. Again, I suggest you look at sos children's villages.

And as for being abandoned, we would consider our commitment to the children in the home to be permanent. We are saving up for my fourth and my DCs third visit, and we correspond regularly.

I am sure there are bad examples, but there are also great examples. Jut because it is a children's home does not mean it is bad, and for those children it is the best possible of their very limited options.

just to be clear, I am talking about two different places, the school, where I take British school children, and the children's home where I take my DC.