UK media investigation a few years ago into the Salvos, found that only 14% of the contributions they receive go towards their "Welfare" efforts.

John: Fyi

http://www.the-gcac.com/abusedocs/Mullighan-Inquiry-in-Children-in-State-Care.pdf

http://www.clan.org.au/page.php?pageID=229

Kipp - UK media investigation a few years ago into the Salvos, found that only 14% of the contributions they receive go towards their "Welfare" efforts.

I'd be surprised if as much as 14% went where its supposed to go, but just maybe that figure is correct. Certainly the figures I've been able to dredge up for comparable entities don't tell a particularly flattering story about major charities. My personal experience with a number of smaller entities that don't attract direct gubmunt handouts is better, however an associate tells me she has encountered significant issues with non-funded operations too. I guess its just human nature, give someone enough opportunity and there is no telling what they will do with it.

Dale has it ever occurred that we give charities exactly what we believe they are worth.

Has it then occurred to you we are really pi55ed off that governments at all levels then second guess us, & give far too much more of our tax money to these less than worthwhile mob.

Has it further occurred we hate even more those charities paying with our tax money, management consultants such as your self, ridiculously large fees to try to find for them, strategies to help them extract even more of our taxes from a gullible government.

Could you ever understand how disgusting it is to many of us that you, a management consultant, doing no chartable work, should be on the board of the, Victorian Council of Social Service. A more self serving mob than them, you are unlikely to find on a 10 day route march, so I guess you would fit in well.

At best you are a lobbyist, at worst a leach drawing blood not meant for you, from the system.

I suggest you would be best advised to keep your presence very discrete, lest the public start to complain very loudly about you, & others like you bleeding the system.

Some help to people is best carried out by the wonderful volunteers who do it, applying the donations of charitable donors (often themselves in straitened circumstances).

Other is best done by governments. That includes research, but charity after charity, desperate for more research into this or that ongoing medical tragedy (heart research, cancer research, epilepsy research, asbestosis research . . . the list is long), needs (often poor) people’s money.

When you kick in for research the word quickly goes round and you cop a constant stream of phone calls. It adds up quickly to unaffordable levels. Here is what I have done in self-defence:

1. Figured out what I can afford and set up a monthly direct debit for organisations like the Red Cross, the Salvos etc. whose work is one to one with people who need a hand.

2. Every time someone rings for a donation for research, recommend to the caller the following sequence:

#First, apply to NH&MRC (National Health and Medical Research Council).

#Second, if knocked back, ask the Department of Defence to peel off one of the F35 strike fighters ordered from the US military industrial complex to power Australian participation in US colonial wars ($122.5 million a pop, and an extra $22 million if we want an engine included) - and to fund the research instead.

#Third, take full page ads in The Australian telling what you sought and why, and how you are being refused by NHMRC and “Defence” and why they should cough up. Ring up regular present and past donors to help fund the ads. That’s something I would gladly kick in for.

Seems a growing number of sheeple have twigged to the fact that donations don't necessarily get to where they are supposed to, no doubt the fatcats at the top of the charitable institutions will be burning the midnight oil in search of new and innovative cons with which to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple. We can't trust our elected representatives to sort out the mess, in all probability they are on the take anyway. The worst part of this is that 'legitimate' charities are probably disadvantaged by the misdeeds of their less reputable brethren.