Charity door knockers threaten to rape Perth residents

[Graham2001]

MSN: Charity Door Knockers Threaten to Rape Perth Residents

A group of door knockers working for charity have allegedly threatened to gang-rape a female neighbour when they were turned away from a Byford property on Monday evening.

The group have attended a number of Byford and Mundijong properties over the last week and have claimed to fundraise for Oxfam.

This is not good for Oxfam's image in Western Australia, while they say that the people involved work for a company called Global Interactive, I would have thought one or both would have used police checks on people involved in things like this.

 

[Nessie]

Phew! The other Perth.

 

[Darat]

MSN: Charity Door Knockers Threaten to Rape Perth Residents





This is not good for Oxfam's image in Western Australia, while they say that the people involved work for a company called Global Interactive, I would have thought one or both would have used police checks on people involved in things like this.

How do you know they don't?

 

[cullennz]

I think with Oxfam's recent cases of their staff committing child abuse and losing 500K a year in fraud, this isn't exactly surprising

 

[ddt]

MSN: Charity Door Knockers Threaten to Rape Perth Residents

This is not good for Oxfam's image in Western Australia, while they say that the people involved work for a company called Global Interactive, I would have thought one or both would have used police checks on people involved in things like this.

What surprises me is that Oxfam hires another company to do the door-to-door fundraising. Are these fundraisers volunteers or paid employees?

 

[Graham2001]

What surprises me is that Oxfam hires another company to do the door-to-door fundraising. Are these fundraisers volunteers or paid employees?

Same here, but then I realized that Charity is a big business, why else do you think the Sea Sheperds have their own Reality TV show and charity Op shops are re-inventing themselves as 'vintage clothing boutiques', donations no longer cover all the bills.

 

[The Atheist]

What surprises me is that Oxfam hires another company to do the door-to-door fundraising. Are these fundraisers volunteers or paid employees?

Almost all cold-call fundraising is done by contractors rather than the organisation itself. The logistics of having teams of people for short terms doesn't fit charities' ability in almost all cases.

Door-to-door and phone calling are much better done by a third party that specialises in those jobs. They have dedicated teams that just switch product every few weeks/months.

The case in Perth is obviously an extreme example and not reflective of the vast majority of collectors.

Few barrels have no rotten apples.

 

[ddt]

Almost all cold-call fundraising is done by contractors rather than the organisation itself. The logistics of having teams of people for short terms doesn't fit charities' ability in almost all cases.

Door-to-door and phone calling are much better done by a third party that specialises in those jobs. They have dedicated teams that just switch product every few weeks/months.

The case in Perth is obviously an extreme example and not reflective of the vast majority of collectors.

Few barrels have no rotten apples.

Oh, I understand those are rotten apples.

But going door-to-door seems to me not worth the investment for one-off donations. I obviously don't know the tradition in Australia, and how much people are willing to give at the door.

Here in the Netherlands there is a tradition of volunteers going door to door with a collection box for collecting (small) donations. People typically give 1 or 2 euro, but it can range from really only some copper coins amounting to cents to 20 euro banknotes. My own experience is that I collect in a week a few hundred euros each year for Amnesty. And the whole organization of door-knockers, coordinators at city ward level, at city level etc. are volunteers. If people had to be paid for that, it would cost money instead of raise it.

Due to the slow disappearance of loose change, this year there was a pilot with new collection boxes that also contained a payment terminal for debit cards.

Some charities here indeed also use telemarketing, but they solicit recurring donations, asking you for an authorization to withdraw weekly or monthly payments from your bank account. And some, lately, also have employed door-to-door knockers with a tablet rather than a collection box for the same thing, who work on a commission basis.

 

[Darat]

Oh, I understand those are rotten apples.

But going door-to-door seems to me not worth the investment for one-off donations. I obviously don't know the tradition in Australia, and how much people are willing to give at the door.

Here in the Netherlands there is a tradition of volunteers going door to door with a collection box for collecting (small) donations. People typically give 1 or 2 euro, but it can range from really only some copper coins amounting to cents to 20 euro banknotes. My own experience is that I collect in a week a few hundred euros each year for Amnesty. And the whole organization of door-knockers, coordinators at city ward level, at city level etc. are volunteers. If people had to be paid for that, it would cost money instead of raise it.

Due to the slow disappearance of loose change, this year there was a pilot with new collection boxes that also contained a payment terminal for debit cards.

Some charities here indeed also use telemarketing, but they solicit recurring donations, asking you for an authorization to withdraw weekly or monthly payments from your bank account. And some, lately, also have employed door-to-door knockers with a tablet rather than a collection box for the same thing, who work on a commission basis.

In the UK the doorstepers try to get you to sign up for a direct debit (regular payment from your bank account), it's not usually a collection tin being shoved under people's noses and from what I've quickly looked up it's the same in Australia.

 

[Information Analyst]

What surprises me is that Oxfam hires another company to do the door-to-door fundraising. Are these fundraisers volunteers or paid employees?

In the UK charities contract out a lot of collecting activities. People standing in the street or other public places with collection boxes/buckets will often be unpaid volunteers, but people standing in the street aggressively trying to get people to sign up to automatic regular payments will usually be employed, usually through a third party company.

 

[cullennz]

Just a pointless anecdote

When I was living in London on my OE one of the flats I had was in a street of houses that were all elderly people

We had a spell of about 2 months when different pairs of teenagers came knocking on all the houses and pressuring the elderly people to donate towards their "teacher" who had cancer, or another invented charity. Wanting cash or people's accounts to set up hard to stop direct debits

They all ended up at mine on the way through and obviously got a different reaction

It stopped fairly quick after that.

But it taught me that you need to be wary about even charity people sometimes

Pretty sad really

 

[ddt]

In the UK the doorstepers try to get you to sign up for a direct debit (regular payment from your bank account), it's not usually a collection tin being shoved under people's noses and from what I've quickly looked up it's the same in Australia.

In the UK charities contract out a lot of collecting activities. People standing in the street or other public places with collection boxes/buckets will often be unpaid volunteers, but people standing in the street aggressively trying to get people to sign up to automatic regular payments will usually be employed, usually through a third party company.

Yeah, for regular recurring payments, it makes sense to hire people.

 

[catsmate]

In the UK charities contract out a lot of collecting activities. People standing in the street or other public places with collection boxes/buckets will often be unpaid volunteers, but people standing in the street aggressively trying to get people to sign up to automatic regular payments will usually be employed, usually through a third party company.

One which pays a small percentage of the monies collected to the charity. And will cheerfully sell your personal details to absolutely anyone with the money.
Also unlikely to be very careful with said personal data.
Never fall for chuggers.

 

[The Atheist]

I love bad anecdotes about charity - it salves the conscience of people who don't like giving to charity, so it's nice to see the usual suspects coming out for play.

One which pays a small percentage of the monies collected to the charity.

Utter nonsense.

The average amount paid by contracting charitable collectors is 60% of gross income, which is perfectly reasonable given wages & overheads come out of it.

Yes, there have been instances of some companies not playing the game, but find me a completely clean industry and I'll show you a bunch of liars.

I find it amusing how the GFC cost trillions of dollars, yet nobody boycotted the banks that caused it, and I don't see many complaints that scumbag banks charge charities the same as profit-making businesses for the payments through credit cards.

And will cheerfully sell your personal details to absolutely anyone with the money.

Another outstanding urban legend with no evidence at all to support it.

The vast majority of companies involved in charity work have very high ethics and don't sell their information at any price. It would be valuable information, too, because it would highlight people with excess money.

Your statement is complete fabrication.

I trust you cried long and hard about Farcebook/Cambridge Analytica.

Also unlikely to be very careful with said personal data.

Another completely false statement.

How many hacks have their been of these companies - especially compared to Ashley Madison, Uber, et al?

Never fall for chuggers.

Or, to paraphrase "Never give money to someone more deserving than yourself."

 

[rjh01]

If you want to give to a charity then the best idea is to give directly to a charity. You can go to their website and follow the directions you find there. That way over 96% (more like 98%) of the money goes to the charity and the balance is bank fees. Or directly pay it into their bank account. Ask them how to do this.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Whatever happened to the days of Charities asking Service Clubs, such as Lions and Rotary, to help them out with the door to door collections.

 

[psionl0]

I love bad anecdotes about charity - it salves the conscience of people who don't like giving to charity, so it's nice to see the usual suspects coming out for play.

What I don't like about charitable collection businesses is that they all expect you to commit to a series of regular payments (by direct debit no less). Offer a one-off donation and they run.

If you want to give to a charity then the best idea is to give directly to a charity.

Spot on.

 

[Darat]

Whatever happened to the days of Charities asking Service Clubs, such as Lions and Rotary, to help them out with the door to door collections.

They fundraise for themselves.

 

[Darat]

What I don't like about charitable collection businesses is that they all expect you to commit to a series of regular payments (by direct debit no less). Offer a one-off donation and they run.


Spot on. [emoji106]

I've never had a charity run from a donation whether a one off or a regular payment.

 

[psionl0]

I've never had a charity run from a donation whether a one off or a regular payment.

They don't. But the businesses they employ do.

 

[Puppycow]

Here in the Netherlands there is a tradition of volunteers going door to door with a collection box for collecting (small) donations. People typically give 1 or 2 euro, but it can range from really only some copper coins amounting to cents to 20 euro banknotes. My own experience is that I collect in a week a few hundred euros each year for Amnesty. And the whole organization of door-knockers, coordinators at city ward level, at city level etc. are volunteers. If people had to be paid for that, it would cost money instead of raise it.

How does one know that the person doing the collecting is truly going to hand over the money?

We live in a world these days where some people have figured out that they can make a living by scamming people who believe that they are giving to charity.

Veterans Charity Raises Millions to Help Those Who’ve Served. But Telemarketers Are Pocketing Most of It.

Above the law: America's worst charities

And they claim it's "not-for-profit."

 

[The Atheist]

How does one know that the person doing the collecting is truly going to hand over the money?

Genuine charitable collectors will have photo ID.

We live in a world these days where some people have figured out that they can make a living by scamming people who believe that they are giving to charity.

We also live in a world where people have figured out that they can make a living by stealing/selling drugs/illegal gambling/prostitution/fraud.

Veterans Charity Raises Millions to Help Those Who’ve Served. But Telemarketers Are Pocketing Most of It.

Not representative of general charitable collection companies, as evinced by the fact it's under investigation.

If there's a fault, it's lack of oversight by IRS & registration bodies. Do you blame banks for frauds perpetrated by ATM skimmers?

It quite fascinates me how fast people are to blame charity for frauds perpetrated in their name. Must say something about attitudes to charity.

Above the law: America's worst charities

And they claim it's "not-for-profit."

I haven't bothered looking - was JREF on that list?

Under US laws, it was classified as a charity, yet my investigation of their finances a few years ago showed that their spending on actual education was about 0.1%, while it paid Randi over $300k a year.

Bad people are everywhere.

 

[psionl0]

It quite fascinates me how fast people are to blame charity for frauds perpetrated in their name.

If it is a business then it is not a charity.

Many charities are quite happy to allow people to believe that they are giving donations directly to the charity when they are actually giving money to a for profit business instead.

 

[The Atheist]

If it is a business then it is not a charity.

Correct - the charity contracts to a business.

Many charities are quite happy to allow people to believe that they are giving donations directly to the charity when they are actually giving money to a for profit business instead.

Except that's not what's happening - people are giving to the charity, but it's being collected by a for-profit company.

Back in the '70s, when charities were able to rely on volunteers to do their collections for them, this wasn't an issue. Roll forward 40 years, and the volunteers just aren't there. The charities have a choice - fold up, or be commercially aware.

The other point is that ordinary charities are also at a disadvantage to religious charities, because they have to pay land rates/taxes that churches don't.

The other side of this coin is as Darat said - no charity will turn your money down. If charitable giving is what someone is after, they can easily approach the charity direct and give money.

Cold collectors are after the same impulse dollar that telemarketers seek.

 

[quadraginta]

Correct - the charity contracts to a business.



Except that's not what's happening - people are giving to the charity, but it's being collected by a for-profit company.

Back in the '70s, when charities were able to rely on volunteers to do their collections for them, this wasn't an issue. Roll forward 40 years, and the volunteers just aren't there. The charities have a choice - fold up, or be commercially aware.

<snip>

Back in the '70s (1977, to be exact) I spent a month or two working for a statewide non-profit charity group which at the time was (among other things) lobbying for a tenants' rights bill. We were not volunteers.

The group had an in-house door-to-door team which was run by one of the few full-time salaried staff. (His background and title was Marketing Director.) We were all paid. (Not much.) The work was seen as too time consuming for volunteers to be properly trained and useful. We pitched the bill, and then solicited donations. These were virtually the only paid positions. Even most of the rest of the management structure were volunteers.

 

[psionl0]

Except that's not what's happening - people are giving to the charity, but it's being collected by a for-profit company.

No, they are giving the money to the for profit company and the for profit company gives some of its profits to the charity. It is essentially an arms length operation but neither the charity nor the for profit company are telling anybody this.

 

[ddt]

How does one know that the person doing the collecting is truly going to hand over the money?

We live in a world these days where some people have figured out that they can make a living by scamming people who believe that they are giving to charity.

That's a multi-faceted question.

As for the Netherlands, where door-to-door collecting has a long tradition, my impression is that the biggest problem is people trying to collect for non-existing charities. Charities need a permit to collect, from the town, and the 25 charities that do this nationally coordinate and set up a schedule who gets to collect which week. Door knockers get a (non-photo) ID, and occasionally, people ask me to show it. The collection boxes are also sealed (a seal running through the hole on the left in this photo), so the door knocker themselves can't access what's inside.

As for internally within the charity, my ward coordinator asks all door knocker to hand in the boxes on Sunday or Monday; then the seal is broken, the money is counted and the ward coordinator administers it all on a long list, which she in turn has to hand in with a coordinator higher-up, and I get to sign for it too, and get a receipt of the amount I collected.

It's all certainly not water-tight; the photo above is from an article in a local paper that warned about imposters who posed as door knockers for a bona fide charity, so scams happen. But as scams go, it's not impressive. A collection box full of coin contains about 300 euros, and is quite heavy.

 

[Darat]

No, they are giving the money to the for profit company and the for profit company gives some of its profits to the charity. It is essentially an arms length operation but neither the charity nor the for profit company are telling anybody this.

In the UK that would apply to pretty much only licensed products or joint campaigns and then there has to be a declaration of how much goes to the charity. So a company selling bottled water may run a campaign alongside Save the Children to get safe wells dug in water poor areas and again it has tpo be clearly stated what terms apply.

 

[The Atheist]

No, they are giving the money to the for profit company and the for profit company gives some of its profits to the charity. It is essentially an arms length operation but neither the charity nor the for profit company are telling anybody this.

Yes, you do keep repeating that point, which shows a distinct lack of appreciation of the economics of both charity and direct marketing.

As your knowledge of both areas is so light, and mine so vast, I'm happy to point out the blindingly obvious to you.

The success rate of all direct marketing is terrible. This is one of the reasons why it's hard to find good direct sellers, and why the turnover of staff is astronomical. It's a job where rejection is a matter of course, and given that most humans aren't turned on by having 50 doors in a row slammed in their face, or 50 calls abruptly hung up, they're going to fail fast. It is soul-destroying work.

As well as the success rate going down, the time taken would go up, reducing income of the workers, and consequently, the amount the charity receives.

Not only is the success rate terrible, there is a very small time window to make your point and close a sale. Adding in an entirely unnecessary step will reduce the success rate, and it is entirely unnecessary. No regulatory body has ever suggested it should be mandatory, and the charities - who, by their very nature are at generally pretty ethical - use it because it works for them.

Really, most people don't care - if they did, they would find out from the public information I've already mentioned - and the fact that a few charity-averse people use your exact, tired questions time after time, is just a convenient conscience salve.

 

[psionl0]

As your knowledge of both areas is so light . . . .

That illustrates the point that you refuse to acknowledge. These businesses rely on the public naively believing that most of their money is going direct to the charity and not towards funding a profit for the business concerned.

Here, collectors are not required to reveal who they are employed by nor how much of the money you commit to will actually get to the charity concerned. If they were then you could be sure that the business model would fall flat.

Really, most people don't care - if they did, they would find out from the public information I've already mentioned - and the fact that a few charity-averse people use your exact, tired questions time after time, is just a convenient conscience salve.

I'm glad to see that you have allowed so many collectors to direct debit your bank account.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm glad to see that you have allowed so many collectors to direct debit your bank account.

That's not how it works.

I decide how much I'm going to give, then give that amount with no middle-men required.

I'm guessing you don't.

 

[catsmate]

I've snipped most of the irrelevant drivel.

I love bad anecdotes about charity - it salves the conscience of people who don't like giving to charity, so it's nice to see the usual suspects coming out for play.

I do donate; money, goods and my time and skills. Probably more than you I suspect.

The average amount paid by contracting charitable collectors is 60% of gross income, which is perfectly reasonable given wages & overheads come out of it.

While this is the party line by the organisations of such companies it's impossible to verify as most of the charities employing chugging firms have declined to provide data, e.g. to the BBC Newsnight investigation.

Secondly your idea of "perfectly reasonable" may not be that of other people.

Yes, there have been instances of some companies not playing the game, but find me a completely clean industry and I'll show you a bunch of liars.

Ah, "No True Chugger". Should I bring up Tag Campaigns?

The vast majority of companies involved in charity work have very high ethics and don't sell their information at any price. It would be valuable information, too, because it would highlight people with excess money.

You might want to talk to (for example) the ODPC in Ireland who warned Concern (amongst others) for doing just this, selling their lists to several financial institutions. They were warned that their charitable status was in danger.

Another completely false statement.

Ehhh, no. You must be ignorant of the fines and warnings meted out to (for example in the UK): The International Fund for Animal Welfare, Cancer Support UK, Cancer Research UK, The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Macmillan Cancer Support, The Royal British Legion, The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, WWF-UK, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Oxfam for a whole range of dubious and illegal practices such as:

• unauthorised data sharing
• sending records to wealth screening companies
• searching out unauthorised personal data
• breaches of the TPS rules
• wealth profiling (this involves further, unauthorised, data gathering and matching to discover particularly suitable victims)

How many hacks have their been of these companies - especially compared to Ashley Madison, Uber, et al?

Ah, now it's "Tu quoque".
Maybe the next time you encounter a chugger you request them to provide their DP compliance statement and practices. It's a really fast way to get rid of them.
Oh and ask them who their employer is, most of them still pretend to work directly for the charity.

BTW, given you appear to be woefully ignorant of proper DP practices, it's not just down to "hacking" (a far overused buzzword often bandied about by the ignorant). It's good data management practices; securing data on paper is also important (like not leaving clipboards with donor's personal data on public transport eh? Or seats, fast food outlets, flower feature et cetera). Not hiring people with criminal records for fraud.
Little things like that.

Or, to paraphrase "Never give money to someone more deserving than yourself."

And finally it's personal attacks. Classy as usual.


Give that TA seems so interested in this topic here are a few questions I suggest you ask the next chugger you encounter. (No not "Why won't you get out of my way?" or "Why don't you get a real job?").

• Who is your employer?
• Can I see a statement of the data protection practices of your employer and your charity customer?
  Note: If they can't supply this ask for their name (and, if refused, take their picture, and report them to the ODPC or IC or whomever is responsible for DP enforcement in your country.
• How much did your charity spend last year?
• Give me some examples – case studies if you like – of projects where your charity has made a real difference?
• What are your charity’s current cash reserves?
• Give me a estimated figure of what your charity spent on administration last year, and what percentage of donations did this make up?
• What are the salaries of your charity’s senior management?

Take notes.

 

[The Atheist]

I do donate; money, goods and my time and skills. Probably more than you I suspect.

I'll take that bet any day of the week.

Ehhh, no. You must be ignorant of the fines and warnings meted out to (for example in the UK):

No, I'm not. It's a small percentage of charities, and the fact that charges have been laid shows there is oversight. People able to think rationally would see this as a good thing rather than using it negatively against charities.

Ah, now it's "Tu quoque".

You need to brush up your logical fallacies as well.

BTW, given you appear to be woefully ignorant of proper DP practices, it's not just down to "hacking"...

Nah, I think it's more your cherry picking of one point of many.

The reason I mentioned hacking is because the information would be a lot more valuable than Ashley Madison, Yahoo or Tinder.

It's good data management practices; securing data on paper is also important (like not leaving clipboards with donor's personal data on public transport eh? Or seats, fast food outlets, flower feature et cetera). Not hiring people with criminal records for fraud.
Little things like that.

And what percentage of fails does charity have against other industries that hold critical information?

Seems like you're content to point the finger in only one direction.

And finally it's personal attacks.

No, it's what almost all anti-charity attacks are - especially those like yours which cherry-picks information and never offers a comparison on charitable issues against those companies which hold similar information.

Give that TA seems so interested in this topic here are a few questions I suggest you ask the next chugger you encounter. (No not "Why won't you get out of my way?" or "Why don't you get a real job?").

Mr Nice Guy, I see...