CEO's of charities earning vast sums.

But isn't what the Trustees are for? And the members of said charities should perhaps be asking more questions and ask for or clarity? At the end of the day, most donors or members want to ensure that as much money is spent, as effectively as possible, for the charity- and if this means paying the going rate for the right CEO, with the right experience and skills, then so be it.

Thank you for the link Noodles that is interesting and depressing reading.
In one way, it is an argument for paying CEOs of charities 'the going rate' to ensure that they employ someone with the necessary business acumen - but by the same token, if charities are businesses, they should be subject to just the same accountability and governance as other companies, and it seems doubtful that they are.

I support Research into Ageing, which originally was a small independent charity which funded very worthwhile research. it was subsumed by Help the Aged some years ago, before the merger with Age Concern, and I do now have misgivings about how the money is spent.

Exactly JessM. 100000 or even 150000 is not a vast salary for the CEO of a large company, with experience, who will have the necessary skills. Might be shocking for some- but the plain truth.

Yeah. Would be lovely Bags. #dreamon

But not, phoenix if you look at the heads of large schools, directors of LA services or senior management in hospital trusts. They will all be on salaries over 80K and often over £100k, across the country.
There is no way that you could recruit a manager with the appropriate skill set to run a multi-million turnover charity an average salary unless they have made a pile and basically want a retirement job. Not many of those around.
I generally give to larger charities like Oxfam and water aid. Having been a trustee I know what is involved and how poorly run small charities can potentially be. Unless I have very good knowledge of a local or small charity I would not trust them with a bag of smarties.

Pet hate are the ones that are sending people to places like India and China for unproven stem cell treatments and the like

It would be nice to think so – that good people would be willing to do the work for a more 'normal' salary and without ridiculous perks – wouldn't it, henetha?

I should have added that £42k + is very high for this area.

Years ago my niece worked as an au pair in Belgium for one of the bosses of a well known charity and I was appalled when she told me about the extravagant and jet-setting life style in which him and his family lived.
I have never since supported that charity, preferring instead to seek smaller independent charities.
Understandly the bosses of any large concern need to be paid properly in order to attract the right people, but the whole thing about paying huge salaries and ridiculously high bonuses has got completely out of hand these days in many aspects of commercial and charitable life.
I can't believe there are not other worthy people who could run things without being so greedy.

I was quite surprised to see that a local hospice is advertising for a Retail Manager (fashion) with a salary in excess of £42K.

Age Concern (now Age UK) wasted millions on their failed Heyday scheme www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/911573/heyday-should-serve-warning-charities/

Huge salaries don't necessary mean you attract the right people, especially if you don't have a financially savvy management committee -look at all the smart, well educated financial sector bods who managed to trade us into a major recession.

I can understand that charities need to have capable CEOs and pay them reasonably. More worrying is that CEOs run the charities without any experience of 'working' for them and actually understanding what makes them tick. Often very different from what makes a business tick and, often, relying on volunteers who need to be treated differently from employees if they are to give of their best.

If you want huge concerns run efficiently, you have to pay the going rate. Hopefully cost effective in the long run.

Yes, sunseeker we have been here, because you and I had the same experience, as the big charities rebranded and began serious marketing. I am now finding the same with another, once smaller one, which has become "successful"!

The large, main-stream charities are BIG business. I give them a long, long stare, and move on. My preference is to support at a grass-roots level, where there are small but innovative and supportive schemes.

Sorry that last bit doesn't quite make sense - it annoys me when they turn my donations away at the door and expects me to come back when it suits them. I feel like saying "I am delivering free stock for your shop!"

JessM a salary of over £150K is a vast sum IMHO. By comparison, I worked for a national organisation with several hundred staff members and a budget of billions and the CEO earned about £90K.

The "business" approach that many large charities have does make one feel that they are huge national companies masquerading as charitable institutions - that's why I get grumpy when the charity shop near me (outlet for one of the big charities) - where the manager loudly proclaims that her prices are "realistic"** because she needs to reach targets - dictates when they will accept the free stock I supply them with (my donations) - when it suits me, their customer.

**expensive!

As I think I have mentioned here before I used to volunteer with a national breast cancer charity. Then I found that the head office staff were receiving very generous expense accounts (I never claimed for any of my expenses considering them as another form of donation), company cars and - what really did it for me - interest free mortgages . I now support two local hospices and I know most of the money donated goes to the cause not to pay over inflated salaries. I accept that someone working full time for the charity does need a reasonable salary but some of the major national charities have forgotten the reason they are in existence.

I too have had grave doubts of late about some of the very large charities and how they use their donations. I think some have simply got too big and are essentially multinational companies under the charitable umbrella. I'm really not sure this is a good thing, so I prefer to support small charities who show that most of the money and effort goes where it's really needed.

It's a difficult issue.

This is a problem isn't it, the high administrative costs of charities, and the huge salaries paid to CEO's. All charities are receiving less in donations due partly to the recession, but I wonder how much of the reduction has resulted from disillusion with the way charities use the money donated. I have little regard for the work of the RSPCA or the NSPCC, their advertising campaigns simply don't reflect the way they spend the money raised. My support for the Red Cross has decreased since I had fund raisers at my front door, with a very pushy approach. My sister has a regular donation to the Red Cross, but cancelled it after a series of phone calls in which she was asked/pushed to add the Red Cross to her will as beneficiaries.

Not a vast sum if it is a large organisation with lots of employees and millions of pounds of turnover, which is probably the case with the RSPCA. Especially if it has, for instance been seeing a drop in income (as many charities have in recent years). I'm afraid they are not going to attract a strategic thinker with a credible CV for much less. There is not going to be a stampede of applicants.

Definitely. I wouldn't support the RSPCA anyway, but I will be looking more closely at the charities I do support and asking questions if I feel it necessary.