Nice little earner?

The argument is, if you want good backing for the charity you have to pay for the experience.

The jury’s out where I’m concerned.

Cancer Research charity Chief Exec was paid £244K. The old CE of the MS society now has that job. That's an awful lot of fund raising to pay for that salary.

That’s a modest chief exec salary compared to some charities.
And there’s always a heirarchy of salaried high ups as well.

And yes it is very difficult to disentangle.

For instance, Macmillan will tell you what is spent on salaries but how much of that is actual medical staff at ground floor level is impossible to find out.

In general the annual report of a charity will provide information( without names) of the number of employees within specific salary bonds. I think some people don’t realise quite how complex running a large charity is and the need for the right calibre of staff. I know someone who was the fundraiser for a charity - she was headhunted by them because of her reputation and she was paid very well but wow the money she brought in - she was fearless in going after the big corporate or individual wealthy donors. No one has to give to a charity but for example I think the work that the MS society do is sterling and could not be done in today’s world without offering realistic salaries. Their last report said they paid about the median in salaries for the charitable sector. As governments row back from less and less direct provision of services, then the work of charities becomes more complex and necessary. If I were going to vent about high salaries I’d be looking elsewhere

I can't really believe that running a charity is more complex than running the country. These salaries are unbelievable.

Not nearly as unbelievable as footballers salaries!

Well no, but footballers salaries are not funded by donations, fund raising and legacies.

The country is now structured in such a way that charities are a necessary part of the social and economic fabric. The skills needed at the top are such that those possessing them have many opportunities open to them and in many cases could be paid more in the private sector. We might ask the question about the nonsense levels of salary in general at the top across society but given they exist, you simply could not run huge charities like MS, Cancer Research, Alzheimer’s, NSPCC etc by offering only very modest salaries. If the State were bigger, then you could argue that charities could be smaller - we’d pay more in taxes and need to give less in donations but that’s not the direction of travel now is it?

The ms society employs less than 300 people, hardly a huge organisation. The money donated should be going towards research. There's really no defence for these levels of rewards.

I can’t comment on charity CEO salaries but I do know from my SIL that many highly paid professionals with experience in finance/accountancy/law etc and the contacts in those areas do much pro bono work for charities of their own volition applying their expertise which in the outside world would not come cheap. In his case, NSPCC

The complexity of running an organisation cannot simply be measured by the number of people employed.

Spare a thought for the ordinary workers at Charities who are not well paid (my DD works for a medium sized charity so I speak from experience). Also all those people who phone you up and ask for donations have to raise a minimum amount each month. If they fail to reach their target for three months in a row they lose their job.

Absolutely, the average charity pay is quite low, not to mention many volunteers who generously give their time. It's at the top that things have gone awry.

Humbertbear, They lose their job, that is disgusting!

I've always been happy to give to charity, but not so much now, tend to do local charities.
I'm just not happy funding extortionate wages, I want my money to go to the people who need it. I think many feel the same.

The trouble is that if nobody gave to the charities because the executives get such high wages then the charities wouldn't get any money at all for the beneficiaries. I give by direct debit to my charities but wonder what percentage actually goes to the intended people. It does put you off giving but then when you give to the homeless you wonder how many of them are genuine.

I will confess I am not a great financial giver to charities. Just lost confidence in what the money is used for. I do though support a Hospice that is not funded in anyway by NHS which I feels provides a much better level of care as not governed by all the NHS regimes only what is legally required eg medicine administration. Choose your charity carefully.

I think there are far too many ‘charities’ and it’s about time some of the really obscure ones were terminated. Also it bothers me that there are so many charities working for the same reason, for example Cancer charities. If they got together they could cut down on office costs, advertising, etc. Also, why do they have head offices in such expensive places?

Aepgirl - I have been thinking exactly the same thing, charities should amalgamate to reduce running costs.

There is a list online of the top 100 charity executives pay (lowest £140,000 including benefits) but another site, Civil Society, says that only 49% of charities reveal the salaries of their top executives so you may not be able to find out. Some will tell their pay ratios but MS does not seem to be on any lists.
The highest is the Wellcome Trust which is over £3m. but it was funded by a legacy and doesn't seem to do fund raising but others are not that far behind them. The mean salary for charity executive is £85,000 so many will be getting considerably less than that.

Have noticed recently when asking for donations on the radio appeals charities have begun to ask for specific quite high amounts, ie £25 for this £40 for that £100 for something else.
Newspaper adverts include options of similar progressively high amounts and it rather annoys me because that is a lot of money to many and just sounds greedy to me especially knowing the expensive locations their offices are based and how much the chief execs earn.
I do still donate though, but generally to a couple of charities close to my heart.

Nobody has to give to a charity so I find it quite cheeky really for people who probably know very little about the enormous complexities of the charitable sector think they should tell them what to do. For example - amalgamating. I think it’s good that there are charities for specific cancers for example as some of the smaller ones ( in terms of how many are affected) would get lost in an all encompassing body. Charities have complex legal frameworks and terms of reference and may have to exist in a specific form to be legal. As for their premises, I know that some charities pay a peppercorn rent as some benefactor way back who owned the property set up a trust and only lease to the charity for absolute peanuts. Basically the whole sector is far too complex and wide ranging to allow for easy and simplistic generalisations. If I think of the charities aimed at health and social concerns, the majority do amazing work which we never know when we might benefit from. In the last 10-15 years I can think of at least 5 cancer charities that family and friends have benefitted from in terms of information and support services - all high quality and very professional. I neither know nor care what their CEOs and senior staff are on as I’ve judged them by their results. As I said no one has to give to any charity and I dislike some of the expressions of sour grapes on here re salaries and ill informed blanket criticism of those doing amazing work.

Annual reports give salary bands of the highest earners- I think they have to anyway.

I only donate to charities where I can see or touch the results of their work, e.g. local air ambulance, RNLI, Guide Dogs for the Blind, hearing dog's.