fred smith wrote:For the last time, you're the only one talking about volunteers.
No, we were also talking about "nonsalaried workers" at your request. Would you care to offer a definition of this?
Despite having already explained this 4 or 5 times, I'll do it again. Most NGO workers are part time / casual workers earning an hourly wage.. Only a few are salaried. I don't know how to explain it any simpler.
If you don't agree with the figures, then go and prove it, expose it and demonstrate that there is creative accounting going on. Their finances are audited every year and it's all available in black and white for anyone who wants to peruse the data.
The WWF has posted that 9% or even 4% on some sites goes toward administration. How is this possible?
If you don't believe it, show it to be untrue. I'm sure you're better at auditing than the auditors who do the job every year. If you can prove there's creative accounting, the IRS will love you.
Considering the WWF themselves state they have over 5000 workers worldwide and you state 725, I think that at least some of your sources are very wrong indeed.
Sorry, but can you give me the 5,000 workers worldwide site? Can you supply a link? I never found anything of the kind.
It's on the one of the graphics or reports on their website.
Now, you have done precious little but claim experience from Australia. IF this is all that you can contribute, let's just say nothing else that you have done has better proven the reasons why you were only volunteering.
Last time I looked, volunteering didn't mean getting paid for every hour you worked.
Now, one task is for you to show 5,000 workers worldwide AND show that these would be "volunteers" or perhaps per your preference indicate that they are "nonsalaried" workers whatever that means and then show what they earn on average. I have done all of this to prove my point. I don't think that it is too much to ask for you to do the same if you feel you have a point to prove... then prove it!
No actually, that's not my task. You're the one who doesn't believe the official audited figures not me.
I would prefer to wait and see what CF Images has to say, especially since it was he not you who raised WWF's 9% administrative expense as proof sure and true that NGOs were somehow better managed and key contributors to something.
Once again, read what I said. I didn't say NGO's were better managed. I said that among NGO's, the WWF is one of the more efficient ones. That's ALL I said. Here's my original reply just to refresh your memory.
cfimages wrote:Money raised is only half the issue. You need to look at money spent as well to see whether it's being wasted through hands-in-the-trough approach (as you seem to suggest) or is actually being used correctly. An efficient charity / NGO should have an administrative cost of less than 15%. According to the most recent financial report, the World Wildlife Fund spent 8% on admin costs. This places them at the very top of the list in terms of financial efficiency and shows that they are spending money where they should be and not enriching themselves.