Of course...I only support non profit making Charities

[Motorsport Mickey]

I'm sure many on this Forum like myself subscribe to supporting various charities  and organisations. Over the last 30 years I've dealt with and interviewed a few organisations who proudly state "we are non profit making"...which made me smile.

We all know that not making a profit is easily done, funds moved from one department redeployed around the company and are again shown as a reinvestment into another supposed supporting activity. But I never imagined it was as bad as this.

An article in todays Daily Telegraph finds that 

More than 270 charities are paying bosses more than the Prime Minister,

Charity Commission abandoning report 

The Charity Commission has admitted it has abandoned publishing its report on pay which was due out last year.

Instead of a one off report, it has made information accessible on its website on how many people at various organisations are paid more than £60,000 in salary bands, a spokesman said. 

More than 270 charities are paying their bosses more than the Prime Minister, with the highest earner on £4.7m a year, an investigation by The Telegraph has found.

They range from organisations with income of a few hundred thousand pounds a year to huge international groups where the chief executive is managing a budget of more than a billion pounds.

Using data from thousands of registered charities, this newspaper analysed the latest accounts of those paying their highest earner more than Boris Johnson’s salary of £157,372. This puts them in the top one per cent of taxpayers in the country. The rich list includes 35 charities with the highest earner on more than £300,000 a year.

The Wellcome Trust had the highest paid employee, with chief investment officer Nick Moakes taking home £4.64million including salary and bonuses last year – a £1.3million rise on the year before.

The health research charity, whose director Sir Jeremy Farrar earns £483,788, said that pay is linked to performance and by bringing their investment team in house they have been able to make billions more to fund their work.

As part of a wage bill of £105million, the Wellcome Trust paid more than 90 staff over £100,000, with seven employees in the investment team taking home more than £1million.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies made it into the top six as its biggest earner took home between £600,001 to £610,000 in the year to September 2019, but the relatively small charity refused to confirm whether CEO Dr John Chipman had received the pay packet.

The charity sector's top earners

Wellcome Trust: Nick Moakes

Nick Moakes is the highest paid employee in the charity sector, taking home £4.64 million in salary, bonuses, long term incentive plans and allowances for his role as chief investment officer. The Oxford-educated banker has had a career that has spanned the public and private sector before taking the post at the Wellcome Trust in 2007.

National Trust: Hilary McGrady

Hilary McGrady has had a turbulent time as director-general of the National Trust, the latest twist in which saw her boss, chairman Tim Parker, quit last week amid complaints about the charity’s ‘woke agenda’. But she is still among the highest paid charity bosses with a salary of £195,700 in the year to February 2020.

LM Kendon Settlement: John Barber

John Barber has run the LM Kendon Settlement, a small charity aimed at helping the elderly in Newham, for more than 30 years. The charity operates high dependency sheltered accommodation, the rents and fees from which make up most of their income of £659,040. In the year to March 31 2020, the charity paid Mr Barber, its CEO, £177,342.

Marie Stopes: Simon Cooke

Simon Cooke’s pay packet at MSI Reproductive Choices, formerly Marie Stopes, has come under close scrutiny since it emerged in 2019 that a performance-related bonus of more than £200,000 doubled his salary and made him the third highest-paid charity boss. His pay dropped to £342,176 in the year ending December 2019.

Caudwell Children: Trudi Beswick

Trudi Beswick is described as a ‘driving force’ behind the charity for disabled children since it was established by Phones4u founder John Caudwell in 2000. Her role at the charity, whose celebrity backers include Joan Collins and Elizabeth Hurley, has led to invites to Downing Street. She earned £350,000 to £360,000 in the year to December 2019.

Nuffield Health: Steve Gray

Steve Gray held a number of senior roles in the healthcare sector, including at Lloyds Pharmacy and AS Watson, before taking over Nuffield Health in 2015. His role earns him the title of the highest paid chief executive in the third sector, taking home £935,000 in the year to December 2019, a £90,000 rise on his previous year’s salary.

IISS: John Chipman

The International Institute for Strategic Studies are fairly tight-lipped about who is the highest paid staff member, taking home one of the biggest salaries in the not-for-profit sector of between £600,000 and £610,000. However, it is believed to go to Dr John Chipman, the Harvard and Oxford-educated director-general and chief executive.

Tate: Maria Balshaw

Tate workers have already hit out at the pay of Maria Balshaw, with union members demanding last year that the planned 143 redundancies were halted until all executive pay was brought under £100,000. Accounts show that in the year to March 31 2020 Ms Balshaw, the gallery’s director, had received a salary of £175,000 to £185,000.

World Horse Welfare: Roly Owers

Roly Owers is a trained vet who served in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps before taking over as the chief executive of World Horse Welfare in 2008. The charity said that it went through a rigorous process before deciding to pay Mr Owers a salary of £160,000 to £170,000 a year. With an income of just £9.3 million, it is one of the smaller charities on the rich list.

The full article is available in the Daily Telegraph, I urge you to read it. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/31/exclusive-270-charities-paying-bosses-prime-minister

Mick Richards

 

[Hamish]

Thanks for the heads up Mick

 

but just another story to make my heart sink.

[RogerH]

In the cold light of day the numbers are depressing. But sit back and think of the big picture. 

If (and it is a big if) the lucky few earning pots of gold have been chosen wisely and are actually adding to each of the charities fortunes then that may be a good move.

If you have a numbskull at the top like the Co-op bank did a couple of years back then your fortunes soon turn and take a downward spiral.

So just like in professional football each team wants the best to improve its functioning in these challenging times. So, they have to pay to attract the best.

 

An analogy would be the various churches around the world that have vast fortunes in gold, land and £££$$$$ - what they have is drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.  Once it is gone it is gone and the institution will fail.

 

Having said all that twaddle not everything in the garden is rosy.

By lavishing these payments on a few employees it comes hard to be asked to cough up to support the charity

 

Roger

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by RogerH

[RobH]

This is precisely the sort of reason I have stopped giving to most of the big charities -  it's not just the salaries but the percentage of their income actually spent on doing good which is an eye-opener (look at the accounts published by the Charity Register) .  I now seek out small local charities where those numbers are much more sensible and where a donation can make a big difference. 

[MilesA]

In principle, I agree with Roger. If the Chair is demonstrably adding value to an organisation, well above and beyond the large salary, it should make economic sense. Also, consider the size and value of some of the charities for which these individuals are responsible.

The problem, as business has found, is that the targets and triggers for Chairs devised by Remuneration Committees (RemCos) of company Boards are set incorrectly and they are not robust enough with underperformance. Consequently, the baseline remuneration package for all Chairs rises across the spectrum, irrespective of ability or appropriate financial performance.

Miles

[RogerH]

2 minutes ago, MilesA said:

In principle, I agree with Roger. If the Chair is demonstrably adding value to an organisation, well above and beyond the large salary, it should make economic sense. Also, consider the size and value of some of the charities for which these individuals are responsible.

The problem, as business has found, is that the targets and triggers for Chairs devised by Remuneration Committees (RemCos) of company Boards are set incorrectly and they are not robust enough with underperformance. Consequently, the baseline remuneration package for all Chairs rises across the spectrum, irrespective of ability or appropriate financial performance.

Miles

Indeed, it is a mine field - almost jobs for the boys.

These jobs/pay levels can almost be compared to advertising. Many of the big charities spend vast fortunes on advertising.

Hopefully somebody makes a decision on where they have a positive earning capability.

I also tend to support small charities. There is one in Wales called Hope House. I haven't a clue how I got involved but I end up buying rather a lot of raffle tickets from them.

My big charity is the McMillan nurses.

Roger

 

Roger

[Motorsport Mickey]

As much as I’ve argued for years Roger that paying a “salary commensurate for the job” leads to a better overall result and that other firms and charities are competing to get the most successful CEO and maximise their results, the overall results as evidenced in our own public sector and some of the following example contradicts it.

"The National Council for Voluntary Organisations went further after conducting its own investigation in 2014 and recommended that all charities should publish names and job titles of their highest paid staff. But The Telegraph has found that only a small number have taken its advice."

Arts charities, including museums and theatres, also feature heavily on the “rich” list. The Royal Opera House came out third from top by paying its music director Sir Antonio Pappano £839,000 in salary, fees for conducting and pension payments, £100,000 more than the previous year. 

A spokesman said that he had waived his fees and salary this year because of the pandemic, and Alexander Beard, chief executive, had agreed to take a 25 per cent pay cut on his £297,000 salary.

This is more than double the comparatively modest £143,000 salary of Kevin Watkins, chief executive of Save the Children UK, which has an income of more than £300million and more than 6,000 staff and volunteers.

One small charity providing sheltered accommodation was found to have paid its boss more than a quarter of its total £659,000 annual income in the year to March 2020. !

Cancer Research, on the other hand, with its income of £656million, paid chief executive Michelle Mitchell £255,600.

As another example ...The Thrombosis Research Institute gave a hefty wage to its highest paid staff member of around £415,000 in the year to July 2020, an increase of roughly £50,0000 on the previous year and in the midst of the pandemic. Its income was just £6.9million. ! ! ! What ?

How can a charity pay 1 single member of staff over 16% of it’s total income stream ? Surely they can just cut out the middle man and have subscriptions go directly to the staff members bank account ?

Mick Richards

[stuart]

This has been well known for years and the reason I only support charities that are dear to me. One being for Motor Neurone which my mum died of more than 40yrs ago and the others are Spaniel Aid who I foster for https://spanielaid.co.uk/ and a couple of other small Spaniel charities

Stuart.

Edited June 1, 2021 by stuart

[RogerH]

47 minutes ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

As much as I’ve argued for years Roger that paying a “salary commensurate for the job” leads to a better overall result and that other firms and charities are competing to get the most successful CEO and maximise their results, the overall results as evidenced in our own public sector and some of the following example contradicts it.

"The National Council for Voluntary Organisations went further after conducting its own investigation in 2014 and recommended that all charities should publish names and job titles of their highest paid staff. But The Telegraph has found that only a small number have taken its advice."

Arts charities, including museums and theatres, also feature heavily on the “rich” list. The Royal Opera House came out third from top by paying its music director Sir Antonio Pappano £839,000 in salary, fees for conducting and pension payments, £100,000 more than the previous year. 

A spokesman said that he had waived his fees and salary this year because of the pandemic, and Alexander Beard, chief executive, had agreed to take a 25 per cent pay cut on his £297,000 salary.

This is more than double the comparatively modest £143,000 salary of Kevin Watkins, chief executive of Save the Children UK, which has an income of more than £300million and more than 6,000 staff and volunteers.

One small charity providing sheltered accommodation was found to have paid its boss more than a quarter of its total £659,000 annual income in the year to March 2020. !

Cancer Research, on the other hand, with its income of £656million, paid chief executive Michelle Mitchell £255,600.

As another example ...The Thrombosis Research Institute gave a hefty wage to its highest paid staff member of around £415,000 in the year to July 2020, an increase of roughly £50,0000 on the previous year and in the midst of the pandemic. Its income was just £6.9million. ! ! ! What ?

How can a charity pay 1 single member of staff over 16% of it’s total income stream ? Surely they can just cut out the middle man and have subscriptions go directly to the staff members bank account ?

Mick Richards

Hi Mick,

it is frightening how they justify paying those sums and are they getting value for money - I seriously hope so.

 

Roger

[Peter V W]

Eton school is a charity, saving them 80% tax break. Joke.

 

 

 

System is a joke!

[Richmac]

 

9 hours ago, RobH said:

This is precisely the sort of reason I have stopped giving to most of the big charities -  it's not just the salaries but the percentage of their income actually spent on doing good which is an eye-opener (look at the accounts published by the Charity Register) .  I now seek out small local charities where those numbers are much more sensible and where a donation can make a big difference. 

Me to Rob.

Part of my partners work is to help people manage their finances. She often finds that they have subscribed to multiple direct debits to charities which they can ill afford who then call them regularly asking to increase their monthly payments. Hard sell to people who are often old and vulnerable. Unfortunately, although I acknowledge most charities do excellent work, they are now run like most businesses greedily. I believe precisely due to the people they employ at the top. Greedy people. And I work for a charity (at the bottom) 

On another note I find car shows regularly charging the cars more than the spectators to enter, its for charity mate  

[Peter Cobbold]

Wellcome Trust is a bit different ti does not seek funds form public, it investment base was willed by Sir Hnery Wellcome and the drug company he founded. £4.6M is a lot, but may reflect return on investments. Their spend seems to ever-increase, all on biomed research. Kept part of my lab running for ten years. Peter

[stillp]

A chap I was in college with failed at various careers; at one time he was a "Charities Consultant", advising charities on claiming various grants/benefits. He once produced a spreadsheet ranking many well-known charities by the percentage of their income was consumed internally on salaries, jollies, advertising, etc. The worst - I won't name it as they might be better now - spent over 97% of their income on themselves.

As someone once said "Charity is when poor people in rich countries give money to rich people in poor countries".

Pete

[Bleednipple]

On 6/1/2021 at 9:23 PM, stillp said:

A chap I was in college with failed at various careers; at one time he was a "Charities Consultant", advising charities on claiming various grants/benefits. He once produced a spreadsheet ranking many well-known charities by the percentage of their income was consumed internally on salaries, jollies, advertising, etc. The worst - I won't name it as they might be better now - spent over 97% of their income on themselves.

He obviously didn't have much clue about how charities work either, because that sort of 'analysis' is utterly meaningless on its own. An operational charity (ie one delivering services, rather than say raising funds for another cause 'downstream', eg a charity funding medical research) could quite easily and legitimately expend ALL of its incoming resources on 'itself' - ie salaries etc if that's how it gets the job done through its paid staff in doing its work on the ground.

Practically as pointless, incidentally, is trying to compare charities in how much they spend on 'admin'. Some of the most effective charities that I know happen also to have high non-operational costs (eg they may have to spend a lot on fundraising, if they rely on public donations rather than, for example, grants and other income sources. So, before trying to look at some arbitrary measure of cost-efficiency it's more useful to start with cost-effectiveness, ie what does the charity deliver, overall, for the resources it consumes. Unfortunately that is not so simple because you have to get an understanding of the outputs delivered, what outcomes and impacts they achieve, and what relative value you personally ascribe to that.

A minority of charities are certainly badly run and deliver poor social value for the resources they consume. The majority in my experience do a pretty good job but the starting point is what value you (ie the donor) place on what they deliver, and that's going to be different for everyone. Large charities aren't necessarily better or worse than small ones. The big ones may have the capacity to deliver an effective programme at scale while some sectors suffer from poor economies because there are too many small independent charities trying to do the same thing.

(I speak from the perspective of having been an operational charity chief executive, and I currently chair a fairly large grant making operation that supports a big portfolio of charities across a range of sectors.)

Nigel

 

[stillp]

6 minutes ago, Bleednipple said:

He obviously didn't have much clue about how charities work either, because that sort of 'analysis' is utterly meaningless on its own.

 

The second part of your sentence is quite right, he didn't intend that spreadsheet to be used on its own.

Pete