Part time Cope CEO gets €1000pw

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.

Mrs OBumble

Ya, the Irish Thug Foundation were out in force today alright.


Re the point above about targets: eliminating homelessness and the need to sleep rough isn't a target, it's a vision to work towards. What's more it's the government's vision, not that of the individual non-profit agencies which happen to contribute to it. And it will never be totally achieved: there will always be new people developing mental illnesses which overwhelm their ability to cope, and which thus make them "homeless".

To measure performance, you need to do it realisically.