Rival charities set up new super charity scam

touts

Listening to Morning Ireland I was disappointed but not really surprised to see what was referred to as six "rival charities" have come together to form yet another charity (a super charity of sorts) to encourage Irish people to donate more money to them. The sense of entitlement dripping off the CEO being interviewed was startling. She saw nothing wrong with setting up another charity and all the associated costs and wages to do the work that the six founding "rival" charities all currently claimed to be doing. The charity industry in Ireland is completely out of control.

Here's an idea. Instead of setting up yet another charity with yet another CEO and yet more admin staff how about one of the existing charities take over the other five. That way they can get rid of five sets of CEOs (who are usually pulling in €200k+ a year each for these sizes of charity) and five sets of admin staff. That will safe millions and will be far more than this new super charity scam will bring in.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/six-irish-charities-form-alliance-to-respond-to-covid-19-in-vulnerable-communities-1.4360923?mode=amp&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

manonboard

Your solution though, results in a super charity?

It would provide no alternatives to the public, likely become more corrupt, and also force alot of people who work to help others out of a job?

Rodney Bathgate

Just what we need. More charities.

Allinall

Where’s the scam?

sydthebeat

I see nothing in that article to back up the OPs assertion that a new charity is to be set up with a new CEO and new admin staff??

Is this a case of 1 + 1 = 11

Pronto63

It might exist, I don’t know, but there should be a website which lists:

1. CEO salary
2. Salary of top 10 highest paid staff - a total will do here.
3. Amount of govt funding
4. Amount of public donations
5. % of non charitable spend - admin, rent, wages, advertising, etc.

All charity promotions and advertising should then contain the wording “check out our stats on charitystats.ie”

sunshinew

Pronto63 wrote: »

It might exist, I don’t know, but there should be a website which lists:

1. CEO salary
2. Salary of top 10 highest paid staff - a total will do here.
3. Amount of govt funding
4. Amount of public donations
5. % of non charitable spend - admin, rent, wages, advertising, etc.

All charity promotions and advertising should then contain the wording “check out our stats on charitystats.ie”

It does exist. In order to be recognised as a charity and get charity status, each charity has to produce and publish an annual report that outlines all their financials, employee number etc. along with complying to charity code of governance. It's then put on the charity regulator website where you can search every charity on there. The majority of the big ones keep all costs, staff, admin etc, below 15% of spend and it's easy enough to find out what each CEO is paid.
I do agree that there is far too much crossover in charity purposes and the government outsources a large part of their remit to charities.

Peregrinus

sydthebeat wrote: »

I see nothing in that article to back up the OPs assertion that a new charity is to be set up with a new CEO and new admin staff??

Is this a case of 1 + 1 = 11

This. The OP is fantasising in a particularly malicious way. The linked articles doesn't say that the six charities are setting up a seventh charity, with or without a separate CEO and staff; it says they are allying with one another for a joint Covid-related programme. It names the chairperson of the alliance; she is Helen Keogh, who is already the CEO of one of the six existing charities, which doesn't really bear out the OP's allegation that a new CEO and staff are being hired.

Pronto63

sunshinew wrote: »

It does exist. In order to be recognised as a charity and get charity status, each charity has to produce and publish an annual report that outlines all their financials, employee number etc. along with complying to charity code of governance. It's then put on the charity regulator website where you can search every charity on there. The majority of the big ones keep all costs, staff, admin etc, below 15% of spend and it's easy enough to find out what each CEO is paid.
I do agree that there is far too much crossover in charity purposes and the government outsources a large part of their remit to charities.

What I had in mind was a one stop shop where you effectively had a league table of charities.
Also having it well publicised so that people don’t have to go looking/searching for the info.

EmmetSpiceland

Allinall wrote: »

Where’s the scam?

The, selfish, misers on this site view “charity” as something to be reviled and mocked. Especially targeting the CEO salaries, as if anyone with the skills and “expertise” to bring in big money would be taking the job for a paltry 50k a year.

There’s a simple solution for those who don’t want to help others out by throwing a few quid at them, keep the lock on your wallet locked. There’s no need to go on, and on, about it being a “scam” and something others shouldn’t do.

It’s the same with tipping in a bloody restaurant. Easier to get blood from a stone with some people. You can’t take it with you, you know?

sunshinew

Pronto63 wrote: »

What I had in mind was a one stop shop where you effectively had a league table of charities.
Also having it well publicised so that people don’t have to go looking/searching for the info.

It is a one stop shop. You can type in cancer and all the cancer charities pop up and you can go in and see their financial reports. Each charity has to comply with the code of transparency and publish their accounts. It outlines how many employees are in each wage bracket.
They won't be registered as a charity if they don't comply with the rules above of the charity regulator which outlines all the boundaries they need to work under.
I don't know what you mean "league table" of charities as you can't compare the Irish cancer society with Cats Aid or Focus Ireland. Wildly different remits, costs, sizes, levels of expertise required in staff.

Pronto63

Pronto63 wrote: »

It might exist, I don’t know, but there should be a website which lists:

1. CEO salary
2. Salary of top 10 highest paid staff - a total will do here.
3. Amount of govt funding
4. Amount of public donations
5. % of non charitable spend - admin, rent, wages, advertising, etc.

All charity promotions and advertising should then contain the wording “check out our stats on charitystats.ie”

Here’s one to get you started. https://www.focusireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Signed-Focus-Ireland-consolidated-Financial-statements-31-Dec-2016.pdf

Just google financial statements of any charity. They make depressing reading!

whisky_galore

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The, selfish, misers on this site view “charity” as something to be reviled and mocked. Especially targeting the CEO salaries, as if anyone with the skills and “expertise” to bring in big money would be taking the job for a paltry 50k a year.

There’s a simple solution for those who don’t want to help others out by throwing a few quid at them, keep the lock on your wallet locked. There’s no need to go on, and on, about it being a “scam” and something others shouldn’t do.

It’s the same with tipping in a bloody restaurant. Easier to get blood from a stone with some people. You can’t take it with you, you know?

The bloated "charadee" sector has far too much duplication and crossover of causes and govt are only too happy to get off the hook of their societal obligations, you know...looking after people like a normal country.
Any old gob****e can set up a charity, there doesn't appear to be any limit to the numbers that operate.

We've been soft touches here for years, we'll fling money at something because it's "for charity" without asking where the money goes or how it's spent although that's changing. Some charities have abused the public generosity in the recent past and people are beginning to think twice before donating.

sunshinew

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here’s one to get you started. https://www.focusireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Signed-Focus-Ireland-consolidated-Financial-statements-31-Dec-2016.pdf

Just google financial statements of any charity. They make depressing reading!

Why depressing?

blanch152

manonboard wrote: »

Your solution though, results in a super charity?

It would provide no alternatives to the public, likely become more corrupt, and also force alot of people who work to help others out of a job?

Are you suggesting that the charities are not corrupt already?

blanch152

sunshinew wrote: »

It does exist. In order to be recognised as a charity and get charity status, each charity has to produce and publish an annual report that outlines all their financials, employee number etc. along with complying to charity code of governance. It's then put on the charity regulator website where you can search every charity on there. The majority of the big ones keep all costs, staff, admin etc, below 15% of spend and it's easy enough to find out what each CEO is paid.
I do agree that there is far too much crossover in charity purposes and the government outsources a large part of their remit to charities.

I wouldn't say it is easy enough, try looking on any of their websites for their financial information, it is hidden away.

suicide_circus

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The, selfish, misers on this site view “charity” as something to be reviled and mocked. Especially targeting the CEO salaries, as if anyone with the skills and “expertise” to bring in big money would be taking the job for a paltry 50k a year.

There’s a simple solution for those who don’t want to help others out by throwing a few quid at them, keep the lock on your wallet locked. There’s no need to go on, and on, about it being a “scam” and something others shouldn’t do.

It’s the same with tipping in a bloody restaurant. Easier to get blood from a stone with some people. You can’t take it with you, you know?

It's perhaps not quite a scam but the industry is certainly unbelievably bloated with a massive amount of duplication as evidenced by this super alliance of 6 charities which ostensibly all do pretty much the same thing. This duplication means more running costs, staffing, advertising etc and less money going to those in need. Although if this super alliance becomes one permanent entity with the efficiencies that entails it would be a step in the right direction.

Rodney Bathgate

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's perhaps not quite a scam but the industry is certainly unbelievably bloated with a massive amount of duplication as evidenced by this super alliance of 6 charities which ostensibly all do pretty much the same thing. This duplication means more running costs, staffing, advertising etc and less money going to those in need. Although if this super alliance becomes one permanent entity with the efficiencies that entails it would be a step in the right direction.

Wouldn’t be surprised if some of the more ‘woke’ posters in this thread are in well paid charity jobs and doing nothing in return for a nice pay cheque. Charity is a business. Posters who gets their knickers in a twist to ‘defend’ and ‘deflect’ this industry are best ignored.

Peregrinus

OSI wrote: »

I'd love to see a few examples of ones that do.

Few examples that don't

Pieta House:
2018
Income ~€11,100,000
Staff costs ~€7,600,000
Admin ~€1,000,000

Peter McVerry Trust
2018
Income ~€39,000,000
Staff costs ~€20,500,000
Property Costs ~€3,000,000

Focus Ireland
2018
Income ~€29,000,000
Staff costs ~€18,000,000
Admin ~€1,000,000
Property Costs ~€4,800,000

But the "staff costs" are the staff who provide services to the clients of the charity.

Pieta House, for example, primarily provides counselling. You can't do that without counsellors. What do you imagine Pieta House would spend its money on, if not employing counsellors to provide counselling to clients in need of counselling who come to Pieta House because providing counselling is what Pieta House does? Do you have a viable business plan for Pieta House that doesn't involve counsellors? I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

And you could say similar things about the other charities you mention. Charities that actually provide services that help people need staff to provide th services. A lot of their expenditure will be staff costs. That's not an indication of inefficiency or worse.

suicide_circus

The Irish charity industry has an annual income of €14.5 billion and employs 189,000 people. Wow.

https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-charities-4145144-Jul2018/#:~:text=REGISTERED%20IRISH%20CHARITIES%20have%20an,impact%20of%20charities%20in%20Ireland.

To put that in perspective, the Irish hospitality sector is worth €7.6bn and employs 180,000 people.

ohnonotgmail

OSI wrote: »

I'd love to see a few examples of ones that do.

Few examples that don't

Pieta House:
2018
Income ~€11,100,000
Staff costs ~€7,600,000
Admin ~€1,000,000

Peter McVerry Trust
2018
Income ~€39,000,000
Staff costs ~€20,500,000
Property Costs ~€3,000,000

Focus Ireland
2018
Income ~€29,000,000
Staff costs ~€18,000,000
Admin ~€1,000,000
Property Costs ~€4,800,000

Housing charities spending money on property? Outrageous.

Rodney Bathgate

A former politician from my constituency was appointed CEO of a charity at age 38.

Jobs for the boys (or girls in this case).

crossman47

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

A former politician from my constituency was appointed CEO of a charity at age 38.

Jobs for the boys (or girls in this case).

If he/she was good enough to do the job well, whats the problem?

Mango Joe

Charities need to be regulated, right now too many of them seem to think that charity starts at home and pay themselves and 17 of their mates in excess of €100k+ to faff around spending money that well-intended people had mistakenly thought was going to good causes.

Cap the wages and these ignorant, greedy, amoral rats will scatter.

Allinall

Mango Joe wrote: »

Charities need to be regulated, right now too many of them seem to think that charity starts at home and pay themselves and 17 of their mates in excess of €100k+ to faff around spending money that well-intended people had mistakenly thought was going to good causes.

Cap the wages and these ignorant, greedy, amoral rats will scatter.

Which particular charities do that?

crossman47

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Wouldn’t be surprised if some of the more ‘woke’ posters in this thread are in well paid charity jobs and doing nothing in return for a nice pay cheque. Charity is a business. Posters who gets their knickers in a twist to ‘defend’ and ‘deflect’ this industry are best ignored.

That is rubbish. I declare an interest. I am one of many volunteers with Vincent De Paul. It is run by a board of volunteers but does need paid staff. These include an accountant (to ensure money is properly handled), admin staff to oversee Garda clearance (required for thousands of volunteers across the country), staff to deal with phone calls from people seeking help (and these are supplemented by volunteers), etc.

Volunteers themselves contribute on a weekly basis to pay for routine expenses (letters, phone calls, etc) and there are no expenses paid to those of us who give our time and money to help the needy. Having said all that, I do wish some duplication of charities was ended - suicide ones in particular seem to have multiplied.

Peregrinus

OSI wrote: »

That's their own premises costs, not housing.

"Their own premises" includes the premises in which they house clients.

sunshinew

OSI wrote: »

I'd love to see a few examples of ones that do.

Few examples that don't

Pieta House:
2018
Income ~€11,100,000
Staff costs ~€7,600,000
Admin ~€1,000,000

Peter McVerry Trust
2018
Income ~€39,000,000
Staff costs ~€20,500,000
Property Costs ~€3,000,000

Focus Ireland
2018
Income ~€29,000,000
Staff costs ~€18,000,000
Admin ~€1,000,000
Property Costs ~€4,800,000

Yes, I meant staff costs on admin of running the charity - fundraising staff, marketing spend for donations etc...not on staff providing the actual service to the service users. What do you think charities spend the money on!
On one hand people want charities to be run by volunteers, on the other they want them to comply with GDPR, have all their staff trained and vetted, provide audited accounts.... They are a business like any other.
I'd like the end of life nurse/counsellor in a hospice to actually be trained to provide that service and paid a fair wage rather than "volunteer". Same with a counsellor I'd ring if I was feeling suicidal. I'd like the housing for homeless people to be properly maintained and pass health and safety/fire regulations.
Ideally I'd like to live in a world where charities don't need to exist but that's not going to happen any time soon.

ohnonotgmail

OSI wrote: »

That's their own premises costs, not housing.

and what are those premises used for? oh yeah, housing people.

Spanish Eyes

I note that the six charities coming together are involved with international aidto developing poorer countries.

Can they not tap into the €750 odd million pa the taxpayer provides for International aid? Just wondered.

Peregrinus

OSI wrote: »

I'm very aware of what and how Pieta house operate.

By their own numbers Pieta House provided 57,530 hours of counselling in 2018. At a staff cost of 7.6 Million that's equal to over €132 per hour of counselling. They pay their Counsellors in the region of €25 an hour (those that they do pay), so where does the the other €107 go?

Staff costs includes more than just pay, counsellors may have to be paid for all their time devoted to the job and not just for the counselling hours, and there will be employees other than the counsellors.

My point is that a charity whose mission is mainly providing services will always spend a significant part of its budget on staff. This isn't evidence that the charity is inefficient. I think sunshinenew is wrong to say that most charities will keep staff costs below 15%, but I also don't think we should expect that they will. For many charities, staff costs ought to be substantially higher than that.

PS: Where are you getting the €25/hr figure from? I'm not doubting you; I'm just curious.

Peregrinus

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I note that the six charities coming together are involved with international aidto developing poorer countries.

Can they not tap into the €750 odd million pa the taxpayer provides for International aid? Just wondered.

They may well do, if the programmes they want to run are compatible with the Department's policy on the programmes it wants to fund. What's your point?

sunshinew

Mango Joe wrote: »

Charities need to be regulated, right now too many of them seem to think that charity starts at home and pay themselves and 17 of their mates in excess of €100k+ to faff around spending money that well-intended people had mistakenly thought was going to good causes.

Cap the wages and these ignorant, greedy, amoral rats will scatter.

https://www.charitiesregulator.ie/en

Here you go - knock yourself out on the Charity Regulators page - you can "raise a concern" with them on all the charities you know that have 17 "amoral rats" earning over 100k.

I know there was a number of scandals a few years ago around CEO wages - it absolutely knocked the stuffing out of the entire charity sector - both good and bad. Rules were overhauled, wages cut across the board. A charity simply HAS TO comply with the Charities Act in order to be registered and operate as a charity.

I agree regarding a lot of duplication in the sector though and some streamlining is required- but people do want a choice. Do I support the small local charity that offered end of life counselling to my parent dying of cancer or the large Irish Cancer Society that see the much larger complex picture around cancer services, research etc. in Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Staff costs includes more than just pay, counsellors may have to be paid for all their time devoted to the job and not just for the counselling hours, and there will be employees other than the counsellors.

My point is that a charity whose mission is mainly providing services will always spend a significant part of its budget on staff. This isn't evidence that the charity is inefficient. I think sunshinenew is wrong to say that most charities will keep staff costs below 15%, but I also don't think we should expect that they will. For many charities, staff costs ought to be substantially higher than that.

PS: Where are you getting the €25/hr figure from? I'm not doubting you; I'm just curious.

perhaps that 15% is the cost of running the charity i.e. their admin costs?

sunshinew

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps that 15% is the cost of running the charity i.e. their admin costs?

Yes, I clarified in a later post - I meant fundraising, admin staff, promotion for donations etc. 85% needs to be spent on providing the service. I don't know if that is a rule but it is a guideline I've heard many charities follow.

Richard Hillman

A large section of their funding comes from Government. Politicians are setting themselves up for their job if they ever lose their seats.

When you look into a lot of them, they are hangovers of when Labour were in power with FG.

I keep on highlighting Spunout.ie. Founded by Ruiri McKiernan who was on President Higgins (Labour) Council of State. One of the directors was Chris Donoghue (formerly Newstalk, now FG).

This is their income



This is their spending


They raise about 110k themselves and the other 500k+ comes from Government.

What do we get for it?

About 20% goes on "Operations" and Youth Activity. The rest goes on wages and running the company. They get **** all Social Media Interactions.
https://twitter.com/SpunOut?s=09
It's most the same person liking a retweeting the posts. (he works there BTW)

I would imagine if we turned up at Spunout.ie HQ over at Fleet Street on a normal day, they wouldn't be there or will be sitting around playing solitaire.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps that 15% is the cost of running the charity i.e. their admin costs?

Sunshinenews' claim was that . . .

sunshinew wrote: »

the majority of the big ones keep all costs, staff, admin etc, below 15% of spend . . .

And OSI refuted this by posting details of several charities whose staff costs alone were well over 15% (though admin costs alone were well below 15%).

I don't think it can (or should) be correct for a charity that's primarily engaged in direct service provision (which is a lot of them) that staff costs, with or without other costs, should be below 15%. On the contrary, in fact; if staff costs were that low it should ring alarm bells.

Which makes the point that you can't adopt a one-size-fits all rule for how charities should be allocationg their spending as between staff, premises, etc. It entirely depends on what activities the charity pursues. It makes no more sense to do this for "charities" than it would for "businesses".

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sunshinenews' claim was that . . .

And OSI refuted this by posting details of several charities whose staff costs alone were well over 15% (though admin costs alone were well below 15%).

I don't think it can (or should) be correct for a charity that's primarily engaged in direct service provision (which is a lot of them) that staff costs, with or without other costs, should be below 15%. On the contrary, in fact; if staff costs were that low it should ring alarm bells.

we need to differentiate between the staff costs for providing the charities services and staff costs for running the charity.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we need to differentiate between the staff costs for providing the charities services and staff costs for running the charity.

I'm not sure that's a bright-line distinction. Imagine a charity that employs social workers to assess and counsel clients, managers to manage the social workers, trainers to maintain the social workers' professional skills, childcare workers to care for clients' children while they are being counselled by the social workers and other staff whose role is to liaise with the funders - a government department, say - to agree what services the charity will provide, to what client group, and at what cost,and to satisfy the funder that the charity is delivering as agreed. Which of these staff costs are "costs for providing the charities services" and which are "costs for running the charity"?

touts

manonboard wrote: »

Your solution though, results in a super charity?

It would provide no alternatives to the public, likely become more corrupt, and also force alot of people who work to help others out of a job?

Hard to see how it could possibly become more corrupt than the current charity industry. You're no one in Dublin 4 if your Accountant hasn't set up a charity for you or your spouse to be the CEO of.

Eric Cartman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

A large section of their funding comes from Government. Politicians are setting themselves up for their job if they ever lose their seats.

When you look into a lot of them, they are hangovers of when Labour were in power with FG.

I keep on highlighting Spunout.ie. Founded by Ruiri McKiernan who was on President Higgins (Labour) Council of State. One of the directors was Chris Donoghue (formerly Newstalk, now FG).

This is their income



This is their spending


They raise about 110k themselves and the other 500k+ comes from Government.

What do we get for it?

About 20% goes on "Operations" and Youth Activity. The rest goes on wages and running the company. They get **** all Social Media Interactions.
https://twitter.com/SpunOut?s=09
It's most the same person liking a retweeting the posts. (he works there BTW)

I would imagine if we turned up at Spunout.ie HQ over at Fleet Street on a normal day, they wouldn't be there or will be sitting around playing solitaire.

they share a building with amnesty international and a few other charities, the staff work between them, its just Colm o Gormans pockets being lined.

CrankyHaus

Couldn't find the article online but there was a piece in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago about a small charity with serious financial issues, including the staff taking funds to pay for their lifestyle. It had the same people in charge for about 2 decades and is funded by the taxpayers, the vast majority of whom will never know of its existence.

sunshinew

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sunshinenews' claim was that . . .

And OSI refuted this by posting details of several charities whose staff costs alone were well over 15% (though admin costs alone were well below 15%).

I don't think it can (or should) be correct for a charity that's primarily engaged in direct service provision (which is a lot of them) that staff costs, with or without other costs, should be below 15%. On the contrary, in fact; if staff costs were that low it should ring alarm bells.

Which makes the point that you can't adopt a one-size-fits all rule for how charities should be allocating their spending as between staff, premises, etc. It entirely depends on what activities the charity pursues. It makes no more sense to do this for "charities" than it would for "businesses".

Yes, I clarified this in a later post... 15% on admin and fundraising staff - 85% on service costs which would include staff providing the service, nurses, counsellors etc.

touts

Allinall wrote: »

Where’s the scam?

€100k plus a year for the CEO. Massive admin costs. That's pretty standard in the Charity Industry. And now we have 6 charities that all basically do the same thing coming together to set up another organisation to look for more money from the public? Running a charity is the biggest scam going in upper class parts of Dublin.

Geuze

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Just what we need. More charities.

There are over 10,000 now.

I wonder do NL, BEL, DE, DK have tens of thousands like us?

Richard Hillman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they share a building with amnesty international and a few other charities, the staff work between them, its just Colm o Gormans pockets being lined.

Ah, I didn't know that. Amnestys method of saying "we don't take government funding", except through the backdoor.

Rodney Bathgate

crossman47 wrote: »

If he/she was good enough to do the job well, whats the problem?

Not many industries where you go from not having worked in the sector and not having held a senior position in any sector, to being a CEO, overnight.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure that's a bright-line distinction. Imagine a charity that employs social workers to assess and counsel clients, managers to manage the social workers, trainers to maintain the social workers' professional skills, childcare workers to care for clients' children while they are being counselled by the social workers and other staff whose role is to liaise with the funders - a government department, say - to agree what services the charity will provide, to what client group, and at what cost,and to satisfy the funder that the charity is delivering as agreed. Which of these staff costs are "costs for providing the charities services" and which are "costs for running the charity"?

all excellent questions that i will not attempt to answer.

Rodney Bathgate

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Ah, I didn't know that. Amnestys method of saying "we don't take government funding", except through the backdoor.

Plus the foreign funding. But foreign ‘interference’ is okay when it isn’t Putins money.

suicide_circus

The issue is less the ceo salaries and more the duplication and bloat.

A CEO on 100k running a foreign aid charity - no issue.

20 CEOs on 100k running 20 foreign aid charities - that's an issue.

Eric Cartman

suicide_circus wrote: »

The issue is less the ceo salaries and more the duplication and bloat.

A CEO on 100k running a foreign aid charity - no issue.

20 CEOs on 100k running 20 foreign aid charities - that's an issue.

and the ever more likely 1 CEO running 3 charities on 100k per charity all from the same desk.