Salaries of registered charities.

I'm very careful about what charities I give to nowadays. It's big business with some huge salaries and benefits for a lot of the senior staff. Stopped giving to one when it was reported they had £90 million in reserve.

I have worked for tiny charities and national charities, in my experience the national charities were better at meeting the needs of those they served.

Oh, this is my hobby horse.

People who work for charities deserve a proper wage for doing so. If you pay a CEO £100,000 and they bring in a million in funding that the charity didn't have before, they are worth the money.

There should be checks that they are delivering on their targets but this idea that they should not be paid the going rate is just wrong.

I think that the large "national" charities are massive organisations that, in the vast majority of cases, do amazing work. They need very experienced, talented people at the top - to keep the charity focussed, useful, and financially viable. As Alegrias says - this cannot be done without vast experience and a proven track record.

Clearly we always need to ensure that any donations we make are being used by a charity to the best effect.

If they pay peanuts, only monkeys will apply. The salaries have to compete with commercial businesses for good fundraisers. Having said that, the CEOs do need to give value for money, and the charities need to keep a close watch on the percentage of the money raised by donations that goes out as expenses..

Also on the whole scrutiny is better in the larger charities, in small charities you really are reliant on the manager/lead being effective and honest! , in larger charities there tend to be layers of accountability. Obviously there can be hideous failures in larger charities, I wont ever give to the large charities where their staff were using prostitutes in developing countries for example.

I don't think that you will find any CEOs in the top 100 who received less than £140k in 2019. Some of these salaries are eye watering.

If they are doing their job properly, then why should they not be paid properly? Or is it only commodities traders, venture capitalists, investment bankers, stock brokers etc who should receive large salaries? I’m afraid some posters simply have a view of charities that goes back to the 1950s. The world is very different now. Anyway, the good news is that all the information is online and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to give - you have a choice. Unlike with the likes of all our money that goes to friends, relations and bed partners on the whim of members of this corrupt government.

Galaxy
I’ve never forgotten the priest, who, in 1979 advised me to never give to that charity. Obviously things were known about then.
I’m very happy with the salaries that my chosen charity’s receive.

£140k is not eyewatering.

Average salary for a charity CEO, £58k

www.charityjob.co.uk/careeradvice/charity-ceo-pay-more-or-less/

140k is the bottom of the scale.

I believe there is empirical data which shows that charities that generally spend more on admin perform better.

Unlike with the likes of all our money that goes to friends, relations and bed partners on the whim of members of this corrupt government.

Amazing, isn't it, suziewoozie. They don't give a stuff about all that taxpayer's money being doled out by our PM and other Ministers, but get a whiff of charity CEOs getting what our 'couldn't care less' voters think is 'too much' and the disapproval machine goes into overdrive...

I believe that it possible to care for more than one issue at a time. Charities have additional responsibilities as they survive on donations.

Daisymae

I believe that it possible to care for more than one issue at a time. Charities have additional responsibilities as they survive on donations.

What additional responsibilities are these? I actually think the responsibilities when spending money that is taken without choice from citizens might be seen as greater.

Charities are big business obviously the CEOs will be paid the going rate for the job otherwise they would get second rate bods who would not be as effective in the job.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys!

Some CEOs of larger charities take considerable pay cuts in order to take the role.
A large organisation does need someone highly competent to run it.

I have heard more than once from very near the horse’s mouth that any staff working for UNICEF, and indeed any UN affiliated organisation, is paid considerably in excess of the charity average.

A dd who worked for many years for a major U.K. charity had colleagues who ‘sold their souls’ (her words) to the supposedly sainted UNICEF for a few years, to enable them to pay off part of their mortgage, or buy a modest family house instead of a small flat.
Contrary to what a lot of people apparently like to believe, most charity workers are not highly paid.

Charities are in stiff competition with one another. They need to employ people at the top who know what they are doing, or they would have to rely on the local Bring and Buy, or people collecting money from the neighbours in house-shaped piggy banks.

Communicating with huge numbers of people needs skill, as does managing budgets of millions of pounds. The CEO doesn't have to be a saint - just to be good at what they do, and bring in the money.

I choose my charity donations based on how far I prioritise the charities' aims (which is obviously difficult when there are so many good causes) and whether their deeds match the aims. I have recently stopped donating charity shop items to Oxfam. I was willing to believe that the revelations about the recent scandals were a case of 'bad apples', but when they withdrew a game that celebrated influential women because it 'upset some trans and non-binary staff' it was a step too far.

I would have withdrawn my support when I found out anyway, but another thing that a good CEO will do is manage the PR of their cause, and IMO this was a spectacular fail. A good one would have handled the story better, both before and after it broke.