Should charities be run by businesspeople, for personal gain?

Yes, probably! Let's face it, the rewards for public sector or charity positions is typically less than that in the private sector.

From what I have heard public sector workers are paid more across the board than the private sector.

I suspect the reasons people choose many public sector position are based around security,lower enterance requirements and far lower performance expectations or stress levels.IMHO

Earl

 

[movietub]

From what I have heard public sector workers are paid more across the board than the private sector.

I suspect the reasons people choose many public sector position are based around security,lower enterance requirements and far lower performance expectations or stress levels.IMHO

Earl

I think it depends what level you are at. A good example is britains top job, being the PM. A man who earns less than the private dentist I used to use, before I realised he wasn't even a good dentist.

Seeking more security and lower performance expectations and stress would indeed appeal chiefly to the sort of person that 'gets offended' though. The less someone expects of you, the less they will offend you by pointing out how crap yo are at your own job

Is that you in the photo by the way?

 

[Dawg]

I can see your point wanting him to name the charity but that could risk the poster to libel laws ansd I think that is an unfair pressure.

If I told you I knew of a church that did not use its donations to promote real Christianity, and I know several, then I would not name them just to prove a point on a forum as I could end up in court.

I know the point is that if someone has something to say then they should back it up, but that is not always simple. Sometimes we know things but cannot apply a case reference or a newlink.

It's no risk if it's true. It's very little risk unless it causes actual loss. Can you imagine a charity going to court over being named on a forum? They'd be crucified.
And I'm sorry for the pressure but I think it is dodgy. Even Daily Maily. (And they won't sue my ass).

(BTW your example isn't too good: churches have been at each other for centuries about what "real Christianity" is. So have non believers when it comes to it. They might threaten you with eternal damnation, brimstone and fire, but they won't sue.)

 

I think it depends what level you are at. A good example is britains top job, being the PM. A man who earns less than the private dentist I used to use, before I realised he wasn't even a good dentist.

Seeking more security and lower performance expectations and stress would indeed appeal chiefly to the sort of person that 'gets offended' though. The less someone expects of you, the less they will offend you by pointing out how crap yo are at your own job

Is that you in the photo by the way?

Nothing wrong with taking the easy path in this life,in fact I highly recommend it.

Yep thats me.

40 years ago.

Earl

 

[viperek]

i wont tell you the name of the charity but i can tell you its derby city council

 

[Vicarious]

Churches are not charities, they are religious organisations and for the time being they enjoy some of the benefits that charities have. They dont have objects so they have more flexibility over distribution of funds.

 

[movietub]

Nothing wrong with taking the easy path in this life,in fact I highly recommend it.

Yep thats me.

40 years ago.

Earl

You see I think the easy path is to set something clever up in the private sector that makes lots of money with little input on an ongoing basis. But I guess I'm after personal gain. Could I replicate that if I was doing it for charity? Probably, but only if they put me on a bloody good performance linked salary with plenty of paid for travel to boot. Same goes for any public sector position. But these high salaries are seen as a huge scandal, so I can't blame the people who can achieve consitent results for avoiding the posts where their input could be of use to the general public, as well as their own pockets.

Blimey mate, you looked good in your 50's

 

[Billmccallum]

I tried to keep out of this thread simply because I and my wife work for charities, or volunteer when not working, so we are quite biased on the subject.

Having worked with and for charities since 1995, starting as a volunteer and rising to become Chairman of a charity that operated a £10 million regeneration programme, running a rural development trust and managing a project for a national charity, I can say that my salary never got over £25K, so the idea that charity managers get paid huge amounts is not really accurate.

The reality is that the majority of charity workers get relatively low wages, but there are exceptions, the directors of the major national charities.

But this is not restricted to the charity sector, the same can be said for the private and public sectors... the front line staff tend to be the lowest paid, shop assistants, cleaners, security, etc are usually on minimum wage, its not relevant which sector, only the job role.

As for management quality, its the same in all sectors, you get good management and bad management, at times it would be useful to have charity managers running the public sector and private sector managers running charities.

But one aspect is fact, the charity sector is huge, it provides thousands of jobs and contributes to local economies around the country, provides training opportunities for those most in need and most do really good work which (at times) many of us rely on.

 

[Searcher]

That may be true for your case Bill, but I know that a vast amount of money is taken out of the system and a high proportion of senior execs at the biggest charities will take six figure salaries.

Personally, I think the whole system is a disgrace. We all know money needs to be spent on marketing and improving the profile of the charities, and good management does cost. But there needs to be a disclaimer on all marketing information sent out by the charities informing potential donors that " X% of your donation will go towards overheads and only Y% to the cause". This will give donors a chance to choose.

Meanwhile, I understand that some of the largest charities have now got so much cash invested that their annual spend on the cause is covered by the interest earnt on the savings. And yet they still chase the new money.

 

[Cornish Steve]

So what do you propose? Imposing a salary cap so the charity has no access to the country's best business leaders? Wouldn't that build mediocrity into the system?

 

[dagr]

I think there's a lot of confusion and false assumptions in the minds of "clients" (i.e. those who give to charities), between "charity" a "charity business" and a "not-for-profit" organisation. The devil is in the details, in other words, the accounts. Most people don't realise that a "not-for-profit" organisation can be very lucrative for those running it, allowing them to become millionaires in some extreme cases. All it basically means is that the organisation cannot distribute dividends. Nothing about paying themselves 7-figure salaries.

Unlike a small business, I think a small charity can work outside the business world model, thanks to the dedication of a few select motivated and competent individuals, typically those that are recently retired from managerial positions. However, beyond 10 or so people, I have trouble seeing how a charity could sustain a reasonable degree of efficiency without applying business world mentality and practices.

 

[movietub]

Personally, I think the whole system is a disgrace. We all know money needs to be spent on marketing and improving the profile of the charities, and good management does cost. But there needs to be a disclaimer on all marketing information sent out by the charities informing potential donors that " X% of your donation will go towards overheads and only Y% to the cause". This will give donors a chance to choose.

I think that would be a very good idea. Charities would probably have to be awarded bands for performance, that way a new charity could automatically have an 'adaquate' performance band rating for say 3 years in order to get off the ground.

It think it would be hugely useful to be able to tell at a glance the actual effectiveness of a charity. It would knock out persistent long term failures straight away.

A very good idea - go make it happen!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think that would be a very good idea. Charities would probably have to be awarded bands for performance, that way a new charity could automatically have an 'adaquate' performance band rating for say 3 years in order to get off the ground.

It think it would be hugely useful to be able to tell at a glance the actual effectiveness of a charity. It would knock out persistent long term failures straight away.

A very good idea - go make it happen!

As I've written before, you can do this for any charity in the US. I'm rather surprised that it's not required in Britain. Indeed, when advertising on television here, some companies emphasize the percentage of funds that go toward their cause versus are spent on overhead. Maybe it's an opportunity for someone to set up a new website for this purpose.

 

[movietub]

As I've written before, you can do this for any charity in the US. I'm rather surprised that it's not required in Britain. Indeed, when advertising on television here, some companies emphasize the percentage of funds that go toward their cause versus are spent on overhead. Maybe it's an opportunity for someone to set up a new website for this purpose.

An opportunity indeed. I imagine it would be somewhat contraversial, although to me that's a great way to get some publicity and get the scheme off the ground.

Until it's law though, charities would have to choose to submit their accounts for it to mean a thing, and most wouldn't.

Worth some thought though - it's this sort of idea that would make a very good UKBF member project.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Whoever sets up the new website would give a 'seal of approval' to charities that disclose their numbers and identify overhead costs - rather like the Verisign seal but with a different purpose. Charities would pay to get such a seal because potential donors would have greater confidence in their financial integrity. No laws are need, just the free market.

 

[movietub]

Whoever sets up the new website would give a 'seal of approval' to charities that disclose their numbers and identify overhead costs - rather like the Verisign seal but with a different purpose. Charities would pay to get such a seal because potential donors would have greater confidence in their financial integrity. No laws are need, just the free market.

The problem is that disclosing the numbers is a very big thing for them to do... And a brand new scheme drempt up by one of us would be considered a much smaller thing.

There is always the very distinct possibility the scheme would not take off. I think you would need the right personalities to lend their muscle to the scheme in the early days. Terry Wogan, for example.

That said, I have no doubt an angle exists that would make this work. But it's probably not as black and white as 'telling the charities they need to do the scheme because they will look good'. The scheme has to be hyped to the point that charities recognise a sea of change, and the good ones start planning their applications without any pressure at all.

 

[Consistency]

There was a housing trust I was a tenant of and because they were a trust they could not make a profit. One day when a workman was doing some repairs, I said how nice the wood was that he was using. It was not over glamorous but it was not the cheapest crap, it was ok wood. Living in private landlord tenancies I had only experienced the cheapest of the cheap and quick patch jobs. He had a lot more wood that was needed and he told me the sad thing was that they have to get a new pack of wood for each job despite how small the job is.

I said so what do you do with the rest - he said it has to be thrown away. I found this shocking and he, although the one to be throwing it away was angry at this. He said it has to be done as they have an amount of money and have to spend it. I asked why he could not give it away to others that would be grateful of it and would use it, he said he would lose his job for theft if he did. I was absolutely astounded.

Before I am asked for a case reference number - I did not take the name of the worker and I did not report anything to anyone.

 

[Searcher]

Whoever sets up the new website would give a 'seal of approval' to charities that disclose their numbers and identify overhead costs - rather like the Verisign seal but with a different purpose. Charities would pay to get such a seal because potential donors would have greater confidence in their financial integrity. No laws are need, just the free market.

The reason I think they should declare the figures Steve is because it's the only way to have true visability. I do like the 'seal of approval' idea but it might not mean much to many people. I think all charities need to declare their accounts openly but who's going to bother to check them out ?

The other major problem is that if this was done on a voluntary basis there would hardly be any charities who'd take up the offer. It would have to be a legal requirement, can't see that happening myself.