Prince Harry's charities and patronages

[Skydragon]

In 2007, the charity Sentebale raised £1.15 million but donations fell to only £250,000 last year - and the charity had to spend the equivalent of a quarter of that, £62,000, to raise it in the first plac

Donations to Prince Harry's African charity fall 84 per cent - Telegraph

[Ella Kay]

Thanks for the link, Skydragon. The 2007 figures would include the money from the Concert for Diana, right? Perhaps that may have inflated the 2007 total a bit.

And so many charitable organizations are struggling right now -- it's hard to get people to donate when the global economy is in such a pickle.

[Enigma]

i'm not a big fan of british royalty specially p.harry, or maybe because of p.harry that i am not a big fan, but it's good to know that he knows something about charity work other than partying, nail polishing or making apologies. i was a little surprised to know about his involvement in charities and found his pictures with children quite interesting, still i favor p.william on him.

[Nitefeatherz]

EVERYTHING in the economy is struggling Why is it so surprising that donations fell so much? Everyone is tightening up their belts. That means less giving to strangers who are probably more than half a world away and keeping that money at home where it's needed.

[susan alicia]

Prince Harry's charity 'pulls the plug' on African orphans | Mail Online

this should have been avoided at all costs, his father could have made up the difference. You just can not take photo shoots that make you look like a nice guy and then not follow through.

[Idriel]

^Harry is a figure head for the charity, and his job is to bring publicity and attract donnors, not to supervise how the money is managed (job he wouldn't be qualified for anyways). He isn't part of the administrative board or executive team that has seemingly wasted funds.

He also has most definitely followed through on his commitment to the charity, raising funds through polo matches, a documentary and the Diana concert.
As for the less glamorous aspects, he went last year for around a month to improve and expend the premises facilities, without photographers in tow. Before that, he made a private visit and brought the children to the circus, again without photographers.

I understand he is the face of the charity so it is easier to blame him, but in this case he cannot be held accountable for other people's incompetence (if that is the case here). He has fulfilled his part of the bargain.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Idriel

^Harry is a figure head for the charity, and his job is to bring publicity and attract donnors, not to supervise how the money is managed (job he wouldn't be qualified for anyways). He isn't part of the administrative board or executive team that has seemingly wasted funds.

He also has most definitely followed through on his commitment to the charity, raising funds through polo matches, a documentary and the Diana concert.
As for the less glamorous aspects, he went last year for around a month to improve and expend the premises facilities, without photographers in tow. Before that, he made a private visit and brought the children to the circus, again without photographers.

I understand he is the face of the charity so it is easier to blame him, but in this case he cannot be held accountable for other people's incompetence (if that is the case here). He has fulfilled his part of the bargain.

To a certain extent that is correct but he set up the charity so his responsibility does go deeper than that. He really must be keeping better tabs on where the money is going.

Had he simply taken on the role of President/Patron of an existing charity (which his mother did) then I would agree with you.

He chose to set this one up and therefore he must take a more active role in checking into things (or ensure that competant people are in place to do so).

In this case he needs to be as hands-on as his father is in the Prince's Trust, where Charles has always taken an interest in the entire process rather than follow his mother's less hands on involvement in her charities where she was the face but not the founder, probably for this very reason - she realised that to start her own charity would take a lot of her time and, she may have realised that she was not capable of doing the job right. I am not criticising Diana, but acknowledging that her abilities didn't extend to setting up and overseeing a new charity but rather in being the face of many existing charities.

This is at least the second time that this sort of story has broken about this charity so I wonder if this is a repeat of the story or whether, the problem that surfaced earlier hasn't been resolved, making Harry look even more behind the times as he should have sought expert advice to fix the problem when the story first broke some time ago.

I never really understood why he needed to set up a new charity when there were so many existing ones doing similar work as each charity needs to spend a large percentage of its income in administration and paying the actual employees making it much harder to get a new fund off the ground. Had he approached say, Auntie Anne, and asked to establish an offshort of Save the Children, specifically for Lesotho, I am sure that it would have been more successful than this seems to be and unfortunately Harry will wear the negative consequences for some time.

[susan alicia]

Harry (the firms he employs to check the business side he perhaps does not understand) is in my opinion most certainly accountable for the actions of his charity.

Originally Posted by Idriel

^Harry is a figure head for the charity, and his job is to bring publicity and attract donnors, not to supervise how the money is managed (job he wouldn't be qualified for anyways). He isn't part of the administrative board or executive team that has seemingly wasted funds.

He also has most definitely followed through on his commitment to the charity, raising funds through polo matches, a documentary and the Diana concert.
As for the less glamorous aspects, he went last year for around a month to improve and expend the premises facilities, without photographers in tow. Before that, he made a private visit and brought the children to the circus, again without photographers.

I understand he is the face of the charity so it is easier to blame him, but in this case he cannot be held accountable for other people's incompetence (if that is the case here). He has fulfilled his part of the bargain.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

This is at least the second time that this sort of story has broken about this charity so I wonder if this is a repeat of the story or whether, the problem that surfaced earlier hasn't been resolved, making Harry look even more behind the times as he should have sought expert advice to fix the problem when the story first broke some time ago..

To my memory this is the third story of its kind, and they all involve the same organisation. Once again, the trustees of Sentebale have refused to supply funds because the charity, again, has failed to provide full financial details. Quote from the article: "'Sentebale no longer has confidence that the current arrangements are working. Miss Martin confirmed last night that funds had been halted because of a lack of accountability."

As with the last time this story was aired (six months ago?) the same emotional blackmail was tried: "children starve while Harry's charity dithers". No responsible trustee will hand over money to organisations which refuse to comply with financial accountability requirements. It's pretty basic.

Harry cannot "fix the problem". The problem lies with the African organisation which has had over twelve months to clarify their financial affairs. As they have not done so, or more correctly refuse to do so, Sentebale will not fund them.

[Charlotte1]

The article itself is emotive and not factually correct. The children at the LCCU are not orphans, it's not an orphanage but rather a shelter for children from abusive living situations. The children live at the home ( built by Sentebale and still made available to the LCCU) until a safe environment can be found with other family members. Sentebale have responded on their website to the article.

Daily Mail reports about Sentebale and the LCCU

Important to highlight are these sentences

The LCCU not only consistently failed to meet the terms of the Agreement but there were additional concerns such as some of the money being spent on private activities for the Manager, rather than the children

And

Sentebale will only fund organisations which are transparent, fully accountable and honest.

As Warren has already pointed out this is the 3rd time the manager at the LCCU has gone to the media basically to blackmail Sentebale into putting money in her account. The children aren't starving as Sentebale has seen that other charities who donate goods rather than money have donated food to the LCCU.
Sentebale has funded a number of projects in Lesotho all assisting vulnerable children and then require that the organisations be accountable for the money they are given. Sentebale also works as a liason for other charities to provide services in Lesotho.
The Daily Mail writing emotive and exploitative articles doesn't make them factual and neither Sentebale nor Prince Harry should be condemned on inaccurate stories.

[susan alicia]

Originally Posted by Warren

To my memory this is the third story of its kind, and they all involve the same organisation. Once again, the trustees of Sentebale have refused to supply funds because the charity, again, has failed to provide full financial details. Quote from the article: "'Sentebale no longer has confidence that the current arrangements are working. Miss Martin confirmed last night that funds had been halted because of a lack of accountability."

As with the last time this story was aired (six months ago?) the same emotional blackmail was tried: "children starve while Harry's charity dithers". No responsible trustee will hand over money to organisations which refuse to comply with financial accountability requirements. It's pretty basic.

Harry cannot "fix the problem". The problem lies with the African organisation which has had over twelve months to clarify their financial affairs. As they have not done so, or more correctly refuse to do so, Sentebale will not fund them.

I know about this problem, I am working with a charity for a hospital/school in Malawi. It takes ages for us to receive information about a schoolroom furnished. And we wait untill we are satisfied and then donate the funds for a next schoolroom (an example). Life is different in Africa.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

To a certain extent that is correct but he set up the charity so his responsibility does go deeper than that. He really must be keeping better tabs on where the money is going.

I don't think he has the time now to be more involved than as a figure head, since, unlike his father, he doesn't have a timetable that allows him to do so, yet.
I expect him to get involved in a more thorough manner as time goes on.

My understanding is that he set up the charity in memory of his mother, which is why he didn't associate himself with a already set up charity.
Harry is patron to a number of already established charities.

Originally Posted by susan alicia

Harry (the firms he employs to check the business side he perhaps does not understand) is in my opinion most certainly accountable for the actions of his charity.

Yes, to the extend that he is only a figure head and isn't involved into day to day activities. If there is the problem with management then it should be fixed but Harry himself doesn't have the power nor the qualification to fix up this things. He isn't the one who conduct job interviews and hire people.
Blaming him because other people are doing their job poorly is really low, imo.
In any case, as Warren pointed out, the problem doesn't lie with Sentebale but with its partner.

Originally Posted by susan alicia

[/color]I know about this problem, I am working with a charity for a hospital/school in Malawi. It takes ages for us to receive information about a schoolroom furnished. And we wait until we are satisfied and then donate the funds for a next schoolroom (an example). Life is different in Africa.

Then you can certainly agree that he position of Sentebale is the correct one.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Warren

To my memory this is the third story of its kind, and they all involve the same organisation. Once again, the trustees of Sentebale have refused to supply funds because the charity, again, has failed to provide full financial details. Quote from the article: "'Sentebale no longer has confidence that the current arrangements are working. Miss Martin confirmed last night that funds had been halted because of a lack of accountability."

As with the last time this story was aired (six months ago?) the same emotional blackmail was tried: "children starve while Harry's charity dithers". No responsible trustee will hand over money to organisations which refuse to comply with financial accountability requirements. It's pretty basic.

Harry cannot "fix the problem". The problem lies with the African organisation which has had over twelve months to clarify their financial affairs. As they have not done so, or more correctly refuse to do so, Sentebale will not fund them.

Thank you for that information.

It seems that the charity is on top of things which means that more publicity needs to be made about that fact rather than continue to hound Harry.

Originally Posted by Idriel

I don't think he has the time now to be more involved than as a figure head, since, unlike his father, he doesn't have a timetable that allows him to do so, yet.
I expect him to get involved in a more thorough manner as time goes on.

If he didn't have the time to devote to do the job properly then the timing of the setting up was wrong.

He should have realised that setting up a charity involved far more than being a figurehead and therefore would need a lot more of his time, at the beginning, rather than later on.

[Nitefeatherz]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

If he didn't have the time to devote to do the job properly then the timing of the setting up was wrong.

He should have realised that setting up a charity involved far more than being a figurehead and therefore would need a lot more of his time, at the beginning, rather than later on.

He's young and NOTHING is ever going to go perfectly. Sometimes even with the best of intentions things don't go as planned. Rather than trying to fault Harry for what he DIDN'T do we should at least give him credit for trying even if the charity doesn't do as well as expected. If it brings in even a LITTLE more money for a previously unknown cause it is worth it.

[Idriel]

I have come to the conclusion that whatever Harry does he will be trashed for it.
That he should be criticised for setting up a charity, raising money for it, investing some of his own time to visit the kids and work on the facilities pro-bono just proves it.

At this point I am starting to think he should give up any attempt to do anything meaningful with his life and just get smashed in clubs every nights.

[Nitefeatherz]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

Prince Harry's charity 'pulls the plug' on African orphans | Mail Online

this should have been avoided at all costs, his father could have made up the difference. You just can not take photo shoots that make you look like a nice guy and then not follow through.

It might not be about 'following through.' I know if I were in his shoes and there were questions about where the money was going (to feed orphans vs. say, lining some guys pocket in which case, giving or NOT giving the money doesn't mean a thing to the oprhans,) then I would probably hesitate to send money until I knew what the situation was as well.

They blame the charity for blocking the money but couldn't the orphanage ALSO fix things by simply giving them the information they ask for or rectifying whatever mistake they made? There's so many corrupt organizations that claim to be 'charitable' out there that the orphanage really should have seen this coming- where the charity wants to know where the money is going and why. From what I've read it seems like they can't justify where the money is GOING. Who's to say then that the money didn't go to line someone's pockets? They can't justify where the money went as in, they don't know/can't/won't say.

As an orphanage keeping an itemized account of finances should be the first thing on their minds to know what is coming in and going out in terms of money. The whole thing seems fishy to me. They are accepting very large sums of money from Sentebale and are expecting even more and do not expect to have to account for the sums? The charity I'm sure would have made any expectations clear from the start so any requirements shouldn't be coming as a surprise to the orphanage.

The woman who runs the orphanage can claim all she wants that the money is going to 'feed the children.' I had a woman who ran a greyhound rescue I dealt with who swore all the donated funds were going to 'help the greyhounds.' A $50,000 new car, a $30,000 patio and a $20,000 kitchen later on a disability pension that averaged less than $30,000 a year later it became obvious it wasn't all going to 'help the greyhounds.'

[susan alicia]

Originally Posted by Nitefeatherz

It might not be about 'following through.' I know if I were in his shoes and there were questions about where the money was going (to feed orphans vs. say, lining some guys pocket in which case, giving or NOT giving the money doesn't mean a thing to the oprhans,) then I would probably hesitate to send money until I knew what the situation was as well.

They blame the charity for blocking the money but couldn't the orphanage ALSO fix things by simply giving them the information they ask for or rectifying whatever mistake they made? There's so many corrupt organizations that claim to be 'charitable' out there that the orphanage really should have seen this coming- where the charity wants to know where the money is going and why. From what I've read it seems like they can't justify where the money is GOING. Who's to say then that the money didn't go to line someone's pockets? They can't justify where the money went as in, they don't know/can't/won't say.

As an orphanage keeping an itemized account of finances should be the first thing on their minds to know what is coming in and going out in terms of money. The whole thing seems fishy to me. They are accepting very large sums of money from Sentebale and are expecting even more and do not expect to have to account for the sums? The charity I'm sure would have made any expectations clear from the start so any requirements shouldn't be coming as a surprise to the orphanage.

The woman who runs the orphanage can claim all she wants that the money is going to 'feed the children.' I had a woman who ran a greyhound rescue I dealt with who swore all the donated funds were going to 'help the greyhounds.' A $50,000 new car, a $30,000 patio and a $20,000 kitchen later on a disability pension that averaged less than $30,000 a year later it became obvious it wasn't all going to 'help the greyhounds.'

That is terrible when it happens. There seems to be a lot of corruption in Africa I read in the media but in our charity, in Malawi, we are sure it is not the case. Since I have never been to Africa (and it is such a big continent not all countries there are the same) I can not explain what is going on. (off topic but someone told me that he was at an African fishing harbor where the fishermen could not leave the harbour because there were big objects on the bottom of the sea blokking the way, the people were starving. He organised them to work together and clean the harbour and the problem was solved.

A way for the charity of Harry to organise things there is to have one of his own people in Africa to do the administration.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Nitefeatherz

It might not be about 'following through.' I know if I were in his shoes and there were questions about where the money was going (to feed orphans vs. say, lining some guys pocket in which case, giving or NOT giving the money doesn't mean a thing to the oprhans,) then I would probably hesitate to send money until I knew what the situation was as well.

They blame the charity for blocking the money but couldn't the orphanage ALSO fix things by simply giving them the information they ask for or rectifying whatever mistake they made? There's so many corrupt organizations that claim to be 'charitable' out there that the orphanage really should have seen this coming- where the charity wants to know where the money is going and why. From what I've read it seems like they can't justify where the money is GOING. Who's to say then that the money didn't go to line someone's pockets? They can't justify where the money went as in, they don't know/can't/won't say.

As an orphanage keeping an itemized account of finances should be the first thing on their minds to know what is coming in and going out in terms of '

The institution in this case is not an orphanage, that's part of The Daily Mail's inaccurate and emotive reporting. Get the public condemning Harry for allowing those poor orphans to starve. It's a refuge the children stay there for a limited time until other family members are found to care for the children.

A way for the charity of Harry to organise things there is to have one of his own people in Africa to do the administration

Sentebale does have its own staff and incountry administrator in Lesotho.

Another important point here it's not just Harry's charity. Sentebale is "The Princes Fund for Lesotho" princes plural, the other prince involved in the setting up and running of the charity is Prince Seeiso of Lesotho, second son of the previous King, his brother is the current king. It's just easier to trash Harry in the British press because they have never heard of Prince Seeiso, even though he lives in the UK as he's Lesotho's High Commisioner in London. Prince Seeiso will also be in New York and attending the fundraising Polo match for Sentebale.

Far more accurate information about Sentebale and the work it does is available from its website. It's a much better read than tabloid journalism!

www.sentebale.org

[Warren]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

A way for the charity of Harry to organise things there is to have one of his own people in Africa to do the administration.

That won't help if the African organisation refuses to allow Sentebale access to the books, which is the case here.

A quick review of developments...
October 2008:
"one reason for Sentebale’s delay was because it was not satisfied with Muso’s initial request for funding to be paid directly into her own bank account."
February 2009:
"an apparent unwillingness from the unit's management to give undertakings over the transparency of their financial procedures."
May 2009
"funds had been halted because of a lack of accountability."
.

[Skydragon]

I find it very sad that a charity launched by these young men has apparently failed to accomplish any of what it set out to do, namely - "Our mission is to transform the lives of Lesotho's orphans and vulnerable children.
Sentebale was founded by Prince Harry and Lesotho's Prince Seeiso to help the forgotten victims of poverty and of the HIV/Aids epidemic ravaging this kingdom".
Perhaps they should have given more thought on how to run a charity. The impression given after reading the available information from more than one source, (Sentabale is obviously only going to give it's own view, as are the LCCU), is one of infighting over who will be the controllers.

Professional Fundraising | Prince's charity rejects claims of desertion of African orphanage