Fat cats in public health axe services not salaries
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 10:22 There's a minor scandal brewing in Ireland following revelations about the amount of money the Irish Cancer Society spends on staff salaries.
According to the Irish Examiner, the CEO earns €145,000 (£108,000) a year.
In addition to his salary, the society contributes 16% of Mr McCormack’s gross salary to his pension fund, pays the approximate €3,000 annual cost of his health insurance and provides him with a Toyota Avensis.
According to the Examiner:
The society’s financial statement for 2014 shows €7.4m was spent on salary, social welfare, and pension costs for 152 staff, of whom 12 were paid over €70,000.
All this came to light when the ICS decided to cut "vital financial support provided by the Irish Cancer Society to more than 2,700 patients struggling to pay household bills on after a cancer diagnosis".
The charity said it was withdrawing the financial lifeline to hardship cases on January 31 due to “unmanageable demand”, which it said was putting other vital services at risk.
The announcement prompted a proliferation of dismayed tweets and a flood of phonecalls to radio chat shows from callers expressing anger, disappointment, and disgust.
Needless to say there were no staff cuts nor were any salaries threatened.
See Anger as vital financial support for cancer patients to be cut by Irish Cancer Society (Irish Examiner)
The row is similar to that in Britain when it was revealed that "Dozens of charity bosses are pocketing six-figure salaries funded by public donations."
See Outrage as charity bosses pocket six-figure salaries from generous public donations (Daily Express).
Personally I don't have a problem with people earning large salaries if they are in charge of organisations that raise large sums of money because fund-raising is a skill and if you want to raise a lot of money you need the best people to do that. It's called market forces.
Nevertheless it's good that the the salaries paid to staff working for public health organisations and the services they provide are coming under greater scrutiny because salaries should be proportionate to income raised.
This is especially true of organisations that receive public money. According to O'Meara the Irish Cancer Society "are not State supported". The ICS did however receive a grant from the Department of Health of €600,000 in 2015/2016 for a programme to help people travel for treatment.
In the UK Action on Smoking and Health enjoys a very similar relationship with our own Department of Health.
This year ASH will receive £150,000 from the DH for a specific project. (In previous years it was £200k.) Exactly how the money is spent isn't yet clear but I hope to find out.
Update: Stop smoking services under threat as funding comes under pressure says ASH. More to follow in my next post.
Update: I'm hearing that the Irish Cancer Society has reversed its decision. Watch this space.
Reader Comments (4)
With historically low smoking prevalence, and still falling fast, is it not time to reduce public spending on tobacco control?
Harpal Kumar has presided over CRUK's transition from a charity best known for its excellent contribution to the scientific understanding and treatment of cancer to a "charity" better known for shrill political advocacy.
Income over he last 4 years is flat despite a multi-million pound re-branding exercise. It was slightly lower in 2015 than 2013. In fairness CRUK i has been able to up its spending on research over that 4 year period by 18% to an impressive £393 M. Over the same period it has increased its spend on non-research activities including advocacy by 91% to £30 M. So unless you request your donation is used for a specific purpose there is an approximately 7.5% probability that it will be used to fund the activities of people such as Deborah Arnott of ASH.
I am not qualified to say whether I think Kumar's performance is worth £240,000 pa but I have my doubts.
Diverting funds collected by tobacco control 'charities' isn't new. Recall the American Legacy Foundation where executives diverted millions of dollars from its stated mission over the years. The anti-tobacco activist group has been implicated in purchasing irregularities, embezzlement, and fraud conducted by senior executives to the tune of $3.4 million.
No prosecution was initiated but the 'charity' renamed itself the 'Truth Initiative' after the financial irregularities became public. This charity sponsors antismoking ads on TV targeting youth and is funded through payments from the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA).
See "Inside the hidden world of thefts, scams and phantom purchases at the nation’s nonprofits" at the Washington Post, 26 October 2013 at http://tinyurl.com/z47pu98 .
“ … if you want to raise a lot of money you need the best people to do that.”
Well, yeeeeah ….. but if a large (or even medium-sized) proportion of that “lot of money” raised merely goes into further swelling the huge salaries of the people raising it, then surely those salaries become less, not more, justified? In fact, asking for donations from the public by insinuating that that money will go towards some “worthy cause” when in fact said “cause” – in real, practical terms – will see very little of it must, surely, be only a knat’s whisker away from what most normal members of the public would class as something of – well, err – a scam?