often cities' homelessness departments are prime locations for employing cronies and operatives
Yeah, that is kinda the dirty little secret of the homelessness "industry". Take Shelter, by far the most well known homelessness charity in the UK. Do they actually run hostels and soup kitchens? Well, actually, and this comes as a surprise to most people, they don't. They just transfer money from their donors to "think-tanks" and well-paid consultants. It's a huge racket, but since they have glommed onto a "worthy cause" they're untouchable.
That's just not true. As you can see from their independently audited annual report most of the money they raise is spend on giving housing advice to people in trouble:
Actual housing, or housing advice? If I'm reading this right, they spent 355,000 on direct housing aid and grants, versus 5,400,000 on "fundraising costs". They also combined legal and housing services on the pie chart to make it look better.
There is a line item for "housing services" which cost 21M and employs 441 people. But I can't find where they explain what all that money went to. It can't be housing aid because that's a separate line item. It's odd that they detail exactly where the 355K went to, but not the 21M.
It's reasonable to assume the 21M is salaries for 441 people. So to a first approximation, this organization doesn't actually give out anything except advice. Their second key goal is "To make monies available to housing associations", but I only see some token grants, dwarfed by their advertising budget.
That may all be well and good and necessary and proper for the situation in the UK, eg they lobby for govt funds that go direct to housing assocs. I don't know enough about it. But if their public image is of an organization that runs soup kitchens and provides housing, it's not supported by this report.
No, they don't claim to run soup kitchens or housing for the homeless. They are an organisation that gives out housing advice and lobby local and national government on housing issues for the poor. And, yes, they employ lawyers.
However the UK Government's 2009/10 social housing budget was £3.3bn. £50m is a drop in the ocean in this sector.
I suspected there was a wrinkle I was missing. So what might be the root of gaius's claim about their public image? Do they run a lot of adverts implying something different?
I'm not too concerned about their size relative to the whole "homeless budget", but how much of their income is spent on direct benefit to the people they are chartered to help. I'm also concerned about their "implied accomplishments" versus their actual accomplishments,ie image vs reality.
From what I can tell, about 60% of their income goes to the salaries of front-line people (legal and housing advice). 28% went to operational expenses (fundraising and "shelter shops"). The rest is advertising and paperwork.
I have a friend who is a lawyer that works largely giving in the housing-benefit sector, and I can tell you she is anything but well-paid.
For people struggling to get by, getting legal aid to prevent them losing their house is priceless. They cannot afford to pay a lawyer, so that kind of donation to pay for one is incredibly important to them.
Yeah, that is kinda the dirty little secret of the homelessness "industry". Take Shelter, by far the most well known homelessness charity in the UK. Do they actually run hostels and soup kitchens? Well, actually, and this comes as a surprise to most people, they don't. They just transfer money from their donors to "think-tanks" and well-paid consultants. It's a huge racket, but since they have glommed onto a "worthy cause" they're untouchable.