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?

[ArcheryAnnie]

£100k saving won't go far will it?

Except it will, because every pound has to be raised from somewhere. And that's £100k every year, not as a one-off.

[ArcheryAnnie]

I wonder about the charities which offer soft toys for supporting an animal. Wouldn't they be better to spend the money on the real animals than making toys to give away? It might not be much of their overall income, but every penny counts when protecting endangered species.

Mountainpika agree entirely, also it's just more tat in the house! I also try to opt out of glossy magazines, etc, from places like Kew. I'd rather they kept the money to do good things with.

[Fishinthesink]

I think there's research (I'm not a direct marketeer) that the soft toy/pen/whatever increases response rate and loyalty. They don't just do stuff like that- it's because it maximises donations and reduces attrition.

[Possumfish]

With the charity's that offer a soft toy you can always say no. Also you may find that the money used to purchase the toys to start with may be coming from a seperate 'pot' that's only designated for that purpose. I know of a charity (family work for) that the incentives are paid for by the adverts printed in the magazine so a much higher percentage of donations go where they are needed. And Always ask where your donation goes! I'm very wary of agencies that collect for charity - as often the agency claims alot of the donation.

[ArcheryAnnie]

Fish I do understand that a lot of the things I find pointless and/or irritating are done for a real purpose, because it gets results - just wish they made it a bit easier to opt out of getting all the extra guff for the people who do just want to give money.

[Fekko]

I worked for a charity - and was paid a quarter of what I could've earned if I had gone back into my industry. I'm pretty well qualified and very experienced. It's the charity staff who work at the coalface who get the bum deal financially.

Those who really get their hands dirty are often volunteers. These aren't generally the people who get the OBEs, etc.

[VioletHaze]

Mountainpika - well, yes. You'd make more from that one transaction. But if three times as many people sponsor a donkey, or whatever, because they like the little cuddly toy, then you'll get far more in overall to help your cause.

So, if you're choosing between 100 donations of £10 (because all the money is going to the charity) and 300 donations of £8 (with £2 being lost in paying for a cuddly toy), the charity will normally go for the 300 £8 donations. Plus each regular donor will probably not just make that donation - they will sign up to receive your newsletter, and learn more about the charity, talk to their friends and raise awareness (who may also donate), or make an additional donation at Xmas etc.

So it isn't even just that you get an additional 200 single donations - you have the snowball effect.

[VioletHaze]

ArcheryAnnie - a lot of charities do let you opt out of the soft toy option these days. I know that WWF let me sponsor an animal and tick a box saying 'no soft toy' please.

[IsaSchmisa]

There's such a wide variety of reasons why people object to what they see as too high salaries for CEOs.

Some people think it would mean there'd be more money to pay other, lower down staff. That's sometimes but not always true. As an example, the CEO I mentioned upthread was paid nothing. His incompetence absolutely prevented the charity from being able to apply for and likely obtain more funding than his salary would have been, iyswim, and he also pissed off several experienced paid staff who left, thus incurring substantial training and recruitment costs. Had we paid someone even 40k, we'd have obviously had higher staffing costs, but that would also have purchased competence and more funding. Put bluntly, sometimes when you pay someone more, they bring in more.

Equally, there are charities where it's a more fixed pot. And there are also no doubt examples of posts where the extra X amount on the CEO salary won't have resulted in better outcomes or more funding for the charity.

Then there are people who just think charity staff shouldn't be paid at all. Or should but only enough to cover the bare essentials. Or should be paid but only at some arbitrary, much less than is available elsewhere rate that they've just plucked out of thin air.

For these people, even something like only 10 x the full time rate of the lowest paid employee is going to be far too much. Bear in mind NMW FT now is above 15k, so the salary here isn't too far from 10 x that. It'd be less for apprentices, but more if the charity is paying eg the living wage. These are also people who are likely to be resistant to things like paying charity trustees, even where that has the potential to widen the pool beyond the Daves and Johns that disproportionately populate it now.

[SemolinaSilkpaws]

No problem with the directors of charities earning a decent salary. However the difference between their salaries and the support staff is enormous. Charities want graduates but are not willing to pay for them and then wonder why the staff turnover is so high. 6 month average in some of the London charities.

[Vitalogy]

Best thing to do if possible is to take anything you're able to give directly to them that need it. Like a PP said about taking some towels to the homeless shelter, they'd be glad of clothes too I should imagine. Food can be dropped off at places like the Salvation Army. Toys can be taken into children's charities. Cut out the middle man.

[IsaSchmisa]

Which is a useful approach if what you want to do is give people items, assuming you check first what they need and that they have storage of course. Less so if you want them to be able to access services- medical, legal, education etc.

[QueenAravisOfArchenland]

I think if this thread shows anything, it's that there's an awful lot of people confident they could run charities better than people who run charities on the basis of no experience or insight whatsoever.

Do you not think people working in the third sector might have thought of not doing cuddly toys and t-shirts? Or that they aren't already under unrelenting pressure to cut costs? That they might do these things because they actually more than pay for themselves in increased donations?

[Fekko]

They don't all know what they are doing! I've seen some terrible ideas and wastes of money in charities!

[VioletHaze]

Best thing to do if possible is to take anything you're able to give directly to them that need it. Like a PP said about taking some towels to the homeless shelter, they'd be glad of clothes too I should imagine. Food can be dropped off at places like the Salvation Army. Toys can be taken into children's charities. Cut out the middle man.

Because the Salvation Army don't need to pay their electricity bill? Children's charities don't need to pay for having their staff CRB checked? And you will absolutely know what every charity needs better than anyone running a shelter and no one needs to manage logistics or storage?

I'm not saying gifts in kind aren't useful, but in my experience of working in children's hospices, they are often less useful than cash, and definitely are no substitute.

Cash, on the other hand could be paying for electricity in the hospice, could be paying for the cleaners that keen the place hygienic and safe for sick children, could be paying for the administrator who makes sure that everyone working in the hospital has been properly CRB checked, could be paying for pain relieving drugs, or perhaps a grant to cover the travel expenses of the families who might be struggling with the costs of visiting a child in the hospice.

[Bubblebubblepop]

Best thing to do if possible is to take anything you're able to give directly to them that need it. Like a PP said about taking some towels to the homeless shelter, they'd be glad of clothes too I should imagine. Food can be dropped off at places like the Salvation Army. Toys can be taken into children's charities. Cut out the middle man.

Honestly this is such rubbish. What about the homeless people who need addiction support? The children who need NSPCC intervention/ support because their parents are neglecting them? Do the foodbanks not need lorries and vans and petrol and refrigeration? An IT system, an accounting software system? An office to rent?

Giving blankets and toys, FFS.

[Bubblebubblepop]

What else are you doing to do, cut out the middle man and supply a dying person with £1bn worth of cancer research? FFS

[ArcheryAnnie]

Agree with Violet and Bubble - plus, of course, charities often have to spend money sorting and disposing of unsuitable donations.

[PippleBang]

I completely agree with you. I'm a finance & business manager for a very niche area in the public sector and my team needs to be the absolute best of the best. Because of this, they get a 45% retainment allowance on top of their salary - which still doesn't compete with what they would get in the private sector. But when people complain about it they don't really see that. Its a lot of money but they are highly skilled intellectuals who we NEED to have or the whole country will be fucked

[Vitalogy]

It's not rubbish, I've done it, they've been glad of it too. Why not ask the question, why do utility companies charge charities for electricity/gas and water in the first place. I tell you what, you get onto them about that and I'll carry on doing my bit.
Bottom line is, the whole system is fcuk up, they shouldn't have to scrape around for all these things in the first place, disgusting system we live in.

[Vitalogy]

highly skilled intellectuals who we NEED to have or the whole country will be fucked My god, the arrogance.

[JaceLancs]

I work in a senior position in a small charity and have worked in the voluntary sector for nearly 20 years
I could be paid far more in private industry NHS LA etc but believe passionately in helping the people we support and whilst I can keep a roof over my and my DCs heads will continue to do so
We are desperate for both trustees and volunteers - great way to learn new skills or use old ones - message me if you are in Lancs and would like to know more
I think a lot of people have no real idea about the way charities work - why would they if they’ve no experience of it? Get involved with a cause local to you - it’s well worthwhile!

[Greygreygrey]

I work for a charity in the city, and I am shocked. The CEO (Director General) earns nearly £700K/year. There are over a dozen people earning more than £300K/year. We are only an SME.

The place is not well run. We get 70% of our revenue from the British tax payers. The board of trustees seem to be a bunch of old duffers who really aren't aware of the details.

Colleagues have confided that we should "blow the whistle" as it seems that upper management is just milking the place for their own gain. (Middle managers are below market because "it's a charity." ) But who do we blow the whistle to? And at what point do executive salaries seem so outrageous that they are practically embezzlement? And when are things badly run enough that it's malfeasance rather than just well intended incompetence?

There isn't enough governance in the third sector.

[InternetHoopJumper]

@Vitalogy
My god, the arrogance.

^ So much this. Of course, you need to pay people a living wage, but if you pay a ridiculous sum all you are going to get in an arrogant loud mouth, who will make the job/volunteer work a living hell for those doing the actual work.

The financial value of these co called talents lies only in their ability to save on expenses and they do that by screwing over the hard-working people who get their hands dirty to actually provide a product to customers/charity recipients. They skirt safety laws, add working hours for everyone and demand that the employees overall do more with less.

And why is that? Because shareholders demand it. That is the only reason for these "talents" being hired exclusively to cut costs.

[Greygreygrey]

But charities don't have shareholders.
...just stakeholders.