The problem of good causes

Pages:
‹
1
2
›
All

Having worked in private and government organizations for quite some time, I have discovered the problem of noble causes is that there are far too many people who grab hold of a good cause idea and apply for either government funding or private donations, pay themselves massive salary as managers, fund their oversea trips, hire pretty secretaries and use what ever is left over for the causes which usually is less than 50%.

It is time, we demand transparencies and scrutinized where the money goes with government funds, especially in management salary, their oversea trips and their pretty assistants.

Posted by savestarfish, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:35:51 PM

I would like to see more whistleblowers.
Love them. Tremendous heros. Wonderful couragous men and women.
Governments and many organisations have become so complex they can no longer monitor who they are and what they do.
State governments are lost because of themselves.
Cops dont function...too much paper.
Defence chases its tail and nothing gets done as asian neighbours measure us up for invasion.
Paperwork mountains over everything.
Law is a wall-to-wall dense jungle...and all of the this out of the inital Ten Commandments carved on stone.
How could a world have gone so mad?

Posted by Gibo, Sunday, 13 July 2008 9:15:08 AM

savestarfish,

The same could apply to all sorts of Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) as well. When an aid organisation tells the public that x% of its donations go to the cause it was set up for, you'd like to believe it. But how much does it cost to pay for: the staff, the spokesperson (usually someone high profile), media, glossy brochures etc.

I was recently approached by a salesperson for such an NGO who said 88% of its budget was devoted to the actual cause (I had to actually raise the query before I got an answer). Now this is great if it's true, but who compiles the figures? if it's by the accountant at the NGO's office, the figure could be highly suspect.

So, a follow-on point I'd make is that the figures should be transparent and independently/accurately audited at arm's length by a third-party organisation.

Posted by RobP, Sunday, 13 July 2008 2:04:03 PM

I agree with what you said. May be NGOs and government should start making their salary structures, spendings and balance sheets available online.

Posted by savestarfish, Sunday, 13 July 2008 2:41:06 PM

Even a good cause cannot survive politics. I remember the case of one AusAid officer who refused to be silenced regarding the reason behind the withdrawal of funding from an East Timorese aid organisation. The funding was allegedley withdrawn because of that organisation's criticism over the Australian Government's maritime boundary negotiations.

A good thing would be to ask all the right sorts of questions when choosing between worthy causes to ensure that the larger share of funds is directed where it was intended.

Having worked in government on and off over the last 25 years there have been a number of government funded NGOs where the CEOs are paid huge salaries while the lower level staff are paid below the poverty line without penalty rates (charities are not covered by the same IR laws) and monies better directed to the cause are whittled down by admin costs.

Some might argue that at least some assistance is provided but ideally the larger share of funds raised, government or otherwise, should be targeted to fulfill the objectives of that group.

Posted by pelican, Sunday, 13 July 2008 2:49:49 PM

Dear ss,

I found an interesting website:

http://www.givewell.com.au/ethics_accountability.asp

"The Ethics of Accountability for Australian Charities,"
by Michael Walsh Givewell.

He asks:

"Do consumers want more controls, better disclosure and more accountability? Our market research has found that many individual
donors resist a businesslike approach to evaluating charities. They are also skeptical of anything which might unnecessarily add to charities' costs. Donors prefer to rely on trust, history and the messages conveyed in the mass media in deciding who they will support.
That said, their No. 1 concern is gaining assurance that their
donation is getting through to the cause and they will desert a charity 'en masse' is it is publicly shown to be wasting or rorting its funds."

The article tells us that there is a lack of standards for Australian charities which as Givewell explains could be due to the fact
that, "Many professionals work for charities on a 'pro bono basis.'
This work can attract a lower priority, less attention to detail and provide a training ground for less experienced professional staff.
This seems to be prevalent even though the legal and professional responsibilities are no less onerous."

He sums up, "...with greater accountability and transparency, charities can inform consumers more fully about their operations and in turn, one hopes, gain greater support for their missions."

Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:09:19 PM

All charities' funds should go into one pot, one bank account with a special number like Acc.no.666666666 :-)

(per organisation)
One accountant, paid 1% of total yearly received.(plus travel etc.)
one disperse person,paid 1% of total yearly received.(plus travel etc.)
one fund-raiser, paid 1% of total yearly received.(plus travel etc.)
All positions ought to be honourable and volunteering.

Multiple organisations should join together and a council of 12 directors (preferably the highest philanthropists)should sit and vote every month for final dispersing decisions.

Posted by eftfnc, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:14:15 AM

Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 10:25:29 AM

Pages:
‹
1
2
›
All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy