Over 40% of charities pay chiefs more than €100,000

summerskin wrote: »

Why? You wouldn't be able to do their job, only a person with adequate skills and experience would. Would you rather they employed someone more junior, who was less able to manage the funds raised effectively, as happens with numerous smaller charities?

Because it is against my nature to fund the lavish lifestyle of others when i'm trying to donate to people who have nothing. It is entirely possible to give charitably and see practically all the money go to the end cause. The big 'CharityCORP' type businesses exist for the benefit of themselves and "admin" costs.

rainbowdash wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. There is a charity near me where nobody takes anything by way of pay - fact. I donated an actual physical piece of equipment to them, I see it in use frequently. Lets say the piece is worth €100, thats far more effective in my mind than throwing it at something like Concern and hoping the poor misfortune in Africa actual gets a slice of it.

The government donate to Africa on our behalf, thats enough from me.

Small local genuine charities are the way to go, not these national crowds that ring me and post out bundles of Christmas cards and raffle tickets whether I want them or not. The charity gets very little from this IMO.

Spot on. I'd give my €25 to something like the santa strike force. You know it's all going to a good cause. There's 100's of charities like this that are 100% voluntary.

If every charity was limited to only asking for donations from people paid more than their CEO, most would be bankrupt. That might satisfy those people who want to carp on about the small fraction of charities income spent on "overpaid CEOs", but it will do more harm to the beneficiaries of the charity than the CEOs, who can find jobs, probably better paid, elsewhere. Most charity CEOs are paid substantially less than the going rate for running an equivalent-sized company and so choose to forego maximising their package because they are working for a good cause.

Let's take an example of one of the largest Irish charities - Concern Worldwide has over 300 staff in Ireland and UK, another 3,000 staff worldwide, hundreds of partner organisations and probably millions of beneficiaries. Last year, they got €160m in total income - about half of that from the Irish, UK and EU governments. From their accounts for 2011, you can see that their CEO was paid between €125k and €135k (Page 70 of http://www.concern.net/sites/www.concern.net/files/images/annual-report/concern-worldwide-annual-report-web-2011.pdf) - i.e. less than 0.1% of their income. Would you prefer an organisation of that size and complexity to be run by someone on half that salary? Even if you would prefer that, do you think it is realistic that they would get the best person for the job for half the money? Really?

Charities are businesses - they do provide services (and, in some case, goods) - the difference is that the buyer (donor) and consumer (beneficiary) are not the same person, but they still have to be run like businesses. Charities actually receive more income from the government and other service users than they do from donations. Wouldn't you want an organisation that is spending your tax euros to be run with the best expertise available on the market?

Yes, charities should have the highest standards of accountability and transparency. It is not charities but government which is delaying implementation of the Charities Act - another false economy, hopefully to be resolved next year.

Yes, research charities before you give to them - most should have their annual reports online and all will have to publish them when the act is implemented. But, before you dismiss them because you consider their senior staff to be overpaid, look at the impact the charity has delivered for its beneficiaries.

mariaalice wrote: »

Its a difficult one I work for a charity, it more important to look at how much of the charities income is used for administration that to look at the CEO salaries which is often fully funded by the HSE for example, ( and despite what people think about the HSE it does not give out money without the organisation having a detailed services plan and strict controls on how the money is accounted for) it is also important to look at the qualification of the CEO at a minim I would expect them to have significant management qualifications such as an MBA especially if they get a lot of government funding.


I give money to charity but I am very carefully about which ones I support.

Didn't the minister for health write to Rehab not so long ago questioning bonus pay for executives and basically got told to mind his own business, because they're a private company?

There was also a report published recently on value for money in disability services one of the key findings was that there needed to be:

"implementation of a more effective method of assessing need, allocating resources and monitoring resource use."

And that's only dealing with government funding for these charities, not the additional (huge) amounts they generate through fundraising.

Also I know that in the disability sector there is also no regulation or inspection by an Independence body (such as HIQA) so we're left with the HSE's word that the money their handing out is being spent correctly.

I worked in disability services for about four years and never once met a HSE inspector or heard of any coworker having met one.

mattjack wrote: »

Yep, I'm working for a charity now , its the second one I've worked for in recent years.

In order for it to access any funding and supplies from the HSE it has to give a breakdown of every single service it supplies to its clients, counting people through doors ,numbers of client phone calls , showers ,amount availing of food services ,primary health care services etc the list is endless.All day everyday these statistics are gathered and accounted for.

For it to provide any new service it has to do it research before it can receive any funding.

Money is certainly not thrown at it by the HSE.

I often wonder do people realise the good done by some of the charities working at home in Ireland literally keeping people alive from day to day.

And is there independent inspection to make sure these services are in place?

Perhaps you do work in a sector where there is rigorous inspection. I doubt that's the disability sector though, where 1.5 billion of funding goes, given the value for money report cited earlier.

Would it not make sense for each charity to have to publish what percentage of funds go directly to the end recipient.I think in many cases it would be very little. Have any of you for example seen SVP's offices in Dublin? I remember admiring 2 brand new (and very expensive) executive cars in a garage only to be informed that they were company cars being fitted with disabled controls for a major charity.

franktheplank wrote: »

And is there independent inspection to make sure these services are in place?

Perhaps you do work in a sector where there is rigorous inspection. I doubt that's the disability sector though, where 1.5 billion of funding goes, given the value for money report cited earlier.

No idea about inspections, but corporate and private doners are invited and welcomed in to see where their funding goes.

franktheplank wrote: »

Yes it's a good idea (and quite a few charities do) but again if it's not independently regulated it's open to abuse. For example, a charity can say (and they often do) that it's staff costs are part of what goes to the recipient, as the service is the work the staff do.

That is still wide open for abuse because expenses, bonuses, company cars etc are then part of the staff costs, which is supposedly going to the end recipient.

There was a guy on the news earlier speaking on behalf of charity shops. He was giving out about how the law can't stop bogus groups collecting second hand goods and profiting from it. Unfortunately, it can't do anything about larger bogus charities either.

It's good for charities to publish how much they spend on support services compared to front-line services, but comparisons are not always valid. e.g. a charity that spends very little on support services could have poor accounting & governance, a charity that has high fundraising costs could be investing to build its future income (you have to spend money to raise money - most donors do not give unprompted).

For what it's worth, I've worked in the voluntary sector for over 30 years and , in every organisation I've been in, there have been no company cars or bonuses, expenses have been vouched and tightly budgeted. I'm not complaining - that's as it should be and it is the norm. Stories of excess in certain charities tend to get exaggerated and then the whole sector is tarred.

What do you mean by "larger bogus charities"?

franktheplank wrote: »

That's no harm but it's still not very rigorous or independent. Would they have to call ahead and say their coming or is it a pre-planned event, can they see the company's accounts, can they check the staff's qualifications etc?

How would you inspect a needle exchange ? aren't nurses subject to registration with an bord altrainis , doctors with the medical council ,counsellers with IAAAC ,

Do you think people would gamble with someones life ?

franktheplank wrote: »

..... I'm not saying there aren't some very worthy charities doing great work. I just don't think it does those charities any favours to be working in an environment that's completely unregulated. And I won't give any more to charity until the situation changes. I'm voting with my chequebook on it.

Charities are not completely unregulated. Most have been preparing for years for the promised implementation of the Charities Act. Many have also signed up to voluntary codes of conduct, such as ICTR's guiding principles for fundraising (http://www.ictr.ie/content/sign-guiding-principles) and the code of governance for community and voluntary organisations http://www.governancecode.ie/index.php. Most charities are also accountable to a voluntary board and/or an AGM of members.

thecolonel wrote: »

Charities are not completely unregulated. Most have been preparing for years for the promised implementation of the Charities Act. Many have also signed up to voluntary codes of conduct, such as ICTR's guiding principles for fundraising (http://www.ictr.ie/content/sign-guiding-principles) and the code of governance for community and voluntary organisations http://www.governancecode.ie/index.php. Most charities are also accountable to a voluntary board and/or an AGM of members.

Yup, I think the clue's in the title there thought colonel. Voluntary code of conduct.

That said I'm sure there are plenty of genuine charities, but the system is still wide open for exploitation. There's a reason why so many other countries have brought in regulation and inspection.

mattjack wrote: »

Yes Frank , about 85% HSE , no company cars , no bonus.
I get expenses but all receipts etc have to be accounted for.

What's a larger bogus charity ? name it for us ? what loopholes ?

Name it? I and boards would be sued immediately!

Come on, there are tonnes of loopholes. Look at the charity scandals that have happened in other countries (a few here too I think) to see how they work.

There is no accountability therefore the possibility for various degrees of fraud are endless. Whether that be paying the executives massive bonuses, expenses, pensions, running a service that's only half what's claimed, hiring less qualified staff to save on costs, disability services without proper abuse protocols and so on and so on.

I'm not doubting the service you work in does a great job and you seem like a very genuine guy, but do you not think there needs to be regulation and inspection?

mattjack wrote: »

How would you inspect a needle exchange ? aren't nurses subject to registration with an bord altrainis , doctors with the medical council ,counsellers with IAAAC ,

Do you think people would gamble with someones life ?

Think I have it now, apologies for the confusion. With projects like your one yeah the HSE, well the addiction services have really tighten up. Everything has to be accounted for.

However, I know of projects that are reg charities that have shall we say ghost projects/clients that is usually with money from LDTFs, Fas.

Just before I moved location I got a load of keyring torches with a projects name and number on them, why because there was money there that had to be used up! Now that is more waste than anything, but I know of projects claiming a lot of cash for things that only exist on paper.