Charity percentage

[criss]

After reading a managing director/directors of a certain charity of which I cant remember,on a salary of £86,000pa,how much of,say every £100,reaches the actual cause ?

[*_ash_*]

After reading a managing director/directors of a certain charity of which I cant remember,on a salary of £86,000pa,how much of,say every £100,reaches the actual cause ?

 

Different charities, different percentages.

 

Click here, type in the charity and you can look at their accounts and see for youself.

[Elphi 24]

Charities, particularly in the current economic climate, have to operate as businesses to get the money in so that it CAN go to the cause. The salaries can (at times) seem high but they're a lot lower than private sector. The salary can only be paid if justified. It's not necessarily about how much the boss gets paid but how good they are at getting money in? It's much better to have a CEO on £85k who brings in £1m annually because they are great fundraisers than a CEO on £30k that can only bring in £60k. That way more money DOES get to the cause.

[onewheeldave]

Charities, particularly in the current economic climate, have to operate as businesses to get the money in so that it CAN go to the cause. The salaries can (at times) seem high but they're a lot lower than private sector. The salary can only be paid if justified. It's not necessarily about how much the boss gets paid but how good they are at getting money in? It's much better to have a CEO on £85k who brings in £1m annually because they are great fundraisers than a CEO on £30k that can only bring in £60k. That way more money DOES get to the cause.

 

Yeah- you put it like that as an isolated case, it seems to make sense.

 

Thing is though- that's the working model for all charites- the old style ones of people in it for the cause, rather than the cash, just can't operate anymore.

 

Now it's all high paid CEOs, running teams of chuggers, out harrassing and deceiving people into handing over bank/direct debit details.

 

To the point where cynicism towards charity is at an all time high- more and more of the public are becoming aware that each chugger, and, all the way up the ladder via the team leaders, the managers and, ultimately, the CEOs themselves, are all raking in their cut.

 

Till what actually goes to the cause, is something like 2-5% of what is handed over.

[*_ash_*]

Yeah- you put it like that as an isolated case, it seems to make sense.

 

Thing is though- that's the working model for all charites- the old style ones of people in it for the cause, rather than the cash, just can't operate anymore.

 

Now it's all high paid CEOs, running teams of chuggers, out harrassing and deceiving people into handing over bank/direct debit details.

 

To the point where cynicism towards charity is at an all time high- more and more of the public are becoming aware that each chugger, and, all the way up the ladder via the team leaders, the managers and, ultimately, the CEOs themselves, are all raking in their cut.

 

Till what actually goes to the cause, is something like 2-5% of what is handed over.

 

You are just generalising. If cynicism is at an all time high*, then it's probably because of people generalising as you have done - and like your last line which does the same**.

 

 

 

*can you support this? Or just post sites showing that charitable donations have gone down in recent years

 

**if this isn't a generalisation, then can you support this too?

[onewheeldave]

I can no more support it than you can dispute it.

 

But, obviously chuggers on the streets working full days need to be getting a full days pay, as do their team leaders, managers, CEOs, plus cover all the costs of buildings for those workers, and fuel to transport them.

 

All that comes out of the donations they get from the public.

 

Simple fact is that people are now disputing that as a model- they don't want their cash going towards sustaining that.

 

That's before we address the open hostility, evident in any thread on this forum that mentions chuggers, that many of the public feel about being approached and harrassed when out shopping. Some of that hostility is bound to end up rubbing off on the actual charities.

 

The marketers (professional deceivers) who've set this up have done a very good job of convincing everyone that this is now the only sustainable model for running a charity- it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

That's been very beneficial to the marketers who are now guaranteed business, as every charity now needs to employ a CEO and marketing/chugging team to have any hope of competing/surviving against all the other charites who employ CEOs and marketing teams.

[*_ash_*]

I can no more support it than you can dispute it.

 

I can look at any charities on the site and look at their accounts, and support the fact that 2-5% is a bit low.

 

You are perhaps thinking of places that run shops, which may only have a 'profit' to show for it at around that percentage, just like any other business, large or small.

 

But, obviously chuggers on the streets working full days need to be getting a full days pay, as do their team leaders, managers, CEOs, plus cover all the costs of buildings for those workers, and fuel to transport them.

 

All that comes out of the donations they get from the public.

 

Of course it does. I wouldn't give my bank details to a charity unless I had looked them up first and decided that it was a charity that I not only liked, but also had good figures towards the amount given to the cause.

 

Simple fact is that people are now disputing that as a model- they don't want their cash going towards sustaining that.

 

Nothing wrong with that. It is a choice after all.

 

That's before we address the open hostility, evident in any thread on this forum that mentions chuggers, that many of the public feel about being approached and harrassed when out shopping. Some of that hostility is bound to end up rubbing off on the actual charities.

 

I don't doubt that, but you just generalised this in your earlier post as I said.