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.

Do heroin dealers not go skiing? And you are actually happier with the idea that your money goes to a drug dealer who is causing homelessness in the first place than to someone who works enabling charities to support people?

"personally I give a lot of cash to homeless people in the street - it probably ends up at the off licence or the heroin dealer, but at least I'm not paying for anyone's skiing holiday."

So when you think about the destination of your charity givings, you're fine with it being spent on HEROIN but not on a top level executive who make sure that your money is distributed responsibly?

I used to work as a ground level, cancer research scientist. I worked in ways to make existing drugs more effective, and develop new drugs, and drug combinations.

I loved it, but the pay was crap. After a degree and a four year PhD, my starting salary was 14k. On a temporary contract, because charities only fund for a year at a time, three years if you're lucky. Far less than a fundraiser at admin staff, who also had job security.

I left to work for the nhs, because the pay and job prospects were better. And the nhs is hardly renowned for overpaying its workers.

Of all my colleagues in the lab, I think only one is still working in the field, and he's in the U.S.

So no, I don't give to big charities.

I was just going to post about scientists newname having done some hr work for one of the big cancer charities. They were a business who had coasted too long on the good will of their staff and scientists were leaving in their droves, because just like any one else, structure, development, pay and reward, the overal 'deal' if you like, was important to them. And they could get that - and a massive pay rise - if they went down the road to a pharma. If we want the brightest and best, we have to pay. That's life.

Although someone who's ok with their money going to a heroin dealer, or funding Mr Laithwate's skiing holiday probably isn't ever going to recognise that...

the insistence on myths such as 'people only object as an excuse not to give to charity', is going to lead to donations dropping further and further, and less and less money for the people who really need it.

Ha ha ha! These excuses aren't going to make much difference to the people who actually want the world to be a fairer place, and who are prepared to organise their finances to support organisations who are doing good work.

You have not demonstrated that you understand the political economics of charitable work, and your misunderstanding looks wilful to me, so I can only conclude that you're working awfully hard to attempt to justify an attitude that isn't really justifiable. Everyone has the right to decide not to give to charity, but it's rather disingenuous to argue that there are really good reasons not to give.

Nancy - Thank you.

Well I fundamentally disagree that people who work in religious missions are doing it for no gain. The gain they have in mind may not be financial, but it's reward none the less.

If you want the person with the first in applied chemistry working for Cancer uk rather than Pfizer - and I think you do - then that person has to be paid. Well.

And nurses' pay is a complete red herring. It's possible to understand charities are competing for resource just like every other organisation AND to want nursing to pay better, all at the same time.

I work for a charity that is so wide reaching that most people think it is a public service. Indeed, not a day goes by that I don't see MNers recommending it to each other. As a proportion of our income, donations are minuscule.

Our strategies are absolutely determined by proving the very best services that we can to our beneficiaries by ( for example) paying to train and insure our 22.5 thousand volunteers.

I earn quite a good salary, and I am worth it, the work I do which enables our staff and volunteers to function is essential.

I think I work for the same charity as you Catmint!

for the last time, because I have to go out and because I've said all I have to say, I DO give to charity
Yeah, and you also said that you suspect the money you give to beggars ends up in the hands of heroin dealers, so I'm not sure I entirely understand your strongly-felt ethical concerns with large charities, if knowing 'where the money really goes' is so important.

I'd have a bit more sympathy with your perspective if you said you organised your finances so that you were supporting local charities by monthly direct debit because you believe they are doing important work. But that's not what you're doing, is it? So in fact I'm not misrepresenting you: you're using excuses to attempt to justify not making a financial commitment to charities. I have more time for people who say they just can't afford to give to charity.

I'm not that bothered - large charities require a fair bit of running and organisation

as to re branding - sometimes it's needed EG changing 'the spastics society' to Scope

I would rather people where paid a decent amount for doing a good job

no one forces you to give to any charity - make your own choices

I think anyone who thinks charities shouldn't put money to staff for fundraising or admin are being very short sighted. I work for a large charity. Without someone to do the admin the work in the field (ie 'the cause') could not function. Without a fundraiser how do you raise the funds?

The proportion of money going to staff salaries is minimal in comparison to the amount going to the cause, but both are essential.

The charity I work for used to have large reserves but now are down to a shoestring and are suffering because everyone still quotes old figures about their mythical 'reserves' so people bad mouth them. To run a charity properly you need experienced and qualified staff, so you need to pay a salary that will attract these people. They cannot and will not work for free and whatever the salary it still will be less than they would be paid in private sector. With good staff the charity will run more efficiently, resulting in more success for the cause.

The charity I work for gets used by the public as an emergency service and people get irate and on their soapbox if we cannot respond straight away due to lack of resources. So then they start slagging us off which then damages our donations. I often wonder whether these people have ever actually put their hand in their pocket and donated to the cause they feel they are entitled to benefit from and slate when they don't get an instant response.

It's a charity NOT a public service, mopping up the mess created by society like many other charities out there.

YABU - charities need staff to run them efficiently

I work for a large national charity that funds medical research. I took about 30% pay cut when leaving the private sector. Our CEO has a six figure salary, he could easily double this in the private sector. The charity does indeed run like a large business. It is innovative, strategic, efficient and driven, not by profit but by improving health.
One red herring in this argument is the notion that all funds spent on administration are wasted. My job is about making sure that the research we fund is world class. Distributing funds via a lottery would be cheap, but incredibly wasteful. Ensuring that donations are invested wisely is a legitimate use of funds, but is often dismissed as admin.

There have been a lot of good responses here from people who work in charities talking about how difficult it is to recruit competent staff on wages which are below what people can get in other sectors. Yet some posters seem to be ignoring this and are determined to believe that salaries are unnecessarily large. I work in the public sector because I believe in fighting social injustice. Whenever I look at vacancies in the third sector, whether charities or the voluntary sector, I am astonished by how low they are. I am in a non managerial post and still earn more than managers and even some directors of these organisations. Large organisations need competent experienced staff. Would you rather donors money was wasted because of a well meaning incompetent at the top? As for reserves, I am involved in assessing grant applications from the third sector. We like organisations to have reserves. It means they aren't at immediate risk of going under.

And the nurses pay thing is a red herring. Nurses work for the going rate for their job. Charity workers work for less than the rate they could get in other sectors.

Hi five rallytog!

And in fact high five to anyone who works for a charity, and all amazing charity volunteers.

There are lots of hidden costs in running a charity which provides services.

For instance, Donators should know that volunteers aren't free. They have to be trained, insured, supervised, developed, supported. They have to have a suite of policies and procedures dedicated to making sure they are (a) protected (b) able to provide good quality service which does what the charity needs. Someone has to monitor this and be accountable.

When providing services to the public, some of whom will be at the lowest ebb in their lives, charities must invest in the infrastructure to get it right, and do it transparently. You can't do that with no money.

My role is in a charity's main office where I'm responsible for researching info which I then provide to those working directly in the field, plus I train them. To do my job I am required to have MSc or PhD. Some people might say I'm part of the charity's 'admin' but without my role the charity's field workers would not be able to do their jobs as well as they can with the info and training I provide. You can't have one without the other, therefore back office roles are essential and you need to pay people a good salary to get the people who will do the best job.

I make £10k less than others doing my job in private sector. So there is an element of me doing the job for the love of the cause, if that makes people feel a bit happier? Additionally I constantly work more than my hours and I volunteer for the charity in a different role at weekends. Plus we all (staff) regularly raise funds for the charity we work for and I am a regular supporter myself.

I feel like we should each wear a pink carnation on Monday Catmint to signify secret membership of the [charityname] Mumsnet coven

There are some extraordinary people who are willing to make enormous personal sacrifices for a cause.

Alas not enough of them as otherwise I wouldn't find it so hard to find talented people willing to work for the charity I work for. It's not unusual for me to have to run two or three rounds of recruitment to fill a single vacancy. If we are really struggling I might have to beg to the finance director to apply a 'market forces' weighting to the salary - and believe me I have to make a really good case to get that signed off.

I certainly don't count myself as extraordinary - just an ordinary person who has a job she enjoys for a cause she feels strongly about. But I work harder for less money than I have done in either the private or public sectors. And I have a baby now and I'm acutely aware I could go back to the private sector and afford to work part-time and gain a day or two a week with DS. It would be wonderfully not to have to make that choice but when the private sector will pay at least 40% more it's hard not to be swayed.

Rallytog, where are you based? I dont think you'd see my carnation....

I'm not in the new place Catmint - home based. Assume you're also remote?