to have reservations about donating to a large charity's

[dhdjdbrjrkbr]

Nc for this.

I give to a few small charities that I've worked with. But I just always question when i give to very large charities as they mostly seem to be run like big businesses, who spend alot on top management, advertising and swanky offices.

Aibu and a total dick? I'm currently donating to friends sky dive and can't decide between 10 or 20. I'm looking at the charity's public information and a lot seems to be wasted and the money that is spent with this health charity mainly goes on treatment rather than prevention.

I'm a trustee for a middle-ish sized charity and wouldn't take a paid job there, ever. The vocational aspect means people end up pouring their lives into their jobs and working far harder than non-charity workers, for very little pay. They are far, far better people than I. So I tend to give charities a bit of slack when judging them, because if this. And a charity of our size has to raise a lot of money, some of which comes from the larger charities. We couldn't raise anywhere near what we needed without them so I think the benefits do filter down. It helps if your think of a larger charity as a pyramid on top of hundreds of smaller charities, and if you amalgamated all the costs and salaries together across this and the smaller charities, you'd see a huge % of money in going out at the other end in total. It's just that the admin side is squeezed at the bottom and magnified at the top (there will for example be hundreds of people at top level sifting through the funding requests made by smaller charities such as us, and we get by with hardly any admin costs ourselves, because the poor buggers in our charity end up double-hatting all the time).

I'm a trustee of a charity with a £1m annual turnover and we just about make ends meet each year (ie all the income we get in from funding sources is spent on delivering services). We're probably classed as a small local charity as we work in a small geographic area but run a number of specialised services.

We employ someone to run the organisation on a £50k annual salary and also have dedicated project leaders, specialised staff as well as a lot of volunteers.

Without our dedicated and professional salaried staff team (who to be honest are underpaid & many go above and beyond on a daily basis to help our clients) we couldn't run the services we deliver.

In order to have such a team we have to run a payroll, sort out pensions, tax, childcare vouchers, insurance, health & safety, training, professional accreditation etc because we want our employees to be happy, safe, valued and we want to deliver a professional service to our clients and are obliged to do certain statutory or charity commission things eg annual audit, tax, accounts etc

We also run a building and have to meet the costs that incurs as well as finding the time/costs to fundraise.

So for every person we help on the front line there's a whole back office service to be funded. Without that function there is no front line service.

The third sector has been hammered by the current public sector cuts and is trying hard to continue to deliver services to those in need. Despite the cuts in funding and the need for us to scale back accordingly the need for our services doesn't go away.

I think there are some charities which have got big with massive admin costs to meet, but I definitely think those are the exception.

But why should experienced, skilled senior staff work for less? Don't we all try and earn as much as we can?

CEO 1- passionate about the cause, inexperienced, no track record, happy to work for £50k
CEO 2- proven record of increasing revenue and improving efficiency. Happy to work for £200k

Wouldn't it be silly to make hear decision based on £150K? If you were on the board of a large charity?

I work for a medium-sized charity. We are all paid around 25-30% less than the going-rate in larger charities and those salaries in turn are about the same % again below the equivalent commercial/private sector roles. I used to work in the commercial world pre-kids and charity employment and I am just making 50% of that salary.

We all have to live. My passion for the charity goes some way to helping bridge the gap but my kids still need clothes and food and there is a limit to how altruistic I can be with my own livelihood.

Equally, there are many in my organisation who just are not very competent. On the salaries we offer, it is very very hard to get decent people - and that is in junior and middle-ranking roles - let alone senior positions. Some areas are bordering on dysfunctional.

I feel that we owe it to our volunteers and donors to work efficiently and effectively with their funds which have been brought to us is good faith. We do good work but we could do so much better if we invested a little more in our staff.

IF you are a donor or a volunteer, do your research, follow your passions and interests and give either your money or time or both but don't sit on the sidelines and judge us from positions of mis-information and prejudice. And don't demand a level of altruism and personal sacrifice from me that far exceeds what you are prepared to offer.

It's clear there aren't enough good people with that view. It sounds shockingly naive, to be honest.

Or, what shut up legs said. Why not suggest nurses & doctors work for minimum wage? It's a vocation, why not do it for their love of mankind?

I completely disagree snowwhiteatetheapple - in order to attract the most skilled employees (at every level), they need to offer competitive salaries.

If you were a talented financial director an looking for a new role, are you going to take £120k pa from a for-profit or £45k pa from a well-meaning charity?

And heartisaspade I appreciate that while you CAN live in London or New York (where a lot of charities have their HQ) on less than 100k pa, if you are 45 years old, with a top level CEO CV and children hitting secondary school soon, why should you try to get by in London on 5 figures for the rest of your career? They don't want gap year types, they want to attract people long term.

It's ridiculous to suggest that a large organisation, managing huge sums of money and helping 10s of thousands of people if not 100's of thousands, should limit their senior staff to the minority of experienced people who are willing to work for buttons for a good cause.

Doctors and nurses save people's lives, treat them when they are ill etc. Bit different from somebody sat at a desk doing paperwork and organising yet on far more money than the nurse and doctor.

Nobodies suggesting charity execs work for NMW but they don't warrant a six figure sum from the public that is meant to benefit the people the charity supports not buy the latest BMW or penthouse apartment.

You don't seem to be listening. The people working for charities that are getting paid 6 figure salaries are taking a pay cut to work there. They would be earning a lot more doing the same job in the commercial sector.

I know it's nice to think that when you donate £20, the whole £20 goes to TB vaccinations in South Africa etc., but the accountability and responsibility is HUGE at these organisations and senior level execs are not "sat at a desk doing paperwork" - they are the people with the necessary education, training and vast experience to make sure as much of your £20 is turned into vaccinations as possible.

No doubt UNICEF should be keeping their budget to about £27k for this role.

It makes no difference how much a nurse earns. The principle is the same.

"It's really interesting that no one expects 'talented financial directors etc to have anything other than self interest motivating them"

Maybe you could suggest a FD of a large salary who works for say, under £50k? I'd be interested if you could find these people you keep describing. Presumably the large charities can't either.

Can't you see that a good ie, FD can save the charity a fortune in costs? Far more than you pay them? Can't you see how that makes financial sense?

Can you also see how 10 crap admins at £15k each can be a total waste of money?

Re anchor, the bedroom tax is a government initiative, they can't stop it.
Housing associations undertake a chairitable activity, but they do not take donations. They make their money from rent, sales and borrowings. The man on the street isn't giving them
Anything.

You're being deliberately obtuse.