Monthly income turns to charity greed
Posted by: mermaid
22nd Oct 2009 11:50pm
This was met with much distaste amongst the large pool of volunteers, who questioned why? The manager shared the same view and set off to identify the need vs greed syndrome and this is what we learned.......
more than $210 billion of institutionalised ''charity'' is now part of Australia's society and is embedded in the economy rather than being an optional extra. Old-fashioned charity is just $9 billion, 4 per cent of the total or less than 3 per cent if we acknowledge governments' financial support to charities.
There are approximately 10,400 charities in Australia with almost 12,000 outlets or branches.
120,000 staff are employees vs tens of thousands of volunteers; this figure does not include volunteers who work for schools, clubs and associations. Total wages are about $3.9 billion.
Salvation Army (eastern and southern divisions only) revenue approx $650 million, smaller average less than $800,000 per year (a extraordinary figure).
Compare these figures to an average business employing staff, with a revenue of $3.8 million - or approx five times the average charity.
Reality is charities are a business and these figures are Australian, given the number of charity organisations in Australia also exist worldwide the math just does not add up.
When presenting these figures to senior management, the manager was told rising inflation restricted the charity from performing.
The result, the manager and 3/4's of the pooled volunteers left and within 2 years the charity have employed 4 managers. The days of charity truly have gone!
What are your thoughts?
berger123
- 27th Nov 2010 12:30pm
What I don't understand is what are the op shops there for? I used to think that they were there to provide low price items for people in need, but I have heard so many people who are on reasonable incomes (in some cases, LARGE incomes) say "I scored a bargain" at the op shop. So maybe my original understanding was wrong?
Or has the client base changed from the needy to the wealthy? If the funds from the op shop were going back to the needy in some way, that would be great, but I fear that with inflation that the funds mostly get ploughed back into the running of the op shop, which means it just supports itself and nothing/no-one else.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am all for charities supporting people, but not charities supporting themselves to no other end. If they do this, they are just a business and no longer a charity, IMHO.
Help Caféstudy members by responding to their questions, or ask your own in Café Chat, and you will get the chance of earning extra rewards. Caféstudy will match these and donate equally to our two chosen Australian charities.