To think most charities are just ego projects for their leadership?

[CraftyAmberReader]

So many charities seem more about flashy CEOs, PR campaigns and self-promotion than the actual cause. AIBU to think they’re often vanity projects at the top?

Aaand here we go again.

Get a life, OP. Or even get a job. Or a puppy.

I don't know about human help charities but most of the smaller independent animal based charities in this country are on their knees , no government grants, no discounts for vet treatment, more animals needing help than time people and resources can stretch too, overall a less caring attitude towards animals , spaying and neutering at an all time low, people not having money to donate especially as animals are seen as less than people

Totally unreasonable.

Charities cannot exist without funding. Many also need publicity in order for those who need their services to know that they exist and can help them. Social media is massively important these days for a charity to be known, both to prospective sentence users and prospective funders.

CEOs of charities could earn vastly more in the corporate world. So if they were as self-aggrandising as you think, they wouldn't come anywhere near the sector.

The vast majority of registered charities are tiny organisations set up for some obvious community benefit. For example, sports clubs, school PTAs and funds, hobby/social clubs, or something for a particular community issue or project.

So, I disagree that "most" charities are an ego project. There may be some like that - some foundations set up by wealthy philanthropists, perhaps. But those are few and far between.

Large charities will employ high calibre individuals to run them in the same way that any large commercial entity does, so I don't recognise the thread description there either.

Any facts or examples to back up your statements? Am guessing not ..

I think often the kinds if people who run charities (big and small) are doing it for personal reasons, often ego related but sometimes to address personal trauma, but usually they do care about the charity's aims too.

Bit of a sweeping statement.

Of course it is. The medium sized charity I worked for for 15 years wasn't like that.

Not my experience based on the charities (large small and everything inbetween) I have worked and volunteered with my entire career.

So your position is that the charities aren't doing what they're saying they're doing?

The charity commission has information on charities including financial reports.

Which charity were you thinking of in particular?

I would say there is a danger of that happening if they dont keep their egos in check. I mean there are many leaders who started out with morals and then used them to excuse some horrible things. Where I used to work, I was sure I working for Chairman Mao

And the charity commission only look at registered charities. There are a vast number that are not

Are You sure OP is ready for a puppy? Won’t anyone think of the puppy!!

I think the charities doing the most effective work like The Samaritans don't get anywhere near enough donations from the public or support from the government for what they do, compared to charities that are known to be very bloated inefficient places that don't seem to actually do much of anything on the ground, who seem to be able to afford enough advertising and chuggers to keep the donations rolling in. That makes me cross.

I did interview for a charity job that was clearly just a vanity project for someone who had retired and wanted to now do "charitable works" to act out their saviour complex. It was exactly the sort of small-time shitshow you'd expect.

@HarperValley

A PTA?

Yep. Course they are. Medecins sans frontieres, RNLI, Trussell Trust, Red Cross-load of wankers, the lot of them

Can you give examples? I don’t know of any ‘flashy’ CEOs. Most charities are tiny (my DD’s uni Common Room is a charity for example, run by students on a volunteer basis).

Dammit. Why do I always notice autocorrects too late to edit?

"Social media is massively important these days for a charity to be known, both to prospective service users and prospective funders."

I work for a charity and the difference it makes is huge. The impact we have makes peoples lives better. I am not saying that some do not have issues but running a charity is difficult. I am proud of what we do.

Yeah, they all need £130k a year!

Bless em!

They're so altruistic. I'm waiting for the "Help a CEO" advert.

queue sad music

"This is Gregg, he hasn't had a holiday in over three months, he's just had to change his Porsche for a New Mercedes, and his house only has one swimming pool. Please help Gregg and other CEO's like him"

"For just £3 a month, YOU can help a starving, neglected CEO, we'll provide regular updates and send you a free stuffed toy".

Most CEOs of charities aren't earning 130k. Those that do are working for larger charities and will be highly motivated intelligent people who could be earning more in the corporate sector. Do you think they should be working for free? Or do you think all charity salaries should be minimum wage?

There are far too many charities who do the same thing.

Surprised the vote and the comments are so different.

I agree with 99% of the comments, and was wondering if some of the people who think the OP INBU could justify why the OP 's assertion could be right?

Having worked mostly in corporate, I did a stint for one of the larger health charities a few years ago. I don’t recognise your concerns at all. It was well-run and staffed with people who were very dedicated. At the higher levels, especially, the staff could easily have earned a lot more elsewhere, but were keen to contribute to society. The charity channelled funds into medical research, campaigning and directly helping beneficiaries and I think it did a marvellous job. .