BU over charity director salaries

[Happydoingitjusttheonce]

Is the criticism shortsighted? CEO of NSPCC criticised for earning £167k. At its peak a few years ago the charity was turning over £150m. Anyone with the skill and experience to manage that level of income could be remunerated in the private extremely handsomely and much more so than Peter Wanless is. Do people really think the charity could get someone in for buttons, or for nothing, to do that job?

gah posted accidentally!

...unless the charity explicitly states they may use the fund for other purposes- which is why most appeals have small print stating this. I know when I audited charities I was very interested in how they accounted for their restricted funds.

Captain yes- that's correct- restricted and unrestricted donations- donors can say that you can only spend the money on specific things.

I hope you don't mind me asking, but if there's no CEO who actually runs the charities- the trustees??

Sort of- but they really are tiny; not big enough to be required to do fund accounting! One is just a choral society I sing in; the other is related to the student wing of a college in a collegiate university, so the trustees collectively provide governance oversight and there are sabbatical officers who run things with support from college management.

Actually I’m wrong- the college one does do fund accounting, but it has no restricted funds. It’s run as I set out above though.

Johnny I wonder if we know each other...I should have thought the funder should have asked for a proper needs assessment though that looked at exactly what the dietary deficiency was, though. Maybe they should be annoyed at their own grant approval process as well.

One other example from the health sector is that people often donate formula milk after disasters. Because you know- babies, food. But- often it's out of date or near end date, the instructions are in a language people can't read, there's no clean water or facilities to sterilise and it's not a local brand so formula fed babies aren't keen. It's much better to give money to an organisation working with women locally so they can either buy an appropriate local product, ensure clean feeding equipment and provide clean water- or provide nutritional support and safe space for mothers so they can continue or re-start breastfeeding. The humanitarian impulse in people is really strong, but can be actively harmful and in the worst cases can kill people.

I think as someone mentioned upthread, one of the points is that charities ARE delivering the public sector. I would much rather say, a specialist organisation who works with people with Alzheimer's delivers that service than non-experts desperately trying to get their head round it. At the delivery end, the fact is that people will move in and out the public and charity sectors depending on who is delivering the service at the time.

I do a lot of work with an organisation that features an ex-PM as their CEO. I'm not sure what they're paid: more than when they were PM I'm sure. But- part of that role is negotiating with heads of state, being a diplomat, negotiating for funding. Could someone who was paid less do all the bits around running the organisation? Sure they could. Could they get the President of wherever to give them 30 minutes? No. It's the impact that's important, not the absolute salary.

@Johnnycomelately1

That is truly a rubbish argument. History is littered with examples of CEO's who were paid exorbitant wages and who also were completely incompetent. More money only equals better quality up to a certain point. At the sums mentioned in this thread, it no longer makes a difference.
Same thing for increasing people's happiness by increasing wages above the equivalent of 40,000 Dollars a year (although that maybe slightly higher now, due to inflation). Beyond a certain sum it no longer matters and you are just throwing money down the toilet. That is money that could have been spend improving the lives of low paid workers and beneficiaries.

At some point throwing more money at the problem is not going to increase productivity or quality of work. The same applies to more working hours. Having people work longer hours will not make them more productive if they have to spend those extra hours fixing mistakes due to fatigue. This is again throwing money away.

The important part is the balance and with the difference between lowest paid employees and the highest paid employees being so great, that balance is lost and companies and organizations lose a lot of money, because those ridiculous wages can't fix fuck-ups.

Also this:

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#79c33b567e32

I really don't think the voluntary sector should be the chief recipient of ire on wage differentials.

captainwentworth
If the charity itself designates that fundraising is for a particular project then yes, its a restricted fund.
If a general donor says that their £10 may not be used for administration, they are deluded.

I'm afraid charities infuriate me, constantly cancelling direct debits my Mother who has dementia is chugged into in supermarkets.

I was the executor of someone's will who had left a substantial property to two charities the sale fell through 3 times because they didn't feel they were getting enough money ffs.

I am ridiculously happy I stopped working in the 'third sector' some years ago. Like local authorities, it is grossly unaccountible and run by a lot of people who, in private enterprise, would have been disqualified (and often have been) years ago. I would say more but am precluded by numerous pointless NDAs, all paid for by hapless donors who actually believed their care and contribution mattered.