to think at last something has exposed this scandal(275 Posts)
massive amounts paid to charity executives
it's almost a scam
Even the C Comm chairman
yeah, the guy on £50 k for 2 days a week : like he'd know how the real world works
but they need to pay the kind of salaries that will attract the right kind of people
greedy bastards you mean?
funny that the same rule does not apply right through the organisation ....
as if money was needed to attract the "right sort of people" then nobody would volunteer
sorry but the 7 X rule should apply to ALL businesses and charities and organisations
it creates a fairer society while still rewarding skills
oh I was just echoing what people on the thead have said, but but I don't really agree with them
I totally agree with you
there's a letter in the telegraph today suggesting controls similar to the one you mention for charities, and more too
I totally agree with professionalism and sensible rewards : I charge a decent rate for my time after all
there has been much too much reward for failure among the clique at the top
look up the biogs of the people who messed up the Dome : all have been handed even jammier posts since ....
Same with the Olympics - some of them had to be given payoffs because they weren't on fixed term contracts. One got a severance pay off and walked straight in to another fat job with Olympic Legacy.
crumbledwalnuts I'm sure, in fact I know, that there are many mumsnetters who've seen UN "relief" work and peacekeeping work. A lot of UN work is a job creation scheme for ex-public sector workers, ministers and journalists, who find excuses to employ ex-colleagues in non-jobs.
The UN isn't a charity. FFS.
FFS I know that ffs.
It's all part of the same merrygoround ffs.
That former special adviser to Tony Blair getting a bonus of 20K from Save the Chidren? FFS.
What? The greedy bastard merrygoround? And so what if a special advisor gets paid by a charity? I'm struggling to see your point, probably because you don't have one.
Yy ffs the charity-senior public sector-government adviser-Eurocrat-quangocrat-Ford Foundation-Gates foundation-any foundation-ex-journo ex-BBC-nice fat jobs for my friends merrygoround.
You may not have heard of it.
I think, on reflection, you and your husband/partner are superbly well matched.
Do you fourwillies? On reflection ? Or did you just run out of non-personal things to say?
Listen don't worry too much about that merrygoround. Complacency is a wonderful thing. Best not to trouble it over-much.
Crumbled I agree that the merrygoround exists, although I dont agree that all charities are involved in it. It largely concerns internationally focused NGOs that are linked in to the UN/ national government network. In this area, government relationships are paramount so unsurprisingly you get a lot of cross-pollination
My personal view is that donors have a very important role to play in keeping charities honest- many individual donors just hand over cash with little or no thought to impact, efficiency etc, so is it any wonder that the charity sector has its problems? If my boss paid me and never asked to see any of my work, I'd probably be a bit less diligent than I am.
On that note, here are my thoughts on how to maximise bang for buck for individual donors
Avoid DR - Yes, the news story of the disaster zone is compelling and you sleep that bit better for sending #20 to the TV appeal BUT Disaster recovery is always going to be an inefficient use of funds because you get a huge amount of "heart money"/ unrestricted cash pouring into a country at a time of huge logistical disruption, when local grassroots organisations are totally overwhelmed and there is an influx of international organisations/volunteers who mean well but are not necessarily au fait with the locality. It's not conducive to well thought out initiatives, impactful projects and efficient spending. There is always a lot of waste due to supplies not getting where they are supposed to be, "diversion" of money etc. Some of this is essentially criminal (ie. people taking advantage of the chaos to nick stuff) but most is just sheer inefficiency/ poor communications/lack of infrastucture etc. If you want to donate, wait. The most impactful projects happen once the situation has been stabilised.
Don't be put off by UK charities that are partly government funded. There's a lot of confusion around this issue. Many UK charities working in the social services field (e.g providing advocacy to people with learning disabilities) are contracted by the local authorities to provide that service to their residents. This is called "commissioning of services". The contracts are tendered and the grants are strictly monitored and restricted (charities have to provide detailed budgets on how they intend to provide the service, commit to certain performance metrics etc.). The government doesn't just dish out cash to charities and ask for nothing in return. Therefore, charities that are receiving government grants on an ongoing basis would have to meet reasonable levels of good governance and grant execution ability.
Go Direct: The more organisations in a funding chain, the less money gets to the final beneficiary. My advice to individual donors is "don't fund funders" i.e. direct your donations to charities that actually carry out the work because then you get better transparency and control over your donation. You need to do a little homework around this - Some charities (even large ones) run all their own projects. Some charities, especially UK charities that work primarily overseas, execute largely through local partners (i.e. they are program funders rather than program operators). Sometimes there is a good reason for this (local regulations etc.) but as a donor, my advice is that if you want to fund a specific country, find a good local NGO and back them directly.
That said, Go Local: The foundation I work for only funds "operating charities" and we fund all projects locally (ie. if we fund within a country, we have a grants officer there). I think this is important because we have eyes on the ground, we can do much better due diligence and we understand the cultural context. Obviously, most individual donors dont have this luxury, so (controversially) I would advise them to donate in their home country. There is a huge amount of need in the UK and some great projects being done at local level, and also by national charities. You, as a donor, understand the context, whereas with other countries what appears a great cause/need may actually not be- e.g. In China, huge amounts of money were poured into building very basic schools in rural areas (as an aside, many of these were built by volunteers and were not great quality). A few years later the government knocked them all down, consolidated school districts and built new ones. Moreover, the root problem in China re rural education was never the lack of buildings- it was (and still is) a lack of maintenance, lack of books and lack of skilled teachers, plus the draw of paid employment which means kids drop out. You need to understand the issue to know if an initiative is going to solve it.
Anyway, this is long, but I just wanted to get across the point that the charity sector has its issues for sure, but that doesnt mean to say that the whole sector is one big gravy train of scumbags. There are a lot of people doing some very good work, and they may not always be the people that come across as "carey-sharey". As I said upthread, treat donations as an investment and not a gift. Donors have a role to play in keeping charities honest. No-one has to support a specific charity. make sure the ones you support deserve it.
"Crumbled I agree that the merrygoround exists, although I dont agree that all charities are involved in it. It largely concerns internationally focused NGOs that are linked in to the UN/ national government network. In this area, government relationships are paramount so unsurprisingly you get a lot of cross-pollination"
Cross-pollination is a fancy word for nepotism and jobs for my mates. In any other field it would be deplored as such - but this conversation involves charities and public/third sector, and is taking place on mumsnet, so a nice name is offered up instead. It is the equivalent of the third sector old boy network and you know it.
I don't know if you're trying to reduce the apparent number by talking about "largely concerning internationaly focussed NGOs" but that is an awful lot of large, popular, household name British charities.
Just looking down the lists it's interesting how Islamic relief comes in refreshingly low.
"My personal view is that donors have a very important role to play in keeping charities honest- many individual donors just hand over cash with little or no thought to impact, efficiency etc, so is it any wonder that the charity sector has its problems? If my boss paid me and never asked to see any of my work, I'd probably be a bit less diligent than I am."
I really hope this isn't a little dig at my husband for focussing more on how the money is spent in the field rather than the financial set up. Perhaps you haven't read those posts. But really? We can't rely on charity executives to be honest and work properly despite their 100K plu salaries? Really? People like my husband are to blame for Justin Forsyth's 20K bonus?
You must, I assume, welcome in that case the Telegraph exposure of these generous payments. It is, after all, how to keep charities honest if they really, really can't begin to do it themselves.
"I just wanted to get across the point that the charity sector has its issues for sure, but that doesnt mean to say that the whole sector is one big gravy train of scumbags. There are a lot of people doing some very good work, and they may not always be the people that come across as "carey-sharey"."
Yes, there are people doing amazing work, and very often these people are NOT on the pass-the-parcel-jobs-perks-salaries gravy train. Very often they're lower down the feeding chain, their commitment taken advantage of by people who haven't made any sacrifices at all to work in the third sector, but have acquired what you call a carey-sharey image while retaining the nice package and the nice pension and paying the school fees. Very often, they're the volunteers.
Does that mean the gravy train doesn't exist, or that no undeserving people are on it, or that the details shouldn't be exposed in the Telegraph and by MPs? Of course it doesn't.
Good on the Telegraph, I say.
Anyway I read the rest of your post about how to get bang for your donated buck and that seems like good advice. Very good of you to take the time to type it all out as well.
I still can't believe your dig at donors "just handing over cash". Seriously when you've got Save the Children, Concern, Action Aid, NSPCC, RSPCA, big, big household names, are you expecting everyone who donates to go through the annual accounts involving detailed spend and financial set up?
There are big names that we should be able to trust, perhaps with a look at the website. There are charities with government funding. And with all this expertise, all these senior people on all these great salaries, and all this supposed oversight, the donor giving £20 a month is to blame for people over-feeding at the teat of other people's money?
I notice on your advice section the one thing you don't say is, go through the accounts, look at the remunerations. Shouldn't you be advising that, if you're going to blame donors for misuse of money?
I also disagree a little bit with, go for the local NGO. In some countries you are talking about very poor local oversight, very poor indeed.
Look it's in the Independent now
And Unite is dreadfully unhappy about it too. Cripes that could confuse people. Particularly since the man who had his birthday party paid for by charity donors (see above link) points out that "the joint general secretaries of Unite earn a combined package of £308,000."
Craumblewalnuts that link to the party is frankly nonsense.
There is an old phrase, you have to spend a penny to make a penny.
That party cost £765 and was not just for his friends but for people involved in or connected to the charity in various ways. You have no idea from that article how much money that party may have bought in, but i bet it was a lot more than £765.
Not nonsense at all. You are defending it by saying he used his birthday party as PR and fundraising. That doesn't in any way make it nonsense. You have no idea how much money it bought (sic) in, it may have been zero. Do you have evidence? As quite a large number of guests were from other charities, the idea of raising money from offering birthday cake to other well-paid charity executives seems rather up itself, to say the least. Or even "frankly" up itself.
Anyway it's nice you have no issue with anything else I've posted.
But thing is crumbled you have become so axe grindy now that its getting hard to take anything you say seriously.
Realy? Even though you cant argue with any of it? It just - annoys you?
Perhaps it annoys you because there's so much truth in it.
How ridiculous. Can't argue with what you say but can't take you seriously. Compelling, truly compelling.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.