My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
what would you consider an acceptable wage for running these charities that sometimes have hundreds of millions donated each year ?
Generally I favour small charities for my donations. Ones run largely by volunteers who cover their own expenses and where at least 90% of what you donate will be going to the end aim with 10% going on costs. This is largely because I have personal connections to these charities - family members founded/run/are involved in them or my Dad as a retired chartered accountant sits on a number of boards of charities.
However I am also realistic. The impact these small charities can have is huge to the people they help but is concentrated in a very small area. They can't make wholesale change or change the bigger picture or influence governments in the same way that large charities can.
Large charities are needed and by nature of being large their costs increase. They need full time staff to deliver whatever it is they do, they need staff to process the money, they need staff to look after those staff (payroll HR etc.) They will still run as efficiently as they can, although I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally they still have the end user as the aim. Obviously this means the % of your donation that covers costs rather than going direct to the cause will be lower but often you get more impact for that donation.
Regarding CEO salaries in the third sector. Compare to the salary of a CEO in the private sector in a similar organisation, same number of people, handling the same amount of money operating in the same number of counties and it will be about a third of the salary. And that's before you consider benefits like pension, healthcare, bonuses etc that you don't get in the charity sector
You can't expect someone to do a high pressure, long hours, high skilled role for nothing no matter how passionate they are about a cause. Equally you wouldn't want them to. In order to run these organisations properly, prevent waste and actually help people you need strong leadership. You want people with the right skills and experiences in these jobs to make sure the organisation runs properly and set the direction. You can't do that if you pay nothing. Poor leadership would waste far more of your donation than the salary of good leadership.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
What is your answer to the problem Len?
Idealistic and unrealistic but if the CEO is responsible for closures (as in the case of the donkeys) then he / she should also suffer a financial penalty rather than soak up bonuses and 5 or even 6, in some cases, figure salaries.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
what would you consider an acceptable wage for running these charities that sometimes have hundreds of millions donated each year ?
£100 K tops given the rationale of the organisation.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
What is your answer to the problem Len?
Idealistic and unrealistic but if the CEO is responsible for closures (as in the case of the donkeys) then he / she should also suffer a financial penalty rather than soak up bonuses and 5 or even 6, in some cases, figure salaries.
I can't find anything that says the Donkey sanctuary CEO got a bonus?
We'll have to agree to disagree, if, given the very good and sensible posts written by Canters and ME14 they are not swaying you into a more rational stance.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
What is your answer to the problem Len?
Idealistic and unrealistic but if the CEO is responsible for closures (as in the case of the donkeys) then he / she should also suffer a financial penalty rather than soak up bonuses and 5 or even 6, in some cases, figure salaries.
I can't find anything that says the Donkey sanctuary CEO got a bonus?
We'll have to agree to disagree, if, given the very good and sensible posts written by Canters and ME14 they are not swaying you into a more rational stance.
I'm making a general point but feel that if CEOs destroy some or all of their charity then they too should incur a financial penalty and the Donkey Sanctuary has closed depots.
My preference is to support small, local charities run in the main by volunteers as the donations are more likely to go directly towards the cause you are supporting in my experience.
The behemoth charities, in the main, are too concerned with creaming off 'admin costs' to cover executive salaries as they see themselves as competing in the charity sector rather than supplying a needed service.
I've worked in the charity sector for the last 17 years and fundraising is hard. Money doesn't come into a charity without a lot of hard work and it needs paid staff to do that work. Volunteers are brilliant, but most charities cannot rely on volunteers alone.
No issue with paid staff in the charity sector but every issue with obscene executive salaries.
What is your answer to the problem Len?
Idealistic and unrealistic but if the CEO is responsible for closures (as in the case of the donkeys) then he / she should also suffer a financial penalty rather than soak up bonuses and 5 or even 6, in some cases, figure salaries.
I can't find anything that says the Donkey sanctuary CEO got a bonus?
We'll have to agree to disagree, if, given the very good and sensible posts written by Canters and ME14 they are not swaying you into a more rational stance.
I'm making a general point but feel that if CEOs destroy some or all of their charity then they too should incur a financial penalty and the Donkey Sanctuary has closed depots.
I guess they take their lead from CEOs of other companies, where they actually do get rewarded bonuses for losing money and closing branches...
I regularly speak with someone who runs along (as a volunteer) with others a charity that cares for German Shepherds, she tells me on many occasions high profile charities contact her to re home dogs without any of their financial assistance to do so.
They’ll just phone and say theres a dog at so and so address needs collection and it’s left to volunteers to relay the dog up or down the country at their own expense. Meanwhile the cost of one tv advert asking for £3 would double the groups income via donations for one year.
Walking into a pub. Proper sports type place. Screens everywhere. Music blaring with Celtic folk songs. The place is miserable at the best of times. to hear bag pipes with a lone woman voice singing about her lost love in the war between them (the Scots) and us hundreds of years ago. Fuck me I'm just wanting a quick quiet drink before my bus bothers to show up.
Losing my Debit card at the Baseball last night. Last time I lost it was at Twickenham (returned). Not so sure I'll get it back this time. It's frozen so no worries on thats score luckily.
Another pronunciation change: Skoda is now Schkoda. (Radio advert)
Not just the change, but the way they act like there hasn’t been a change and that’s how they’ve always said it. Also see Hyundai.
And it's your bloody fault its been said wrong all these years. I used to have to flog Hoondi's years ago and none of their reps/ management ever said anything other than Hyundai. And Skoda used to be pronounced Schkip or Sched.
The quality of screws nowadays. I bought a box of self tappers, they are soft as shite.
All stuff like that is shite now, made in China pure quantity over quality. Screwheads never or if they did break off it was a once in a lifetime event. I reckon its one in ten now
Comments
We'll have to agree to disagree, if, given the very good and sensible posts written by Canters and ME14 they are not swaying you into a more rational stance.
Meanwhile the cost of one tv advert asking for £3 would double the groups income via donations for one year.
Music blaring with Celtic folk songs. The place is miserable at the best of times. to hear bag pipes with a lone woman voice singing about her lost love in the war between them (the Scots) and us hundreds of years ago. Fuck me I'm just wanting a quick quiet drink before my bus bothers to show up.
Skoda is now Schkoda. (Radio advert)
Was a bloody game trying to find a Cash Machine in Strood today, especially when the Machines aren't working at Supermarkets
It's driving me mad.......