A few days ago I saw a fundraising commercial on TV for UNICEF UK. UNICEF was originally the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund which became the United Nations Children’s Fund in 1953. It is an agency of the United Nations responsible for providing humanitarian and developmental aid to children worldwide. According to its most recent set of financial accounts held by the Charity Commission, UNICEF UK raised around £135 million in the year. In the TV commercial, UNICEF UK was asking us to donate “just £10 a month”. Having once worked in advertising, I was curious about how many people would be needed to respond to this TV ad for UNICEF UK to have lots of money to help the world’s most disadvantaged children. So I looked at the salaries at UNICEF UK to see how many people donating “just £10 a month” would be needed to pay the salaries of various UNICEF UK bosses and employees.
To pay the salaries of the two highest-paid UNICEF UK bosses would require 2,250 people donating “just £10 a month”.
To pay the salaries of all UNICEF UK staff being paid more than £100,000 a year would need more than 13,000 people donating “just £10 a month”.
To pay the salaries of all UNICEF UK staff being paid more than £60,000 a year would need more than 50,000 people donating “just £10 a month”.
To pay the cost of all UNICEF UK employees would need more than 193,000 people donating “just £10 a month”.
So, UNICEF UK would need more than 193,000 people donating “just £10 a month” before it had any money to actually spend on helping the world’s children.
By the way, the average salary of UNICEF UK’s employees in 2024 was a rather pleasant (for them) £46,980 and the average cost per employee (including salaries, social security and pensions) for UNICEF UK’s (IMHO) lucky employees was £57,922. If I remember correctly from writing my 2015 book ‘THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL’, UNICEF UK is one of the more generous (to its own staff) charities in Britain.
But, in fact, there probably isn’t any need for so many people to donate “just £10 a month” as much of UNICEF’s money seems to come from governments and governmental organisations, which we’re already paying for with our taxes.
UNICEF UK is just one of more than 30 UNICEF national committees. All are part of a gigantic, worldwide ‘charitable’ organisation which raises and spends more than $8 billion every year. According to Professor Google most of UNICEF’s $8 billion each year comes from governments and private companies:
- Public Sector: $6.07 billion (74%). Funded by governments, inter-governmental agencies and global programme partnerships. The top contributors are the United States, Germany, and the European Union.
- Private Sector: $1.84 billion (22%). Raised from individual donors, NGOs, corporate partners and foundations through a global network of more than 30 National Committees.
So, if you do choose to donate “just £10 a month” to UNICEF UK, from what I understand you may actually be donating twice – once with your generous “just £10 a month” and again through your taxes.
I’m not sure my modest pocket calculator is sufficiently powerful to calculate how may donors giving “just £10 a month” would be needed to pay the salaries and expenses of the bosses and employees of the more than thirty national UNICEF organisations.
But please don’t let me dissuade you from donating. Come on! Be generous! Donate and doubly donate to the wonderful UNICEF UK. Clearly, being so generous to their own employees, they really do want/need (delete as appropriate) your money.
David Craig is the author of There is No Climate Crisis, available (for now) as an e-book or paperback from Amazon.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’ve often wondered about this since as far as I know other UN agencies do not solicit donations in this way, from governments yes but not advertising directly to the public.
I’d rather give £10 a month to my local children’s charity which helps disadvantaged children who are struggling at school … all staffed by volunteers. At least then I’ll know the money isn’t going into the pockets of the Globalist Lanyard Class.
It’s associated with the UN, by definition it’s a scam.
Charities should not be on the Government payroll, if they are, then they are not a charity, they are in effect a contractor to the Government. I am not asked by the people in Government who sponge more and more off me in taxes, if I want my money to go to Charity. I don’t, I choose which charities I choose to give too, and quite frankly it is to those who do not have CEO’S and a board on hundreds of thousands a year. I choose to give it to smaller charities who have people who head them up for free, as a a way of giving back.
UNICEF, Like the U.N is just an organisation focused on woke, and politics spreading their own ideology to 3rd world nations in return for food and a bit of help to those nations. Make UNICEF and them all stand on their own merits as a charity and not reliant upon tax payers money and Politicians virtue signalling to keep them afloat.
Avsolutely sacrosanct words.
I’ve always been sceptical of the motivation of charities which advertise on TV – even though all the money raised may go to the charity, are their overheads consistent with their field-work?
The clue is in the name …. UN…. and you know what that organisation advocates. Nil Points.
When I was a lad, I used to see UNICEF mentioned in comic books and the like (can’t remember why) and I imagined it to be a large, wonderful organisation that cherished the health of children worldwide.
Then, sadly, I grew up and learned more about things.
Back then, of course, I also thought well of Oxfam, not having known that it sheltered dubious types bent on mischief and worse.
Every good cause soon becomes a business then turns into a racket.
When I was growing up, charity was a voluntary activity with your time given freely. Often things the charity needed you gave.
When did it become a paid profession, a career?
Once they realised they could get away with it?
Charities are the refuge of people who don’t want to have to prove their worth.
In a profit seeking company operating in a free market you have to produce and be held to account daily.
Im a charity you just have to tell a good story about all the good that your work and the scraps you’ve lgiven away have done.
That said, the one objective measure of their performance is the amount of funds they raise. And for that reason I have no doubt that they are very good at that part. Scamming people out of theoir money.
I can’t help thinking that the single biggest way to improve the welfare of UK children would be via a society that encouraged and rewarded productive people but of course that would not provide satisfaction for do gooders
Munchausen syndrome by proxy on steroids.
Precisely this.
That’s not true for local charities. My father ran one for two decades and he and his small team worked tirelessly for low and precarious pay.
Sorry on the downtick. Wasn’t paying attention (oops) meant to uptick.
When they realised the best way to get funding was via enforced “donations” from taxpayers, via the Government.
Which is why we only give to the small charities, not the behemoths with massive overhead/staffing costs
Personable young chappie knocked on my door the other week. Can’t remember which charidee he was for. I interrupted his spiel to ask him if he could tell me what percentage of any contribution I might make would go to him, and what to the charity.
Of course, he couldn’t or wouldn’t tell me. I told him I’d think about it.
He expressed surprise, since, as he put it, ‘All of your neighbours have given’.
We parted amicably.
“All of your neighbours have given” – yeah right. FFS
I miss the days of charity collectors who hadn’t had extensive behavioural science (=getting money from strangers through manipulation) training.
Same here. We only support small local charities.
They are a registered charity, so can claim 25% extra from those donors that pay tax, so the sums are a little bit out. But it is an employer, not a voluntary outfit as such.
How much do we already give via #britgov?