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 think that charity workers should be paid a decent salary but there are plenty of directors in the business world earning 5 figures rather than 6, who work long hours and go above and beyond in order to do a good job. I'm sure some of them would be willing to do the same sort of work for a charity and earning the same wage. I don't agree that you need to pay 6 figures to get good staff

I prefer to donate to smaller, local charities because I like to see evidence of what they're doing with my own eyes.

For example, I donate to It's Your Choice which is a charity for young people because I can see first hand the good work they do and people I know have accessed the services themselves.

However, if a campaign by a larger charity particularly moved me I would donate.

I'm a research fellow. I work with a handful of very clever people who happen to very important in a couple of the big medical charities. I have enough insider info on one of them to know they'd never get a single penny from me. As for the other, their wonderfully shiny labs that are strangely bereft of actual scientists provide good pub debate.

Gossiping aside, I'm naturally wary of 'big' charities. I don't like the quasi-governmental role they assume and I see only too often how their distribution of funds is susceptible to public pressure (which is a mechanism to ensure continuing donations, of course). I tend to donate to charities that don't umbrella too much. It upsets me to know that (real life example) a friend who donated to charity X because her grandad died of pancreatic cancer and she really wanted to make difference would have actually had her donation funding something more public-pleasing (I didn't tell her this, obviously).

I worked in the charity sector, large and small charities for a while.

There is a disturbing trend for large charities to employ senior staff on very high salaries and benefits, while pushing for low wages and benefits for front line staff. The senior staff will often not be particularly passionate about the cause, and will do the rounds of charities of a similar size. There is then a lot of emotional blackmail and pressure for front line staff who do care about the cause to work very hard, very long hours for very little- it is basically emotional exploitation.

Then there is also the problem of charities competing to deliver public sector service contracts on lower wages and worse terms and conditions that people employed directly by the public sector.

All these things have an effect on staff and also wider society.

I remember writing to the then chief exec of Shelter a few years ago after meeting some Shelter staff who were having their pension contributions and hourly rate reduced, meaning some of them would struggle with housing costs. A charity directly involved with the issue of homelessness, introducing employment practices that could lead to homelessness!

fringedivsion it's really only CEOs and a few v senior staff in very big charities who command 6 figure salaries, and they could be earning far more in the private sector. Yes a director in a private sector firm might fancy being a CEO of a big charity for a 6-figure salary but that doesn't mean they have the skills.

It is particularly hard to recruit into charities for any role where you are competing with the private sector - which is generally the case with leadership positions.

Of a £10 donation to a big charity, perhaps 1p goes to paying six-figure salaries. But those individuals can have a profound impact on how effective an organisation can be. Paying that penny may well help the other £9.99 go much, much further.

Plateofcrumbs

I have a slightly different take on things...

My experience in the charity sector was that the most successful CEOs had come up through the sector and were happy to work for about £50k salary. They were able to run charities effectively and economically as they had sufficient specialist knowledge, skills, drive, contacts and experience to do so. They would run charities in such a way that the charity had impact and was also sustainable.

The people "who could be earning far more in the private sector" were usually burnt out in the private sector, and looking for a gig where the pressure was off. They could often achieve flashy short-term gains at the expense of the long term health, effectiveness and reputation of the charity. They would press for as big a salary as possible, then leave just as soon as the cracks started to show, whilst trumpeting some headline statistics about improvement in service or efficiency that were drawn from a very skewed or limited reading of results within a particular time frame. They would use these "results" lies, damned lies and statisticsto leverage a bigger salary either at another charity or back in the private sector. Either that or they were looking for something in the honours list eventually so their entire spell inthe charity sector was one big networking opportunity.

It is pressure from ex private sector CEOs that has seen things like the rise of chugging, tv ad fundraising, extortionately priced charity shops- all the things that are fast draining the public goodwill that the charity sector built up over decades.

Charities that are run like big businesses often end up with as much goodwill as big businesses. At that point, it becomes very difficult and expensive to actually achieve anything.