Would this make you think twice about giving to charity?

Sizzler

After reading about how good a place Concern was to work I decided to research it purely out of interest and came up with the below, the article is a year old admittedley but can't see the figures changing that much in that period.

The charities concerned do sterling work but ethically is it really right for their senior people to take home such an outrageous salary? Makes you wonder how much of your typical €10 donation actually goes to good causes...

wrote:

TWO of Ireland's leading charities have denied they are mis-spending donated money by paying their senior management fat cat salaries, insisting they are "value for money".

Away from the old image of ad-hoc charities, Goal and Concern are now operating internationally with multi-million-euro budgets with large staffs in Ireland, the UK and the US.

The denials come in the face of mounting questions over the practices of worldwide charities and the amounts of money involved, and particularly as the charities are operating in an unregulated market.

Since the advent of on-street fundraising, in which people agree to monthly contributions by direct debit, the budgets of such charities have soared. For example, last year alone Concern raised a staggering €122m.

Also, according to its latest figures, Goal raised so much money in 2005 that it was left with a whopping €16m surplus, leading to questions as to whether everything is in order in Irish charities.

The Sunday Independent has also learned that Concern, which delivers aid to over 30 countries, deliberately ran a budget deficit of €6m in 2006 and is expected to have a deficit of €15m this year, to reduce their substantial reserves which have fallen from a high of €50m to around €32m at the end of 2006.

On the salary front for example, Concern spent almost €13m on staffing costs alone and several of its key staff are on annual salaries in excess of €90,000. Chief Executive Tom Arnold is on a salary of just under €140,000, but insisted that he and others can justify their wages.

Mr Arnold is on secondment from the civil service and part of the deal to make him CEO was that his salary would mirror his civil service pay. Goal refused to disclose Mr O'Shea's salary but said he only became full-time CEO when the "workload became impossible to manage on a voluntary basis".

According to its annual report, Concern has just over 300 full-time staff but Mr Arnold insisted yesterday that the true number of employees around the world is closer to 4,000.

Speaking to the Sunday Independent, he said: "We have to pay the market rate to get top quality people. We need top people and if we weren't paying the going rate we wouldn't get them."

Jim Hynes, Concern's chief financial officer said, apart from Mr Arnold's salary, many of the other salaries are in fact behind the market rates. He said: "Many of our staff are on about €35,000 which is just about the average industrial wage."

On the reserves, Mr Hynes said: "We have to plan for long-term projects so we need to keep some money. However, because we get our money from the public, we can't be seen to be holding on to the money forever either. That's why we are running the deficits last year and this year."

In a statement to the Sunday Independent, Goal insisted that it is "lean and efficient organisation" which minimises its reliance on expensive expatriate staff. It said that its head office overhead costs never exceed 5 per cent of total expenditure.

Both Goal and Concern said that the monies in 2005 were much higher than normal because of the contributions made by the public in the wake of the Tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake.

Despite the high salaries being paid to their top people, they are minuscule to the kind of money being paid by the United Nations and Unicef to their top people. Many of the UN chiefs are on annual salaries of over €500,000 with some being paid close to a €1m a year.

The international NGO system has been criticised by a number of former aid volunteers who said that in many disaster locations, the aid agencies are often engaged in "turf wars" over who gets the best spot.

The Sunday Independent spoke to a number of volunteers who worked in Darfur, Asia and Pakistan who said that often the charities are "falling over themselves" in these disaster areas. "Often it is about the glory of being first in or being in the best/worst spot. It's surreal sometimes and the people who we are trying to help get lost in the mix," said one aid worker.

Tom Arnold acknowledged that in the wake of the Tsunami in south-east Asia this was the case, but he strongly denied it was the case in other areas, particularly in Darfur.

He said: "Everyone and their mother seemed to be in Asia after the Tsunami and the charities were tripping over each other. But many left soon after and only a few like Concern remained. However, in somewhere like Darfur, the opposite is the case. There are not enough NGOs."

Goal's John O' Shea echoed Mr Arnold's comments saying that his charity has been active in Darfur since the Eighties and said it is was proud to be "one of the first" to respond to the crisis.

In late 2004, the Sunday Independent exposed how, through on-street fundraising or "chugging", the budgets of the charities had exploded.

thelordofcheese

This Just in: People working in charities get paid too.
More at 11.

Sizzler

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This Just in: People working in charities get paid too.
More at 11.

I thought they did it for free :rolleyes:

€140K, nice.

If the CEO's were serious they wouldnt be fleecing the place for that kind of cash.

hopalong85

it's not about your full ten euro getting out there to help people. it's about a percentage of the overall millions raised getting out there. charities can't be run without admin and staff payment costs, it's just not possible.
of course the head people deserve to be paid well for their work. it's a job, get over it!

Jimbo

Charities have to compete with the business world to get the best CEOs.
Higher salary = better staff.

hopalong85

Sizzler wrote: »

I thought they did it for free :rolleyes:

€140K, nice.

If the CEO's were serious they wouldnt be fleecing the place for that kind of cash.

eh, they're ceo's. that's the reason they're brought in, because they're educated and know how to run major organisations. they run the organisation properly, they get paid for it. that's the way life works.
if paying someone a generous salary is what's necessary to ensure the money raised is used effectively then so be it.

buynow

I don't think it makes any difference, I don't know how people expect something like concern to be run on volunteer basis only. It makes perfect sense to pay people.
Look at it this way, part of your ten euros is spent making sure there is expertise to send the rest of your money to the right place. I am sure there are some inefficiencies, but even 140k doesn't look like too much for the head of an organization.

thelordofcheese

Sizzler wrote: »

I thought they did it for free :rolleyes:

You thought wrong.

People taking a few hours to stand outside tescos and rattle the coin-box might do it for free so they can feel good about themseleves. However to run an organisation like concern you have to find someone who's good at what they do, has experience with running a company that operates on the same scall as concern does. These people do not come cheap. If they did not pay for these kind of people they couldn't do the kind of work that they do.

They're not fleecing the place, they are being payed the going rate for someone of that level of experience.

Stop crying because you're annoyed that you're not getting paid that kind of money.

Grudaire

thelordofcheese wrote: »

People taking a few hours to stand outside tescos and rattle the coin-box might do it for free so they can feel good about themseleves. However to run an organisation like concern you have to find someone who's good at what they do, has experience with running a company that operates on the same scall as concern does. These people do not come cheap. If they did not pay for these kind of people they couldn't do the kind of work that they do.

They're not fleecing the place, they are being payed the going rate for someone of that level of experience.

Stop crying because you're annoyed that you're not getting paid that kind of money.

As far as I know there are many (not all) charities that pay the coin-box rattlers. Definitly people I knew got payed to sell charity raffle cards

thelordofcheese

Cliste wrote: »

As far as I know there are many (not all) charities that pay the coin-box rattlers. Definitly people I knew got payed to sell charity raffle cards

i never got fuppin paid!

Sizzler

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Stop crying because you're annoyed that you're not getting paid that kind of money.

LOL

Yeah, I can't bear to read about it for one more second, my life can't go on :rolleyes: What is this? Playground? My da's car is better than yours?
Cop the fcuk on.

The point I was making is they are working for a charity, yes they have to get paid, I never said they should do it for free, I was throwing out the fact that the average salaries within Concern (as a case in point) were rather generous considering the name of the game is collecting for people less well off, if you can't see the irony in that then grand

SV

Why would it make me think twice about giving to charity?

Sizzler

ClioV6 wrote: »

Why would it make me think twice about giving to charity?

Because a large slice of it is paying for the likes of John O'Shea

FlutterinBantam

Agree 100% with Mr Sizzler.

No way would my company contribute to Goal while a veil of secrecy is drawn over Mr O'Shea's salary and expenses.

Get it all out in the open and stop the arse boxing.

4zn76tysfajdxp

What with the rEceSsiOn (oh noes!!!), the CEOs will be needing all the charity they can get anyhow. They can't go from €140,000 a year to the dole, that's inhumane!

Support your CEOs! They need every penny they can get!

faceman

While i agree that paying a respectable and competitive salary is necessary to attract personnel who will generate the maximum revenue for the charity, however 140k does seem very high? Maybe im out of touch with CEO's salaries!

thelordofcheese

Sizzler wrote: »

LOL

Yeah, I can't bear to read about it for one more second, my life can't go on :rolleyes: What is this? Playground? My da's car is better than yours?
Cop the fcuk on.

Stop crying about it then if it has such little effect on you. I mean if it's not an issue then why make the thread at all... People get paid to work, people at the top get paid even more because they're running the show. shocking!

Sizzler wrote: »

The point I was making is they are working for a charity, yes they have to get paid, I never said they should do it for free, I was throwing out the fact that the average salaries within Concern (as a case in point) were rather generous considering the name of the game is collecting for people less well off, if you can't see the irony in that then grand

Irony doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't see why working for a NPO like concern means you have to earn less than someone doing a similar job to you in a standard company. I know it's all about helping those less well off, but that doesn't mean the people working there have to be less well off.
Hell if they didn't pay well, who would work for them when you could get more doing the same in another company?


My mind boggles at your nonsense.

faceman

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I don't see why working for a NPO like concern means you have to earn less than someone doing a similar job to you in a standard company. I know it's all about helping those less well off, but that doesn't mean the people working there have to be less well off.
Hell if they didn't pay well, who would work for them when you could get more doing the same in another company?


My mind boggles at your nonsense.

I dont really think that the OP's issue was begrudgery, i assume the issue is around the percentage of charitable dontations which are apportioned to salaries as opposed the charity work itself.

I havent seen the full figures but personally if i thought that for every 10c i gave, 5c went on salaries then i would probably not give to that charity any further and i imagine others wouldnt either. I dont know if statistics like that are available however

Sizzler

thelordofcheese wrote: »

My mind boggles at your nonsense.

Your nonsense threshold must be minimal if I tipped it over with such consumate ease.

I'm surprised you venture onto After Hours at all tbh.

Soby

Cliste wrote: »

As far as I know there are many (not all) charities that pay the coin-box rattlers. Definitly people I knew got payed to sell charity raffle cards

sadly the box sometimes doesnt rattle at all..probley get the odd button in it though
Actually speak of charity what was with all the roses on the Ha'penny bridge last Thursday??There we people collecting for something i think werent they?

civis_liberalis

ClioV6 wrote: »

Why would it make me think twice about giving to charity?

Exactly, this is a nonsense of a thread.

These organisations need to be run properly.

There are not some two-bit operation being run out of a van or something.

In order for them to attract the right people to run the organisation, they need to offer the going rate.

People who work for a charity are to be commended, but to expect those who work full-time in the area to sacrifice the rate which they would command in the private or public labour market is ludicrous.

faceman wrote: »

Maybe im out of touch with CEO's salaries!

He is the CEO of a rather large operation in fairness.

Cliste wrote: »

As far as I know there are many (not all) charities that pay the coin-box rattlers. Definitly people I knew got payed to sell charity raffle cards

It is in the charities' interest to pay them.

If they are being paid for it, they will be much more motivated to sell the tickets. More money for the charity, more for the seller.

Iago

faceman wrote: »

I havent seen the full figures but personally if i thought that for every 10c i gave, 5c went on salaries then i would probably not give to that charity any further and i imagine others wouldnt either.

It seems Goal are suggesting that less than 5% of their overall expenditure is salaries

In a statement to the Sunday Independent, Goal insisted that it is "lean and efficient organisation" which minimises its reliance on expensive expatriate staff. It said that its head office overhead costs never exceed 5 per cent of total expenditure.

If that's the case then they're keeping a pretty tight rein on it.

For the poster who believes that €140k is high for a CEO, you are way out of touch with reality in Ireland. From what I can see a lot of senior managers below board level are on anywhere between €125k - €200k which would put your CEO on another premium on top of that.

examples:

Maurice Pratt CEO of C&C estimated earnings last year €1.04m ~ but he didn't get a bonus
Michael O'Leary Ryanair, estimated earnings last year €595k (with bonuses €1.22m)
Brian Goggins Bank of Ireland, €1.16m (with bonuses €2.97m)
Eugene Sheehy AIB, €2.4m
David Drumm Anglo Irish Bank, €3m

and a finfacts survey http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10008305.shtml

Finfacts wrote:

CEOs in Information Technology & Telecommunications earn an average of €324,000 while their equivalent in Semi-state and Not-for-Profit earn an average of €151,900, this year’s survey found.

So it would seem that NPOs are doing ok with the salaries they are paying.

Dave!

Well, they do have to attract the best; but at the same time, should a charity have a CEO who requires €160,000pa to be attracted to the job? You get involved in a charity because you want to do good. You get paid for your work because it's not feasible for someone to live without some sort of income. If you'd turn down the job because it only pays eg. €100k, then are you really the person to be the head of a charitable organisation?

Bob the Builder

faceman wrote: »

While i agree that paying a respectable and competitive salary is necessary to attract personnel who will generate the maximum revenue for the charity, however 140k does seem very high? Maybe im out of touch with CEO's salaries!

http://www.village.ie/Society/Inequality/No_banker_deserves_fifty_times_the_income_of_a_nurse/

it's the going rate i'm afraid.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Who says the ceo has to be charitible once he's making the company profits.

if they paid less they'd get someone less competent and therefore less donations.

however I don't give money to the likes of concern because it seems that continent just gets all the suffering but with more people due to charity.

Acacia

Soby wrote: »

sadly the box sometimes doesnt rattle at all..probley get the odd button in it though
Actually speak of charity what was with all the roses on the Ha'penny bridge last Thursday??There we people collecting for something i think werent they?

Last time there was a charity collection with roses covering the bridge it was an asthma charity. Being a wheezer myself I coughed up (sorry) a few euros and got a cute little teddy bear holding a rose. Probably the same people but I'm not sure.

Well, some people do charity work for free, others have specialist skills that need to be paid for. I'd rather see somebody get a large sum of money for doing charitable work than getting paid a huge amount of money to exploit poorer people ( e.g. the CEO of a multi-national company that uses child labour).

slipss

Cliste wrote: »

As far as I know there are many (not all) charities that pay the coin-box rattlers. Definitly people I knew got payed to sell charity raffle cards

'Tis true, most of them get a percentage of what they collect, 35% for one particular major charity, why else would they be so motivated, because of the poor little blind kids in Africa, gimme a ****ing break, is the same for the people that get you to sign up to a monthly direct debit charity payment, 90% of them are on commission, which is why I never feel at all guilty about telling them to go **** off the second one of them approaches me.

slipss

civis_liberalis wrote: »

It is in the charities' interest to pay them.

If they are being paid for it, they will be much more motivated to sell the tickets. More money for the charity, more for the seller.

I have worked for a charity in the past, including getting several other people to help seek donations, none of us got payed, we all wanted to help the charity, it took me 40 minutes with a mobile phone to find six people willing to help, we all worked our asses off, if I can do that without any administrative training or experience in the area maybe the OP has a point on the wages the ceo's are getting.

walshb

Sizzler wrote: »

After reading about how good a place Concern was to work I decided to research it purely out of interest and came up with the below, the article is a year old admittedley but can't see the figures changing that much in that period.

The charities concerned do sterling work but ethically is it really right for their senior people to take home such an outrageous salary? Makes you wonder how much of your typical €10 donation actually goes to good causes...

It's what I have been saying for years, poverty is big business and where there is poverty, there is money to be made! It's actually an essential part of existence and economics.
The GOALS and Concern's are no different than any other business even though they may TRY to make one feel guilty and try to portay an image of them being holier than thou and Oh so merciful!

ChickCool

Dave! wrote: »

Well, they do have to attract the best; but at the same time, should a charity have a CEO who requires €160,000pa to be attracted to the job? You get involved in a charity because you want to do good. You get paid for your work because it's not feasible for someone to live without some sort of income. If you'd turn down the job because it only pays eg. €100k, then are you really the person to be the head of a charitable organisation?

+1

inforfun

I dont even think once about giving to charity.

MIN2511

I donated to Concern until

1. I applied for a job-didn't get it
2. I found out that staff were getting €11 ph(my donation was €8pm)

When i do the math it doesn't add up


Besides i am a charity case myself

My account number is 93 xx xx and xxxxxx01 please save me as i am i can't afford to eat


Jokes aside, i believe charity starts at home

thelordofcheese

MIN2511 wrote: »

I donated to Concern until

1. I applied for a job-didn't get it
2. I found out that staff were getting €11 ph(my donation was €8pm)

When i do the maths it doesn't add up

This probably explains why you didn't get the job.

MIN2511

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This probably explains why you didn't get the job.

Yeah probably:(

BroomBurner

Slightly off-topic, I know, but http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/24/charities-fundraising-chuggers-intelligent-giving

Scary UK chuggers! Would put ya off donating to charities that don't keep their representatives under more control.

bill_ashmount

This reminds me, need to cancel my Concern direct debit. All they seem to spend it on is spamming me with letter after letter looking for more money.

ven0m

140K for a CEO in this country is a pittance. I know solicitors earning more than that or close to that.

Of course you give to Charity. Charity has to be run like a business to ensure it works effectively, the best people help it grow, move forward, & carry out its core functions. If anything, Concern are paying below market rates for the top management.

At least Concerns management don't fly premiere class with their significant other's on tax payers money & claim they're entitled to do so, while not coughing up a penny in BiK for the other half travelling as part of a business expense on taxpayer cash.

So cut Concern & others break. Most do damn fine work. They've the right mixture of volunteers in key areas (like aid workers, dr's etc who freely give their time cos they make a bundle anyways when they do work) & those who need to be paid for these organisations to work effectively.

Lizzykins

I work for Concern and I can tell you most of my dept are on salaries starting from about 23k so by no means are we overpaid. It would be great to think that the admin could be done by volunteers but it's just not possible. Having said that we do have a good number of older people who have been volunteering with us for donkeys years. They're unbelievably reliable and hard working.
The "chuggers" are not on commission-they're salaried employees. Not paid big bucks either.
On the point of people being sick of mailshots just ring us and we'll update you by email if you like or you can opt for a mailing once a year, or we'll never write to you if that's what you want! It's not in our interest to annoy donors-they keep the wheels turning and the projects going.
On the subject of how much goes on admin we are audited every year and 87% goes to the developing world. We're always trying to reduce costs and deffo Tom Arnold does'nt get first class travel tickets!

User Named

I'm not sure how well aware people are of this law, but I became aware of it a few years back when a local well-known respected woman was collecting for charity and then kepted 90% of it claiming it as expenses.

Turns out this could be done because she was telling the truth. A charity or charity collecters are entitled to claim up to as much as 90% of their collection and claim it as expenses.

Although charity is a brillant thing when done properly, this sham left me in serious doubt of donating ever again. So it is not suprising to see large amounts of money being spent under 'expenses'.

Saying that, i doubt Goal and Concern are claiming 90% of their income and a majority of their capital received is spent on good things but still!!!!

Redsilkretro

As far as i'm concerned working for a charity is just the same as most other jobs, it does require some payment unless you volunteer, plus some charity workers do pretty testing stuff so they deserve a reward for their work.

That does sound alot but it wouldn't stop me donating to charities because two charities don't count for how every other one in the world works.

Redsilkretro

bill_ashmount wrote: »

This reminds me, need to cancel my Concern direct debit. All they seem to spend it on is spamming me with letter after letter looking for more money.

Plus as far as i've seen nearly every charity does this, it's how they get their money. It may seem annoying but it does get the cash in alot of the time.