Part time Cope CEO gets €1000pw

snubbleste

For those of you who applaud Cope Galway..
Our CEO, Jacquie Horan, receives a salary of €53,251 (part-time, minimum 25 hours per week).

I recognise that the organisation has 100 staff, you'd have to wonder how much the employee bill makes up of their €4m income.
A pro rate salary of €83k is nuts imo!

Rex Manning

Glad i froze my hole off doing the christmas day swim to pay the guys wages

flynnlives

1K a week for 25 hours work!

ah here!

zarquon

€53K for part time work. Sign me up!

3fullback

It's actually disgusting !

Ideo

Lots of people give out about the CEOs earning too much, so how much should the CEO of a charity be on?

3fullback

Max 40,000 a week working a 40 hour week

Ideo

3fullback wrote: »

Max 40,000 a week working a 40 hour week

a week? Think you mean year?

JONJO THE MISER

During the market meltdowns of 2008, charities lost billions they had invested, instead of putting to the causes they were investing a lot of it, when i learned that i have never given to charity again, we can thank the Internet for waking us all up to the charity scams that have been going on for decades.

buzz11

Ideo wrote: »

Lots of people give out about the CEOs earning too much, so how much should the CEO of a charity be on?

Thats a very good question and its hard to answer but no charity should be following civil service/hse pay standards, they are just too high.

Its bad enough for tax payers to be forced to pay for these wage levels but its not simply wrong for charities.

Its very difficult now to know whats a bona-fida charity and called a charity but is really a funded arm of the state.

beardybrewer

3fullback wrote: »

Max 40,000 a week working a 40 hour week

We know you mean €40,000 a year for a full MD/CEO.


Let me just ask, if one leader could only maintain an organization or another expand it ultimately employing/helping more people who would you choose?

Felexicon

To be fair though, that's not a huge wage for a CEO in any sector. Looks bad because of the part time piece but when it's prorated it isn't huge

_Whimsical_

The CEO of the charity The Jack and Jill Foundation recently released that he earns 90k a year and said he works 80-90 hours a week. He seemed to think that was a relatively low sum compared to other charity CEOs.

I guess realistically that charities don't administer themselves. If its going to be vital enough to make a difference it probably needs a capable professional at the helm rather than a cheaper charity effort. I'm not comfortable with it, I make an effort to donate to charities every year,I don't like thinking I'm paying some fat cats Salary, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

Ideo

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

During the market meltdowns of 2008, charities lost billions they had invested, instead of putting to the causes they were investing a lot of it, when i learned that i have never given to charity again, we can thank the Internet for waking us all up to the charity scams that have been going on for decades.

Can you prove the billions? And charities holding investments etc that is the prudent thing to do. There is no point spending all of their money in week one, they run in line with budgets etc, and if holding investments gives them a return that they can then use in the future what is the problem? Fair enough they got burned, but even the banks didn't see that coming

gordongekko

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The CEO of the charity The Jack and Jill Foundation recently released that he earns 90k a year and said he works 80-90 hours a year. He seemed to think that was a relatively low sum compared to other charity CEOs. .

A thousand euros an hour. No chance.

onemorechance

This year:
• COPE Galway provided over 15,000 bed nights to 356 people.
• COPE Galway provided refuge to 88 women with 83 children who were fleeing from violence at home and a further 283 women and 253 children availed of their Support and Outreach service with over 400 appointments provided throughout Galway City and County in 2013.
• COPE Galway helped over 200 older people, some of whom feel isolated and alone, and provided over 45,000 meals.

You can read more about our impact in 2013 in our ‘End of Year Review’ here.

In May 2013 COPE Galway became one of the first organisations in the West to voluntarily sign up to the Governance Code for Community & Voluntary organisations in Ireland. Similarly, we adopted the Statement of Guiding Principles for Fundraising in January 2013.


COPE Galway publish our annual report, including a financial summary outlining where our money comes from and where it is spent, every year and our annual reports for the last 6 years are available on our website here.


As a public body our financial records are independently audited every year and our audited accounts are filed with the Companies Office. Our most recent audited financial statements can be read here. Further, I can confirm:

• All our salaries are below the levels of corresponding staff aligned to HSE pay scales.
• Our CEO, Jacquie Horan, receives a salary of €53,251 (part-time, minimum 25 hours per week).
• We do not and never have paid top ups.
• All expenses claimed are for out of pocket costs incurred and are supported by receipts.
• We operate a defined contribution PRSA scheme for staff with equal terms for all employees who choose to participate.
• As an organisation we manage our resources efficiently in order to deliver the best possible service at the least cost.
• All funds raised in any year are required to deliver services for that year. We have never been in a position to accumulate reserves.

Plenty of good work and transparency in their operations it seems.

Discodog

No one should be surprised because every charity should be made to publicise how they spend donations.

We need a charities regulator & a simple website that shows & compares charity spending. Then we can all make informed choices regarding who we support.

The CEO of Jack & Jill gave a full explanation on radio recently - I think that he is worth every cent.

Frynge

Can anyone tell me when it became a social taboo to make an effort in school, go to college and work hard, get some sort of qualification, gain some experience, maybe move jobs a few times, embracing new challenges, being proud of it AND earn a nice pay packet at the end of it?


By the way earning €53,251 is not a big salary.

Discodog

Frynge wrote: »

Can anyone tell me when it became a social taboo to make an effort in school, go to college and work hard, get some sort of qualification, gain some experience, maybe move jobs a few times, embracing new challenges, being proud offer it AND earn a nice pay packet at the end of it?


By the way earning €53,251 is not a big salary.

Nothing wrong if the salary is paid from profits rather than donations.

The equivalent salary is really €106,000.

snubbleste

Discodog wrote: »

The equivalent salary is really €106,000.

How do you figure?
Pro-rata €53,251 / (52weeks x 25hours) = €40.96ph x 39h x 52 weeks = €83,071pa
Of course that's assuming a normal 39h week & no holiday pay

zarquon

snubbleste wrote: »

How do you figure?
Pro-rata €53,251 / (52weeks x 25hours) = €40.96ph x 39h x 52 weeks = €83,071pa
Of course that's assuming a normal 39h week & no holiday pay

The statement explicitly stated "part time" There is no information if this is for a 52 weeks. She might only be working 40 weeks of the year, that much we do not know.

snubbleste

zarquon wrote: »

The statement explicitly stated "part time" There is no information if this is for a 52 weeks. She might only be working 40 weeks of the year, that much we do not know.

Don't make it worse!
If the CEO is on that much, what about the next tier of management, then junior management etc etc.

Discodog

No CEO in industry works only a 39 hour week. Also a significant amount of their income is dependant on results.

Charities can throw up odd situations. I know a freelance fundraiser who is paid over £100,000 a year by a UK charity. She charges 10% of what she raises :-)

flynnlives

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The CEO of the charity The Jack and Jill Foundation recently released that he earns 90k a year and said he works 80-90 hours a year. He seemed to think that was a relatively low sum compared to other charity CEOs.

I guess realistically that charities don't administer themselves. If its going to be vital enough to make a difference it probably needs a capable professional at the helm rather than a cheaper charity effort. I'm not comfortable with it, I make an effort to donate to charities every year,I don't like thinking I'm paying some fat cats Salary, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I heard him on the radio too and he works 80-90 hours a week not a year.

And he said he has had the same salary for 10 years.

He also said that they dont recieve state funding i think.

flynnlives

and this idea that we need to pay big wages to get good people is bs.
its bs propagated by the elite since the 2008 crash.

imo anyone working in the charity sector should be there because its a vocation. Not a career choice.
these pay scales reflect the later.

Frynge

flynnlives wrote: »

and this idea that we need to pay big wages to get good people is bs.
its bs propagated by the elite since the 2008 crash.

imo anyone working in the charity sector should be there because its a vocation. Not a career choice.
these pay scales reflect the later.

The people who have a vocation and work within charities are the people who are on the ground making the meals, serving the meals, delivering them. A lot of whom would be unpaid.

To think upper management of a charity should not use it as their career would result in no charities getting further than a canned food collection in the local community center. To have such large charities functioning in any meaningful manner it has to be managed as a business.

JONJO THE MISER

Frynge wrote: »

The people who have a vocation and work within charities are the people who are on the ground making the meals, serving the meals, delivering them. A lot of whom would be unpaid.

To think upper management of a charity should not use it as their career would result in no charities getting further than a canned food collection in the local community center. To have such large charities functioning in any meaningful manner it has to be managed as a business.

And it is having the exact opposite effect now, people see the high figures being paid to management and are saying im not going to support that charity anymore when my money goes to paying these fat cats in plush offices.

hedgehog2

As far as I see charities in Galway thevonly ones I will donate to are the gspca or madra as they always put the animals before their own financial needs.
These people work tirelessly get shag all assistance from the govt and if they can never see an animal left in the pound to be euthanased they will doball they can to save them.
I also admire the Galway hospice but have no idea if they have a ceo coining it.

kippy

Tbf everything mentions part time MINIMUM 25 hours a week. In reality the hours worked could be more than that.
Back to the main point of the post.......
There are a lot of people in this state with grander titles and even grander salaries. If you were to look at the number of upper management directly employed by the state youd be surprised. Are the state getting value for money from these CEOs on grand salaries or would things operate fine without as many of them?

Ultimately very few state employed ceos have stressful roles that require a great deal of knowledge. More importantly very few of them have the tools required to effect or implement change. Indeed the politicians essentially call the shots. So do we need as many?
As for the charity side of the coin.....a lot of these charities wouldnt be needed at all if the elected reps did their jobs.......

_Whimsical_

gordongekko wrote: »

A thousand euros an hour. No chance.

It was 80-90 hours a week he worked. Sorry!

flynnlives

kippy wrote: »

As for the charity side of the coin.....a lot of these charities wouldnt be needed at all if the elected reps did their jobs.......

and this is the point the media and obviously the politicans want to ignore in this recent crisis.

Patrickheg

snubbleste wrote: »

For those of you who applaud Cope Galway..
Our CEO, Jacquie Horan, receives a salary of €53,251 (part-time, minimum 25 hours per week).

I recognise that the organisation has 100 staff, you'd have to wonder how much the employee bill makes up of their €4m income.
A pro rate salary of €83k is nuts imo!

You should be ashamed of yourself with your disgusting daily mail title!!

In order to have a good leader who manages 100 people / 4 million budget you are going to have to pay for it. What would you prefer, hire an unqualified person who is less experienced/qualified who doesn't have the skills to effectively manage the charity thereby resulting in not getting max value for money.

kippy

Patrickheg wrote: »

You should be ashamed of yourself with your disgusting daily mail title!!

In order to have a good leader who manages 100 people / 4 million budget you are going to have to pay for it. What would you prefer, hire an unqualified person who is less experienced/qualified who doesn't have the skills to effectively manage the charity thereby resulting in not getting max value for money.

I can give you umpteen examples of people who manage far bigger numbers who take home less money.
Even if these salaries are warranted as suggest who ever determines what value for money equates to?
Indeed if every charity in the country has senior staff paid at this level I would suggest more efficient use could be made of the amount of money being spent on the wages of these people.

Discodog

Times have changed. There are now a lot of good ex CEO's out of work or forced into early retirement.

Mrs OBumble

kippy wrote: »

I can give you umpteen examples of people who manage far bigger numbers who take home less money.
Even if these salaries are warranted as suggest who ever determines what value for money equates to?
Indeed if every charity in the country has senior staff paid at this level I would suggest more efficient use could be made of the amount of money being spent on the wages of these people.

Please do.

But remember that managing a few hundred clerical workers or shop assistants in the one location is vastly different from managing a multi-site support service for vulnerable people which is mostly staffed by professionals, and which (in some cases) provides 24x7x365 day care services.

If shop assistant does a routine f*uk up, then someone is short changed. If a COPE (etc) worker does the equivalent, then it's likely that someone dies.

Whole different ball-game.

The reality is that the vast majority of money given to charities is paid in salaries to staff who provide support services. Fundamentally there's no reason why these folks should get paid less for doing the same job just 'cos they work for a non-profit organisation rather than the government.

Some posters here seem to have very little idea what salaries are paid in the real world for jobs that have specialist skills.

GG66

I don't see 53K for a minimum of 25 hours per week excessive for a CEO with responsibility for managing over 100 people and €4M of a budget.

It takes a lot of experience and a lot of stress to manage that kind of organisation. If you expect people to do that type of work for free then you will be limited in the quality of candidates who will be prepared to do it.

Having a competent CEO at the helm is essential to ensure all monies raised are well spent, value for money is achieved for services acquired, staff are fairly paid and morale is maintained.

Be realistic, not all money charities raise goes to the service user. Funds are needed to pay staff, expenses, bills etc. Well run charities should be spending no more than 10% of their funds on administration and fundraising.

Don't confuse all charity CEOs with the disgusting nonsense that went on at CRC, where state pay guidelines influenced things.

I wouldn't take 53K to do that job ...

Mrs OBumble

GG66 wrote: »

... Be realistic, not all money charities raise goes to the service user. Funds are needed to pay staff, expenses, bills etc. Well run charities should be spending no more than 10% of their funds on administration and fundraising.

I would expect very little if any of the money given to the likes of Cope goes directly to the service-user. It does to providing services: that means accommodation, money-management, meals, day-centres, advice, etc - all of which are run by qualified professional support workers not volunteers, who are paid properly for what they do.

There's a role for volunteers, too, but it's not generally in direct service-delivery.

I'd expect something like
10% on admin / fundraising / management
70% on staff salaries
20% on property / facilities / supplies

restingpilgrim

The report says 15600 bed nights and their website says that 58.6% of their budget is spent on homelessness. If their budget is 4 million then that equates to 2344000 which is equivalent to 150 euros per bed night. I know other services may be involved other than just providing a bed but that seems an awful lot when mainly talking about basic accomodation. Also it does not work out at a lot more than 40 beds for 365 days a year . I would also think that some of the bed nights might relate to domestic violence which would mean even higher costs per bed night as that is shown as a seperate budget.



Also if the basic salary is as stated there will other costs of employing a person meaning the costs are a lot higher.

Mrs OBumble

Services to "homeless" people involve a hell of a lot more than just providing basic accommodation.

kc66

flynnlives wrote: »

I heard him on the radio too and he works 80-90 hours a week not a year.

And he said he has had the same salary for 10 years.

He also said that they dont recieve state funding i think.

Also said he took no salary for a good while.

restingpilgrim

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Services to "homeless" people involve a hell of a lot more than just providing basic accommodation.

Such as what you seem to know a lot about this as usual. The costs of it are also a hell of a lot more than providing luxury accomodation.

restingpilgrim

From their 2012 Accounts they had outgoings of 4067346 of which 3249172 was employment costs (approx 80%). They had an average monthly employee count of 71 employees including directors of which 10 are listed on the directors report but some would have resigned and been replace in the year. These 71 employees cost an average of 45763 to employ (not sure how many are part time or if the avearge is worked to full time positions). I realise they provide a lot of social services but that seems quite a high average cost to me.

They also had around 150 volunteers as well.

GG66

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I would expect very little if any of the money given to the likes of Cope goes directly to the service-user. It does to providing services: that means accommodation, money-management, meals, day-centres, advice, etc - all of which are run by qualified professional support workers not volunteers, who are paid properly for what they do.

That's what I meant, the service user benefits from the money spent on providing the services. Same with every charity, they don't go around handing out money.

mathepac

restingpilgrim wrote: »

... These 71 employees cost an average of 45763 to employ (not sure how many are part time or if the avearge is worked to full time positions). I realise they provide a lot of social services but that seems quite a high average cost to me ...

Employee costs include employer's contributions to PRSI and pensions.

kippy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Please do.

But remember that managing a few hundred clerical workers or shop assistants in the one location is vastly different from managing a multi-site support service for vulnerable people which is mostly staffed by professionals, and which (in some cases) provides 24x7x365 day care services.

If shop assistant does a routine f*uk up, then someone is short changed. If a COPE (etc) worker does the equivalent, then it's likely that someone dies.

Whole different ball-game.

The reality is that the vast majority of money given to charities is paid in salaries to staff who provide support services. Fundamentally there's no reason why these folks should get paid less for doing the same job just 'cos they work for a non-profit organisation rather than the government.

Some posters here seem to have very little idea what salaries are paid in the real world for jobs that have specialist skills.

A few points.
1. There are people that handle much more resources with actual implications out there. How many publicly funded higher level management actually end up resigning over mess ups on their watch?
2. There are many roles out there where ones jobs have an impact on the life or death of person or people, who dont get paid anywhere close to what some of these guys get paid.
3. Ultimately CEOS at this level or in state sponsored roles have very little power to effect change/
4. Most strikingly as far as I am concerned, this country has numerous charities looking after the homeless and major resources going towards putting a finger in the hole of the dyke (https://www.google.ie/#q=charities+for+the+homeless+in+ireland) One would have to wonder how much money is sucked up by all of the "CEO's" / boards etc in these charities and why it wouldnt be more efficient to just merge them all?
5. Most importantly the bigger issue here is the need for these charities at all. We as a nation spend plenty supporting charities, most of which do great work, however one has to ask why are these problems not also directly looked to be solved by the state as ultimately the state is the only "organisation" that can effect change to ultimately eradicate a lot of these problems.

Look, I get that people have to be paid, I aint arguing that people should work for free, I am just asking the question of why we have so many of these people working for serious money when far better use of the money/resources could be made, while at the same time asking those that are annoyed with the situation to put pressure on the state to resolve some of these issues instead of pi$$ing money down a bottomless pit when it comes to just "managing" the problem.

Mrs OBumble

restingpilgrim wrote: »

Such as what you seem to know a lot about this as usual. The costs of it are also a hell of a lot more than providing luxury accomodation.

Have a read here of what sort of services are involved: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,18192,en.pdf


Cope, and all the other agencies around, is providing the on-the-ground side of that policy-focussed description.

That means a huge amount of what I would call community mental health support work, though that phrase tends not to be used here.

restingpilgrim

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/hope-not-enough-to-end-long-term-homelessness-223411.html

And maybe you should read this piece in the Irish Examiner which now talks of eradicating long term homelessness by 2016 out from that reports 2010 with the help of properties from NAMA. Also the bit that says in the last census the number of people without a roof over their heads went up from 1384 to 3808.

It seems hard to justify such salaries being received by theses people when they are failing so badly in achieving their own stated targets.

conaire1

If managing Cope is such a huge task, how can she do it in just 25 hours a week?

Patrickheg

conaire1 wrote: »

If managing Cope is such a huge task, how can she do it in just 25 hours a week?

It's not 25hrs a week

beardybrewer

It said a minimum of 25 hours a week.

Don't you know what a salary is? This isn't a McJob. You do the work your job demands, be it 25 or 80 hours a week.

dilallio

I just spotted 6 "charity collectors" in town along shop street.
One of them verbally abused an elderly lady who asked him for proper identification after he asked her for money.
A Garda approached him, and he along with 5 other collectors in Shop St, ran off, stuffing their hi vis vests inside their jackets.