shocked at charities..

[cuckoooo]

My brother is an auditor in the charity sector and he was telling me that the big charities, particularly the 'sponsor a child' ones are pointless.

He was telling me that the biggest childrens charity - UNICEF - only 14p in the pound gets spent on actual causes the rest of the money goes to advertising, offices and staff costs. He also added that Unicef's boss has a company Rolls Royce and $1.2m salary.

He said for worldvision/plan uk/save the children only between 15p and 23p in the pound gets to the children sponsored and not even directly to the child - just allocated to the local area. The majority of costs are rent, advertising, mysterious 'consulting' costs, and staff costs. He said they have swanky offices in really expensive places - Belgravia/Mayfair etc and the execs have high-ish salaries with lots of perks (chauffeur, paid holidays, lots of annual leave etc)

He said Red Cross was the worst offender of all, but wouldn't go into details.

I just felt a little outraged, though not entirely surprised. It feels like that even the good things of this world are corrupt.

The type of predictions Itchy's colleague makes have been around for decades. It hasn't happened yet. Government funding for charities is fairly static at the moment. There has, however, been a shift away from grants and towards contracts.

Of course some charities are badly governed. Some spend their money better than others. And I'm sure there are some abuses. But the idea that charities can get away with paying their CEOs 10 times the figure declared in the accounts, give them huge employment benefits that go way beyond the total employment benefits for all staff declared in the accounts and so on is ridiculous.

If the OP's brother really is an auditor in the charity sector he should know better. He is alleging that major charities are criminal enterprises. They aren't.

Sadly I have come across many people who believe that those running charities must be in it for themselves. I find that mindset very sad.

prh47bridge in my opinion, it is happening. If you look at the strategies of major trusts and foundations, they also state quite clearly that they believe that this is happening. the sector is changing very, very rapidly and the walls between different funding sectors are becoming increasingly permeable with funds that would have been ring-fenced 5 years ago moving into an open market place. Govt is putting out various funds to prepare charities for these changes so they are also being upfront about this happening. We are all going to have to change the way we work if we want to thrive in this climate.

Fir this that haven't seen it, I highly recommend a TED talk by Dan Palotta. Also on YouTube etc. The way we think about charity is all wrong talks about exactly these issues such as overhead etc in a very engaging and articulate way.

Oh, I think there will be trusts and foundations. (I rather hope there will, as DP works for one of the major ones!) I suspect it is the funding model that will shift - much more mission-related investment rather than straight grants.

Disclaimer - I don't work in trust funding myself though I used to do a column on it for Third Sector magazine.

The op's brother is no more an auditor than I am.

Oh look, Ian Duncan Smith has got bored of starting benefit-bashing threads and decided to branch off in a new direction. Have 15% of a from me

I think its more that central government are moving very rapidly towards a neoliberal model and that small (but useful) pools of funding that used to exist through local authorities have consequently disappeared, with the remaining local funds being up for grabs in a competitive and relatively open marketplace as the boundaries between sectors become more and more permeable.

I think that trusts and foundations are (reluctantly) shifting their models in response to what central government is doing. Grants are disappearing towards payments by results models and social investment which both transfer financial risks directly to charities and front-line services - which is a completely new business model for them to switch to and then navigate.

Its tough and if charities and services don't start to change their business models and adapt to this new climate- their options become very limited. The end result of which is cash free, volunteer led, grassroots projects and large chain contractors delivering services in an open market place..... with nothing in between.

I am very surprised by the attitude that people who work for a charity should do it in the cheap or as volunteers. These are full time jobs (like many others not just 9-5, but longer). If they were just volunteer roles no one could afford to do them. They often pay less than comparable roles in the private sector. Yes several do use the living wage as a baseline rather than the minimum wage, but not all charities do this and those that do tend to for ethical reasons.

Those who work for charities have to pay for their own living costs and families. There has been loads misinformation on this thread about the level of funding which is reinvested back into fundraising etc. Also some charities will have more staff, depending on their aims so those that lobby or raise awareness will need staff to do so.

Running a charity costs money- it requires staff- mostly just average people who have to live and need to be attracted with their talents. I suspect the OP is affiliated with the salvation army (though I am sure not officially as surely spreading lies about other charities is a step too far). Charity accounTs are all public so have a look if you are concerned before donating, but do think about the context they operate in.

Volunteers can be more trouble than they worth in some cases. We had a volunteer who did the wages (she had worked in HR for a very large corp) but twice did me out of money ie 2 days pay when i started and carried on paying me maternity when i went back to work so lost a weeks pay. She would refuse point blank to do anything about it, that was just me, so as the charity grew she probably cocked up a few more, in the end they paid a company to do the wages. She was also going round to our branches as a self appointed representative.
By the time i left there were no volunteers, just the occassional intern who got paid expenses.

yes bruffin volunteers can be brilliant, fantastic resources - or they can be flaky, chaotic, make bad decisions and make unreasonable demands on organisations because they are not being paid. Also some volunteers have unhealthy reasons for approaching services in the first place, which can put vulnerable people at risk. Weighting services further towards volunteering is not the answer (imo)

If the OP's brother works for a big 4 firm, I'm the Duchess of Cambridge.

I also sponsor a child through Plan. I know I'm actually sponsoring his community.

Volunteers are fantastic in the vast majority of cases (my role for a charity is focuses around volunteer training and support) but effective recruitment, training and governance is essential for any charity wishing to work with volunteers in any significant way.

I feel compelled to support the OP who is correct with the figure quoted for Unicef's director's wage ... More than £120k. Source: www.thirdsector.co.uk/unicef-uk-income-rose-nearly-20-per-cent-last-year/finance/article/1351348
This article also talks about increased government grants.
This article www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10223961/Revealed-who-is-getting-the-most-money-at-Britains-biggest-aid-charities.html tells us that the highest paid Red Cross worker earns £184k. Save the Children £168k.
These are massive salaries and yes, I'm shocked that charitable donations are funding them, and I'm glad the OP brought this up - it could have given rise to an interesting and thought provoking discussion. Instead posters have decided to drag the OP through the mud!
Such a shame that some MNetters choose to annihilate people so personally. It's really nasty and frequently prevents me from posting on here.

The OP said $1.2m goldwrapped. Which is about 4x as much as £120k.

the salaries may be correct but I have to see evidence that the figures for where the donations go are anything other than nonsense.

if the post is true, 70-80% of donations do not get used for the purposes of the charity. Evidence please, excluding obvious crooked charities none of which were mentioned in the OP.

(not holding breath...)

Sorry Lynda, you're right. There is a lot of stuff on the internet about the US CEO earning $1.2m, but she only actually earns $194,000. Apologies again, I got it very wrong, but it's still a lot of money ...

I have spent my career in the charity sector and worked for 10 different charities, largely smaller and medium sized ones.

The LEAST amount, in any of these charities, spent from donations on charitable purposes was 86p in the pound.

There's a lot of charities and like any sector, they vary enormously. But if you care about finding a cure for dementia or stillbirths, or hope an air ambulance or hospice might help you when you're in need, then charities are your man!

I'm sure that many small charities do good work but small charities can't do things like eradicating polio - UNICEF has been a major contributor to that and we are now extremely close to ridding the world of a serious disease. That sort of goal requires a large charity with infrastructure and, yes, paid staff.

This is why Dh and I tend to donate to smaller charities where we know the money is going to really help those who need it.

When I say "small" I mean with a turnover of around £10m pa. Charities this size can most certainly make a difference.

Yes it is a lot of money, but who do you want running your multi-million pound organisation? Do you only want people who can afford to work for less because they are aristocracy/have a rich spouse/have won the lottery? Or do you want somebody who is highly qualified, has suitable experience and as such commands a high salary to reflect their abilities and experience? Remember not everyone can be a CEO.

To put into context your average merchant banker earns £50-60k starting salary as a graduate. That's with just a degree and connections A high street bank manager probably earns in the region of £45-50k including bonuses. Council leaders and NHS foundation bosses earn £100-200k.

Personally I am happy that people doing big jobs earn big money. That is fair and allows the organisation to recruit the best person, not just one who will do it for less money.

Help for heroes are properly dodgy. Yes they do some good work but their founders are rinsing it for all the money they can take

I sponsor a child. I was well aware that the money goes to the community, not the child - that is upfront with all the charities I've looked at including Plan, Worldvision, Actionaid etc. It is also not true that only a small amount goes to the community - for a lot of charities the amount sponsored goes to the community and gift aid covers administration costs.

However, I have my issues with charities. There are too many charities duplicating the work of other charities or doing something very similar - they should merge and save admin costs, and I hate chugging/charities version of telesales.

-and in 2015 Tesco plc lost £6.4 billion and paid Dave Lewis just over £4 million as a reward.
The average pay reported for the chief executive of a big UK company in 2014 was £4.96 million
www.highpaycentre.org/blog/fat-cat-tuesday-2016

Not the maximum, the average.
The UK chief exec of Unicef earned £120k. Which is about 2% of the average chief exec's remuneration.
There's a lot of indignation on this thread going in the wrong directions.

Shame the OP appears to have fucked off. I was quite enjoying the fiction.