SocietyGuardian.co.uk - voluntary sector

Donors may feel uneasy that charity bosses earn a lot. But well-meaning volunteers simply couldn't do the job

Even in the City, there is now a certain awareness about showy braces; a Debenhams trouser historian has traced the decline of these accessories to the financial crash of 2008, with a current shift to more muted tones. In a more sensitive age, bankers are trying not to resemble Gordon Gekko, or – in a painful image that some of us still struggle to suppress – a younger Andrew Neil . "The message they send out is clear," said the expert, of the grey suspenders trend. "It is one of trust, caution and a highly conservative approach for handling money."

It is all the more unfortunate, given this culture of restraint, that Sir Nick Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross and the best-remunerated figure in the Telegraph's cash-for-charity-leaders story, should have been pictured in loud braces: which send an enduring message of greed, recklessness and a highly unorthodox approach to handling money.

Actually, Young may have learned his lesson: readers' comments earlier last week beneath a Guardian report illustrated by a photograph of the Red Cross chief executive, included: "He looks more like a CO [sic] of a hedge fund … Give to charity NEVER."

Plainly, Young's next mission must be the acquisition of the dressed-down, slightly crumpled wardrobe recommended for privileged people on philanthropic errands: one thinks of Prince Harry's desert boots in Jamaica, Madonna's flowing scarves for Malawi.

Could Young not, even in his London base, channel a more misery-friendly vibe, along the lines, say, of the chief executive of the Donkey Sanctuary, David Cook, in his modest sports jacket and slacks? After all, nobody appears to have objected this last week that Mr Cook also earns six figures, for his comparatively niche work, with distressed quadrupeds. "The financial squeeze is being felt here," says the sanctuary website. "Can you spare £2 for the donkeys?"

When even an over-prosperous appearance causes resentment, Sir Stephen Bubb, who runs the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, was probably ill-advised to claim of their salaries, on Radio 4: "This simply isn't an issue for donors. They are more concerned about the outcomes, the performance and the efficiency of these organisations." Any little people who were not thereby reminded of their total incuriosity were further invited by Sir Stephen to consider, in emulation of the feeble patter from banks and the BBC, the dreadful consequences if charities did not appeal, via competitive remuneration, to some of the richest people in the world. Do we want to live in a world where a Bob Diamond or Graham Norton would have to take a pay cut to run Battersea Dogs and Cats Home?

The only positive thing chief executives could really take away from Bubb's performance was that, at least, their champion was not asked about paying trustees, of which he is in favour, or about his Bubb's Blog – "the inside track of a third sector leader influencing in (sic) Whitehall" – in which he demonstrates that wrenching concern for the unfortunate need be no enemy to epicureanism. "The vineyard was, as all vineyards are in my experience, wonderful," noted the third sector's answer to Charles Pooter, on a recent working trip. With its round of fish dinners and splendid lunches, trips "to the Opera at Glyndebourne (The Marriage of Figaro)", and any number of rustic hostelries ("my room looked out over the churchyard"), Bubb's Blog could have been designed to reassure the charitable world's army of desperate interns that one day, and in this world, not the next, their privations will be rewarded. When it comes to reassuring the public about charitable probity, after a story that has united Telegraph and Guardian readers in disgust, not so much.

As for the charity leaders, you could see their collective reluctance, over the last few days, to correct public misconceptions about their sector and its massive bureaucracies, one-third financed by the state, as more culpable, even, than a display of ostentatious braces only inches from a Red Cross flag. Or is it impossible to explain that an able chief executive could be as useful to a charity, in alleviating human misery, as a nurse?

That donors might prefer, along with the Telegraph, that the chiefs of Oxfam and Save the Children should earn less than many London head teachers (up to £112,000) or a GPs (average £104,000) or, of course, a Godfrey Bloom (£182,826) to say nothing of middle-ranking BBC suits, senior civil servants, university provosts, NHS executives and the legions of consultants on secondment to government departments, is no excuse for preserving the myth that the leadership of gigantic charities could be delegated, almost entirely, to people willing to work for nothing.

If, understandably, it sticks in poorly paid donors' craws that more than 119,000 people would have to give a pound to pay Oxfam's chief executive to run its £385.5m budget (assuming none of it came from government), how many multiples of the national average wage, of £26,500, would it be decent to extract from collecting tins, in exchange for gifted leadership? Two? Three? Or should the whole outfit be reduced to the point that it is potentially manageable, on such days as they can turn up, by amateurs, of the noble type Cameron liked to conjure up during his Big Society moment?

Some donors, though equally concerned about their contributions, might still prefer direction and campaigning by experienced, accountable staff, to an administration in which some great and good artiste in the throes of reputation management presides over a host of randomly available volunteers, perhaps with some experience of promoting feudalism in National Trust sculleries.

Intriguingly, given his position and salary, pro rata, of £130,000, William Shawcross, the royal biographer and chair of the Charity Commission, has contributed to popular mistrust, telling the Daily Telegraph: "Disproportionate salaries risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute." Of course, anyone who has read his delirious descriptions of lunch parties given by another charitable luminary, the late Queen Mother, will appreciate Shawcross has fairly flexible definitions of "disproportionate" and "disrepute", where public funds are involved. "The food was good, the cocktails were mixed and the wine was poured with generous aplomb by uniformed stewards," he wrote of her entertainments, conceding that her style was not uniformly popular "in the more egalitarian times at the end of the 20th century". Maybe he, too, has the excuse for his own stipend of an irrepressibly Edwardian disposition?

With his implied rebuke to those running organisations massively more complex than his own, Shawcross endorses a peculiarly British beadiness about wealth, in which it is widely accepted that, say, footballers, Ecclestones, lawyers, and financiers who cheat and speculate, should take home obscene multiples of the average wage, but expected of the well-intentioned that they renounce material aspirations. For charity leaders, like sheep farmers, librarians and – to purists – MPs, virtue should be largely its own reward. It would also be appreciated, you gather, if these charity workers would have the decency to look a bit poor.

• Charities
• Charitable giving
• Voluntary sector

Catherine Bennett
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Understanding how assessing a charity's performance can help to bring about real change in people's lives

There's a battle raging in the impact measurement landscape.

Our standards of evidence are too low, say experts. To identify the impact of an intervention—in other words to attribute impact—we need sophisticated evaluations that must involve control groups, and preferably randomisation.

Our standards of evidence are too high, complain others. It's unreasonable to expect cash-strapped charities and busy social enterprises to incorporate high-end evaluation into their work. We should focus on managing performance and give up on unrealistic expectations of attribution.

Of course these are two ends of a spectrum, and there's no one right answer. But while I am an ardent supporter of evaluation, my hunch is that most of the time we should be focusing on the practical rather than theoretical, and evaluation that helps us manage performance rather than attributing change precisely.

That's not because I want social purpose organisations to be let off the hook, to get on with delivering impact rather than measuring it. No—it's because I believe that attribution can almost never be established with certainty, yet is commonly asserted or implied when charities make claims about their results. I don't believe attribution or proof should be the primary purpose of evaluation and impact measurement—rather it should be learning and improvement.

I started to gravitate towards this view when I was researching evaluation in the field of campaigning. In these cases, change happens as a result of complex, interacting actions by multiple actors, mediated by social, political, economic and technological factors. It is, in general, impossible to isolate a particular element of the system and study its impact. As a result, evaluators in the field of campaigning tend to talk about contribution, not attribution.

Back in the world of charities delivering services, I started to question whether this world was really so different from the campaigning field. Don't multiple actors, actions and conditions also exist for individuals receiving services?

For example, if a young boy turns away from a life trajectory dominated by gangs, to focus on doing well in school, can we really know exactly which actions (or actors) led to that impact? Was it the teacher who offered a listening ear, and persistent encouragement for the boy to recognise his own skills? Was it the mentor who shared his own experience of making the same transition? Was it the shock of seeing a friend seriously injured in gang violence? Or all of these factors? Or none of them—the boy's own grit and resilience eventually winning through?

My point is that life—people, families, communities—is messy. Even when it looks simple, the chances are that isn't once you scratch the surface.

Ultimately, I believe that no single organisation, or programme, creates any social impact in complete isolation. So any attempt to seek attribution, I believe, should start from a desire to understand and improve—rather than prove—and must be tempered with a realistic understanding of that intervention's context.

There are ways that charities can start to explore this without breaking the bank—the Justice Data Lab will compare the outcomes of a given group of ex-offenders with a matched group of a similar profile, for example. Or charities can create a control group by selecting participants from their waiting list. But I would still caution those charities from using such studies to claim that their results occur purely because of their work.

If we want really to understand how change happens, then we need to embrace its complexity. Let's not seek to isolate and attribute impact, but instead to understand our own contribution, and role, within the system.

Can that be done? My experience of the campaigning field tells me that it can, and that seeking to understand social change from a systems perspective will drive more collaborative, collective attempts actually to deliver it.

If I find, for example, that my mentoring programme's results are heavily influenced by the behaviour and practices of the participants' teachers, I start to think I should be directly working with them to help shape a partnership programme.

Working collaboratively requires a leap of faith. Charities' boards may need to embrace working with competitors, in what is a fiercely competitive sector. Funders need to encourage collaboration, and seek evidence of the impact of coalitions and groups, not specific projects in isolation. The leaders of social enterprises and charities need to stop obsessing about proving their impact, and instead focus on improving it.

Ultimately, if we're trying to bring about change within a system, doesn't it make sense to seek out this rich, complex, messy understanding of the world and stop pretending everything's simple, and can be reproduced under experimental conditions? If we don't, we may end up lying to our funders, lying to our beneficiaries, and lying to ourselves.

Tris Lumley is the head of development at NPC.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Impact and effectiveness
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

NGO executives berated for their 'fat cat' salaries have bills to pay too – and work for much less than the market rate

It's impossible for anyone working for an aid charity to comment on the current silly season skirmish on salaries without sounding defensive and/or self-serving. But the alternative – keep your head down until it goes away – leaves the field open to the aid bashers, whether of the crass Godfrey Bloom or more intelligent (and non-racist) persuasion. And bashing aid is what this is about. The critics don't want value for money, they want less money to be spent on aid. I work for Oxfam and think aid and the work of charities is too important to let them have free rein, so although I realise I am on a hiding to nothing, here goes.

What's the charge? That our bosses are fat cats, trousering donations that supporters and donor governments fondly think are going to relieve poverty. Cue pics of NGO execs in suits and (horror!) smiling (they clearly don't care about the poor).

And the defence? As former Oxfam CEO Barbara Stocking pointed out on Radio 4 when the story broke, her successor (and my current boss), Mark Goldring, has a big job by any standards: multitasking between running a 700-shop retail chain, managing 5,000 employees and 20,000 volunteers and a £360m budget and ensuring the safety of staff in some of the riskiest places on earth. It doesn't always work, as Stocking recalled – for a start, people get killed (on her watch, in Afghanistan).

The defences usually also include lots of management blah about salary reviews and benchmarking, and statements like: "For every £1 donated to Oxfam, 84p goes directly to emergency, development and campaigning work. Just 9p is spent on running costs," which I fear no-one reads.

The attacks touch on a pretty profound identity crisis for anyone working in aid. Is it a career or a vocation? People working for charities are not saints, but really pretty normal, mainly middle-class types. They have partners, kids, many drive cars. We go on holiday (I know, shocking isn't it?). We worry about getting old, pensions, all that stuff. There is the odd ascetic Mother Teresa type (I met some fantastic ones while working for Cafod), but by and large we don't live in convents/monasteries – which means mortgages.

But it's also a vocation, something that inspires and excites and makes you feel very lucky (and I accept, maybe in some cases, irritatingly self-righteous). We don't need the Daily Mail to tell us there is a tension there – my son recently berated me for taking a salary from Oxfam, though he didn't seem to connect this to helping get him through college. So the compromise is that our bosses need salaries, but are prepared to take less than they might otherwise. Goldring gets paid £120k and earns it (but I would say that, wouldn't I?). Although it's a lot of cash, it's way below what that level of responsibility would earn in the private sector. Stocking took a 30% salary cut to become a "fat cat" NGO boss, followed by a five-year pay freeze.

But whether career or vocation, the work has to be professional – managing these kinds of outfits takes both dedication and skill. Quite rightly, NGOs are under intense pressure to make the most of every penny, and that needs good management. And (the critics don't talk about this) what would be the alternative to paying this level of salaries? If we ran Oxfam on a volunteer basis, or had a ceiling of say £25,000? At senior management level, the reality is that if you pay peanuts, you're pretty likely to get monkeys (albeit well-meaning ones). You don't have to be a management consultant to suspect that the impact on an organisation of such size, complexity and risk could be devastating.

Which would suit the aid critics just fine of course – lots of scandals to justify taking a hatchet to the aid budget (any similarity to what's going on with the NHS is purely coincidental, I'm sure, even if many of the rock throwers are the same).

So that's my best shot. Yes we get paid. Yes we have careers. And yes we want to change the world for the better. For an organisation such as Oxfam, the challenge is to find the right balance between duty (keeping salaries relatively low in the context) and effectiveness (understanding that the external market has an effect on the likely talent you are having to attract/retain from within and, more importantly, from outside the sector). Are the bashers really saying such a balance is impossible?

• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Executive pay and bonuses
• Aid

Duncan Green
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Following the zero-hours furore this week, we examine the charity sector's attitude to the controversial contracts

Sports Direct, McDonald's and Amazon have been at the centre of the zero hours contracts furore this week, following a Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) survey, which showed that one million of the UK's workforce might be on zero hours contracts.

But charities have also been criticised by commentators because such contracts are often seen as a way of shirking responsibilities to employees and cutting costs.

The CIPD results showed that 34% of charities compared with 24% of public sector employers and 17% of the private sector employ staff on zero hours contracts.

The default opinion of many commentators is that such contracts - banned in the Netherlands - are generally bad for employees because they allow little security. The CIPD says that there are workers who appreciate the flexibility but an Office of National Statistics survey last year found that people on zero hours contracts had lower levels of wellbeing and self-worth than other workers.

So what is the sector's attitude to zero hours contracts and are they on the increase, as the CIPD report has suggested?

Major health and social care Turning Point, in particular, became embroiled in the debate, after a story in The Mirror suggested the charity slashed 2,400 jobs and put staff on zero hours contracts instead.

Speaking to the Guardian, a spokeswoman for Turning Point says that its employees on zero hours contracts are better off than they would have been otherwise and have been given full employment rights.

"As part of the recent consultations with staff, all casual workers at Turning Point were moved onto zero hours contracts. No Turning Point employees on permanent contracts were moved onto zero hours contracts.

"A driver for this change was to give employees more rights than if they were casuals. We fully recognise that zero hours contracts should not replace a permanent contract as the default employment option."

She says that 12% of staff are on zero hour contracts, which means they aren't guaranteed a set number of hours. But Turning Point is giving those staff full employment rights, including access to pensions and redundancy pay.

Employers don't legally have to give full employment rights with such contracts, and critics say the agreements are often abused as a way to get cheap labour.

But NCVO, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, says this needn't necessarily be the case and such contracts don't mean charities want to exploit people.

In a statement to the Guardian, Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of NCVO, comments: "Often the most important thing between employers and employees is the quality of their relationship, rather than the wording of their contract.

"All employers should be striving to nurture mutual trust and understanding with those who work for them. Zero-hours contracts are not a problem in themselves, and can allow both employers and employees valuable freedom. The crucial aspect is how they are administered."

He also says that a plan by the CIPD to create a code of good practice is welcomed as a "sensible and proportionate approach."

There will be a gradual trend towards more flexible working, including zero hours contracts, particularly among charities, according to Mark Beeston, chief economist at the CIPD.

"From what I've seen with this and other surveys, the voluntary sector is always a bigger user of different types of flexible employment," says Beeston.

But it's important to look at the alternative employment options that might have been available, in order to ascertain whether the employee is better off with a zero hours contract, he emphasises.

Beeston also points out that out of the 1000 employers interviewed in the survey, only 117 were from the voluntary sector, and that those who used zero hours contracts rarely had more than 10% of staff on such terms.

"These contracts can be better for staff than casual arrangements and can save on agency fees for employers," Beeston says.

Nick Clayton, a HR professor at CASS business school, which runs the Centre for Charity Effectiveness, makes the point that some charities will be using zero hour contracts as a way of getting people who are unlikely to get full-time employment, back into work.

He says he is generally more concerned about the effects of high pay at the top of organisations than zero hours contracts.

However, zero hours contracts shouldn't be the preferred option for charities looking to help people back into employment, he adds.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Finance
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Zero-hours contracts
• Work & careers
• Employment law

Claudia Cahalane
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Charity SORP, or 'statement of recommended practice', plays a crucial role in underpinning the charity sector and engaging supporters

July 2013 has been a special month. Forget the sudden appearance of a long forgotten English summer and the end of a mere 77 year wait; and with apologies to the royalists among us, it's not the birth of baby George that's got us excited here at CFG. No, even all this fades into the background when compared to another delivery, that of a brand new and transformed Charity SORP.

Don't be fooled by the dull title, the SORP, 'Statement of Recommended Practice' charity accounting framework, underpins the charity sector in a very important way; like Andy Murray and Ivan Lendl, for every blossoming, innovative, creative champion in our sector, there's a hard edged, reserved taskmaster keeping it in check.

It may be stretching it a bit far to liken the SORP to a tennis coach (and a bit unfair on the Wimbledon champion), but the important message is that this is, or should be, a big deal. We are biased here at Charity Finance Group, but without this document there is little to give those with or without financial background, standards and expectations by which they run and report on their charity. The SORP enables accountability, it sets a standard and it forces inward reflection more so than any other piece of guidance. Or at least that's the idea.

There are of course some elements of the SORP which are not of interest to your average charity enthusiast. The debate this week at our Technical Accounting Forum, on at what point we recognise a legacy (it's not just when you read the will; who knew), is not going to set the world alight. Nor does it need to, that's what technical forums are for. Shift this however, on to 'support costs', 'costs to raise money', or 'staff remuneration' and ears prick up.

So with all this excitement, why is there also the slight anxiety for some of us in entering into this consultation phase? Never before has the public's trust in charities been so important, and being able to use the financial information we produce to build the public view of the sector is critical. Last week we saw Oxfam publish its annual figures not with a quiet email to the Charity Commission, but with a big, and unusual, splash into the public sphere. A press release shared with us their struggle for income to match expenditure in a difficult year, called on the public to give more in this context, and included quotes from two of the likely most senior figures in the sector. This is not a criticism; it is due applaud of their use of the retrospective financial information.

Organisations like Oxfam are social impact businesses – they run to achieve something and sometimes it's hard to keep up with demand. Transparency about salaries and support costs may be seen as important (and are part of the SORP debate), but so are the overarching ins and outs of the business, the bits that enable the money to impact on the child we see on the TV screen. Talking to the public directly through these eyes and opening up to critique and understanding in a business context is something which can surely be good for trust. But how do we get the SORP ready for this?

The pressure is on; we have less than four months to give feedback on something which needs to provide the right support to charities to not only account for their finances appropriately, but also to be able to build their trust relationship with the public. In this context, do the technical details matter? Yes. Without getting these things right, concepts such as legacy and other income recognition in the sector are inconsistent – figures look distorted, and understanding fades. So, long may the debate continue … and with it, a headache.

Katherine Smithson is a policy officer at Charity Finance Group

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Finance
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

As top health officials are told to get stuck in, England's chief nurse volunteers at a summer camp for sick children

Not all her forerunners as England's chief nursing officer would have been quite so willing to muck in with the maggots. But Jane Cummings has no squeamishness when it comes to dealing with the live bait for the fishing activity at a summer camp for children and teenagers living with serious illnesses.

Or at least she says she has none. When Society Guardian visits the camp, she is busy handing out the fishing poles and administering sun cream. She insists that earlier in the day she did her share of baiting the hooks (and then thoroughly cleansing her hands, of course).

Cummings is serving a week as a volunteer nurse at the camp, which is run by the Over The Wall (OTW) charity, part of the international SeriousFun Children's Network. SeriousFun is modelled on the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp started in the US by actor Paul Newman, who described such camps as places where "kids can kick back, relax and raise a little hell".

Which is certainly what's going on at Bryanston school, in Dorset, where more than 40 young people are taking full advantage of the lavish facilities on the 400-acre site near Blandford Forum. Annual fees at this independent boarding school are £31,000, but OTW fundraises throughout the year to ensure that the week's stay here, as at its other camps, is entirely free for campers.

Daily pressures

And Cummings is plainly happy to help raise a little hell herself. Like all other senior NHS England and Department of Health officials, she is required under new rules to spend a total of a month a year on the care frontline – whether in NHS settings, social care, or related services such as OTW. The directive is a response to the Francis inquiry's finding that, to avoid any repeat of the mid-Staffordshire hospitals scandal, health department civil servants must have a better understanding of the daily pressures faced by care workers, patients and service users.

Announcing the directive in May, health secretary Jeremy Hunt said: "For the department's leaders to hammer home the importance of putting patients first, they need to see for themselves what that actually means."

Some top officials have seized the opportunity with alacrity. Glen Mason, the health department's director of people, communities and local government, has already spent time at a care home in Herefordshire, with a homecare worker in Salford, and alongside a social worker in Brent, north London. "I've been incredibly inspired by these people," he says. "Real heroes of social care demonstrating fantastic value and brilliant practice."

Jon Rouse, director general for social care, local government and care partnerships, has been to a mental health day centre in Durham, a community services team for older people in Leeds, and dementia care services in Tower Hamlets, east London.

"It's all about keeping it real," says Rouse, who joined the health department from Croydon council earlier this year. "As chief executive officer of a local authority I was in and with the community much of the time. Now in Whitehall I am determined not to become isolated. These connecting experiences, roughly every fortnight on a Friday, are also a time for reflection and refreshment. They are becoming part of the rhythm of the role and they represent time well spent."

For Cummings, or "Nurse Jane" as she is known at Bryanston, the week with OTW represents an opportunity to get away from her Leeds office, slap on some facepaint and ground herself in hands-on care delivery. It is no easy number: the routine for the nurse-led medical team – five nurses and three doctors – starts at 6.30am with the preparation of the many drugs that the campers will need to get through the day. It ends late in the evening, after the last activity and "cabin chat" group reflection, although one team member remains on call through the night.

As well as the medical team, there are at least as many adult volunteers as young people. The latter, aged eight to 17, all have life-threatening or life-limiting conditions and need constant support – though the emphasis is very much on allowing them the freedom to be themselves, as Newman, who died in 2008, would have wished.

"They have the time of their lives and they grow in confidence before your eyes," says Cummings. "There's one child here who has never been away from their parents before. It's just brilliant to see, and there's all kinds of feedback from medical teams and hospitals about the difference it makes to their management of their condition, their frame of mind, their 'can-do' [attitude]."

Although OTW has a somewhat cheesy fundraising pitch – "Make a child with a serious illness smile!" – its ethos runs a little deeper than that of other charities that profess to "make a wish come true" for seriously ill or disabled children. As camp director Mark Dwyer explains, the stress of the camp's "therapeutic recreation" is very much on self-achievement and boosting self-worth.

"It's all about challenging the perception of what they can do, whether it's on the climbing wall, at the laser shooting or performing a song on talent night," says Dwyer. "Then we get them to talk about it at cabin chat. There's quite enough people talking for them outside camp."

Cummings, 52, who first got involved with OTW six years ago after she was widowed, says the medical team's approach is to "demedicalise" the camp and make it as normal an environment as possible. Although the youngsters may be very ill – she has met some who have subsequently died of their conditions – the striking thing is how matter-of-fact they are. "You see these tiny kids taking a handful of drugs and just knocking them back," she says. "They just do it. My brother won't take a paracetamol without breaking it up."

It can be quite an emotional experience, even for hardened nurses. One of Cummings's team members admits to keeping a pair of sunglasses perched constantly on top of her head so that they can be discreetly slipped down to conceal the occasional tear.

Do the other nurses and the doctors know that the chief nursing officer is among them? "I don't necessarily broadcast it, but I don't hide it either," says Cummings. "I sometimes will ask them what they think about everything that's going on in the NHS at the moment, but they don't try to bend my ear. And they certainly don't make any concessions to me."

Although it is impossible for her to switch off her phone, and the office does call and email intermittently, Cummings is adamant that nothing must stop her fulfilling her duties on the medical team rota and that, for this week at least, the campers come first.

Campers such as Tom, 17, who has a heart condition and has been coming to camp every summer since he was eight. This will be his last one, because of his age, but he plans to return as a volunteer in 2015 after gaining experience elsewhere next year. "There's really nothing like it," he says. "It's the closest thing to a family you can get."

• NHS
• Health
• Children
• Young people
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Social care
• Health policy

David Brindle
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

We need to take a sledgehammer to assumptions about 65- to 75-year-olds. A bit of voluntary work would go a long way

Now bear with me on this one. It may sound like a flashback to Screaming Lord Such, but it's not. I've spent much of the past four years researching and writing about the challenge of ageing societies, conducting interviews with elders and their relatives in 13 countries on five continents – and I've concluded that we need to radically redefine later life in Britain. First, here's why we need a revolution:

1. The agequake is coming

Between 2010 and 2030 the population over 65 is set to increase by 50%, the population over 85 is set to double. When I reach retirement, in roughly 2040, almost a third of the country will be over 60. Great news for individual life expectancy, but, potentially, social fabric-shredding stuff.

2. The current approach isn't working

The current policy response to this challenge is a miserable two words long: "delay retirement". The state pension age won't stop at 67, 68 or even 70, it'll climb and climb – fine if you love your work, merciless if you're trapped in drudgery, or young and loitering at the bottom of the ladder.

3. There's a broader problem

The place of the elders in British society – as energetic, enthusiastic contributors to our national life, not Martin Amis's "grey tsunami" of healthcare burdens, wealth-hoarders and pensions parasites – needs totally revisiting. It's bad enough that a cultural chasm exists between the generations today (over 3/4 of Britons over 65 agree with the statement "young and old people live in separate worlds nowadays") but it'll be catastrophic in the future.

So what do we do? We take a sledgehammer to the fundamental assumptions about later life in Britain. Because the fact is Shakespeare would have to redraft the Seven Ages of Man today, to accommodate statins, hip replacements and all the other marvels that have created a new age, the all-important "young old", people with the energy and manpower to revolutionise this country (they are already doing it). If you reach 65 in good nick today, you can expect an historically unimaginably 13 more years of disability-free "healthy life-expectancy". The young old represent a staggering civic opportunity for this country – or, if the policy wonks have their way, they are set to serve as just an extra decade of wage-slavery.

But here's my plan: the state pension age should revert to 65. And stay there.

But … you should only get it, automatically, once you hit 75, or if you get "signed off" as an invalid. The rest of us should earn it for a decade. Yup. How? Through our contribution to national life. Through caring, childcare, volunteering (a third of 64- to 75-year-olds already do that), visiting and meeting, teaching and guiding. By doing all the amazing things the "young old" are capable of – that huge swaths of them are doing already, largely unnoticed – and that (this is the nanny state bit) the science unequivocally proves older people should be doing, for their own health and wellbeing. (Social engagement being as powerful a predictor of healthy ageing as smoking or obesity.)

Let's say, 10 hours a week scores you the cheque? (You can tell yourself you've already earned your pension, no strings attached, through 45 years of hard work – but remember, that attitude just gets you 55 years of hard work.)

Financially, we'd lose the cost of supporting many rich, lazy retirees, who'd chose to forgo the state pension for a decade and just play golf, and of people who'd rather keep working. What would we gain? Well, volunteering by older people is already estimated to be worth £10bn a year to Britain, plus £7.3bn in grandparent childcare, so try doubling that. And what we'd gain most of all is a new social contract across the generations, based on an acknowledgement that the growing ranks of older people aren't going to hold Britain back – they're going to help it fly. It's an idea. Any in return?

• Older people
• Communities
• Volunteering
• Pensions
• Economic policy
• Work & careers
• Voluntary sector

Brian Schofield
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The National Citizens Service is calling for applicants as it recruits for key roles in the UK

David Cameron's flagship volunteering programme for young people, the National Citizens Service (NCS), is starting to take shape and establishing itself as a long-term scheme. Eight months after Stephen Greene, co-founder and chief executive of RockCorps, was announced as head of the NCS's independent management body, the organisation is now in the process of recruiting for other key roles.

The opportunities currently available in marketing and public relations at the NCS trust are targeted at professionals with at least five years experience. A background in the voluntary sector is an advantage. Natasha Kizzie director of marketing and communications at the NCS trust says: "Each of the roles requires different levels of experience; voluntary sector experience is a bonus but not essential. I am looking for marketeers with integrated campaign experience. They must have worked with the youth demographic and be passionate and curious people with strong opinions on cutting edge youth marketing. It is vital that they have worked in multiple stakeholder environments."

The NCS's marketing and PR professionals will be expected to develop longstanding partnerships with the media, youth and "parent-focused" brands in order to sell the NCS message. Their mission is to make NCS "irresistible to young teens," says Kizzie. "I want young people to feel that they have missed out on something special if they have not taken part in the NCS."

The job description for the PR manager however explicitly calls for an individual with the skill to "create communications that depoliticises NSC and makes the programme part of British culture." The manager will however be expected to liaise with the Cabinet Office, which supports the programme.

Kizzie says: "Our key audience is 15- to 17-year-olds – we need to be relevant and engage them in a way that is inspiring and surprising. Sustainability is important for obvious reasons so we are not depoliticising the programme as such, if anything, we want to secure cross-party support."

Sarah Buckley is chair of the public affairs young professionals group of the professional organisation the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR).

Buckley says it is unusual for a PR job description to include the phrase "depoliticise" but adds: "I haven't seen that language before in that kind of public sector role description but I would say that it is borne out of an analysis of what their main reputational risk is which is that it [NSC] may be seen as a political tool as opposed to an excellent way of getting young people into volunteering."

Buckley, who is also the public affairs manager for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, says the core skills of PR are the same whether working in the public or private sectors: you must be an excellent communicator with good analytical skills. "You need to understand your audience and what needs to be achieved. In PR you also need a really good sense around what the media wants and needs," she says.

Around 50,000 young people have been involved in the NCS since 2011 and the same number again are expected to take part this year. Last August Cameron said that he wanted to see 90,000 young people participate in the scheme by 2014. This year 120 organisations are delivering the programme – which includes residentials and the opportunity to participate in a local volunteering project - across the country.

In September the CIPR is running a NCS workshop in Kent talking to young people about the career options in public relations and the impact of PR. A spokeswoman for the CIPR says: "We want to talk to them about PR as a profession but we also want to explain to them what PR is, and how they are affected by it and make them realise that it is part of their every day [life]."

To find out more about this role click here.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Marketing & PR

Debbie Andalo
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Research shows number of bosses on six-figure salaries at 14 leading charities has risen by nearly 60% in past three years

Martin Rowson

With new research on what chief executives in the UK's largest charities earn, an important but difficult question has resurfaced: should development sector salaries be standardised?

New research shows that the number of people earning six-figure salaries in Britain's largest aid NGOs has risen by nearly 60% in the past three years.

Despite claims that to get the best management talent international NGOs have to pay competitive wages, the news was met with disapproval from the public. Joe Saxton, founder of research consultancy, nfpSynergy, says he could see it coming: "Our research shows again and again that high chief executive salaries are a litmus test of charity waste and excess for many members of the public. The reality is that there is a huge gulf between how charities operate in the 21st century and the public understanding of, let alone empathy for, how charities work."

And it's not just the public who might like to know where NGOs stand on pay. An open debate would benefit the graduates who ask how organisations can justify low entry salaries – despite the experience and qualifications needed to get into the sector. Or local staff who want to know why expats earn in foreign currency several times what they get paid. As Michael Jennings suggests, the issue isn't that executive pay has gone up while revenues have gone down, but rather about transparency: "The amount people get paid is a moral matter, as well as social, economic and political – and one that needs to be openly discussed."

According to the Paris declaration on aid effectiveness, best practice in aid work means pay should be aligned and harmonised across worker groups. So is it time to talk about pay? If so, what are the issues you'd like to see addressed? We are also keen to hear from professionals outside the UK: how is pay handled where you work? And as a sector, how far away are we from pay standardisation?

Post your comments below. If you have any problems posting, or if you would prefer to comment anonymously, email us at globaldevpros@guardian.co.uk and we'll add your thoughts to the thread.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network

• Professional development
• Aid
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Pay
• Work & careers
• Executive pay and bonuses

Eliza Anyangwe
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Perceptions of NGOs are out of date, and the furore about high salaries should be focusing not on figures but on openness

In 2009, the Unite union launched an attack on pay culture in the charity sector, accusing chief executives of NGOs of importing a "City pay culture". "This is to be deplored," said Rachael Maskell, the then Unite national officer for the not-for-profit sector, "as it corrupts the ethos of the voluntary sector … This sector is losing its sense of what real value is."

Four years on, the same charge is being levelled at charity bosses. According to research in the Telegraph, there are now more than 30 people in the 14 charities that make up the Disasters Emergency Committee who receive salaries of more than £100,000. The main difference in the outrage being expressed this time is that public sector pay inflation in local authorities is being blamed for the excess. William Shawcross, head of the Charity Commission (whose chief executive is paid £130,000-135,000) warned charities of a potential threat to their reputation.

High salary levels are an important topic for public debate, and there are legitimate questions to be asked about senior salaries of major British NGOs (not least because many of those organisations have themselves been highly critical of "fat cat" wages paid to bankers and others in the private sector in recent years). But the current level of outrage is perhaps most indicative of the gap between the popular myth of what the NGO is and the reality.

Common perceptions of NGOs are still rife with the image of enthusiastic, idealistic volunteers working in small offices, undertaking a range of fundraising activities, and spending those funds on "projects" in poor countries. The contrast with the sleek, highly professionalised and extremely well-resourced reality of some of Britain's largest NGOs couldn't be greater. For we are not talking about small, "voluntary" organisations ("voluntary sector" has long been an outmoded term for such agencies), but huge actors with lots of, well-trained staff and access to large amounts of funding.

To pick a few examples, Oxfam's income in 2012-13 was £367.9m (44% of which came from government and other public authorities); Save the Children brought in £332m in 2012, of which £163m came from publicly funded sources (including £54m from the government). Christian Aid's latest annual report shows an income of £95.5m.

The main problem with the charge being levelled against NGOs is the rationale. The salaries are too big, we are told, because income for many of these organisations has been falling. Why is this problematic? Should we really be judging the success or otherwise of the Oxfams, Cafods, etc on their level of income? Raising and maintaining income is, of course, important – even if many NGOs are wary about publicly admitting that. But for organisations whose mission is the relief and eradication of poverty, and to provide humanitarian assistance in times of disaster, there are other, equally compelling, measures of success: tents erected, livelihoods protected, water-borne diseases kept at bay. Do I give money to Oxfam because it has been particularly successful at increasing its income? No. Does anyone?

What we have seen in recent years is not the ever-creeping wage inflation of either public or private sectors, but the gradual intrusion of "market-based" solutions into the for-profit sector; a process actively encouraged and promoted by governments (with their demands for visible and rapid results) and the growing breed of "philanthro-capitalist" non-profits and venture-philanthropy development organisations, which argue that market-based models can help NGOs become more efficient and more effective. Hence we focus on income rather than on lives affected as a core component of a CEO's success or failure.

The current argument also reflects a perennial criticism of NGOs over the amount of money spent on administrative costs. A core element of the perceived "competitive advantage" of the NGO is its lowered bureaucratic burden compared with official donor organisations. But there have always been those who see any amount of money spent on administration as a waste. As with the salary issue, this is something of a red-herring. Organisations need to pay staff, and organisations need to have administrative structures and processes that ensure money is well spent and monitored (not least to improve the likelihood of positive results).

Most British NGOs see campaigns and education within the UK and the global north as an essential component of their work to tackle poverty, despite grumblings from those who see a single penny diverted from building water wells or primary schools as a waste.

This latest furore is a distraction from what is a genuinely important point made in the Telegraph's exposé: the need for transparency and openness in organisations that work in the development and humanitarian relief sector. Not just because they receive and spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds, but because their decisions affect the lives and prospects of some of the most marginalised people in the world.

There have been significant moves in recent years to make donors and recipient governments more transparent in their dealings. But given the amounts of money donors spend through NGOs, these organisations also need to be equally transparent: in terms of the money they receive, the evaluations of the projects and programmes they engage in, and their own dealings with governments, lobbyists, thinktanks and private sector companies. The best already do this. But transparency is too important to be left to best intentions.

There should be a public debate on salaries in the NGO-sector, just as there should be one on salaries in higher education, the health service, banks and so on. The amount people get paid is a moral matter, as well as social, economic and political – and one that needs to be openly discussed. But let us not be distracted from what is really important: boosting transparency and openness in all organisations that work with the poor and marginalised, regardless of where they get their funding, and regardless of whether their CEO is one of the few in the sector who receives a six-figure salary.

• Charities
• Voluntary sector

Michael Jennings
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Senior figures in the voluntary sector respond to news that 30 charity chief executives are paid more than £100,000

Today the Telegraph reported that at Britain's 14 leading foreign aid charities, the number of executives paid more than £100,000 has risen from 19 to 30.

William Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission, said that "in these difficult times, when many charities are experiencing shortfalls, trustees should consider whether very high salaries are really appropriate, and fair to both the donors and the taxpayers who fund charities.

"Disproportionate salaries risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute."

Priti Patel, a Conservative MP who helped compile the figures, said "Hard-pressed taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent. [...] This money should be focused on delivering frontline services rather than lining the pockets of unaccountable charity executives."

We asked senior figures in the the charity sector for their responses to the news and comments, as well as for their views on the issue of charity chief executive pay more broadly. Here's what they said:

Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive, Acevo

"This is an disgraceful distraction by Mr Shawcross. Of all the issues facing charities why does he pick on something that is simply not a problem. Third sector chief executive's earn on average £58,000. That is less than Mr Shawcross earns as chair of the [Charity] Commission.

"Charities shouldn't be ashamed of paying people what they are worth. It's essential that the sector attracts skilled and experienced professionals, not keen amateurs. If we compare professional levels of pay in the private and public sectors, our chief executives earn much less. Shawcross should be defending the sector not undermining it. What donors and beneficiaries want is high quality services from efficient and effective charities.

"A strong sector needs strong leaders. We must pay to get them. Not excessive salaries, but professional ones. I suggest Mr Shawcross gets to grip with the inefficiencies of his Commission before criticising good charity leaders."

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive, NCVO

"Charity trustees should set remuneration using a clear process, taking into account the demands of the job and comparable salaries, and they should be transparent about senior pay. The Charity Commission should confine itself to ensuring such a process has been followed."

Joe Saxton, founder nfpSynergy

"What a mess and how ill-prepared the charity sector is to defend the salaries it pays. I happily give by direct debit to over 10 charities that pay their chief executives more than £100k a year. Paying the chief executive of a charity like Oxfam, which raises £200 or £300 million, just £100k or even £150k is an absolute bargain.

"However, the public don't see it that way. Our research shows again and again that high chief executive salaries are a litmus test of charity waste and excess for many members of the public. Research we are releasing very shortly shows that three-quarters of the public see the chief executive as an admin cost. The reality is that there is a huge gulf between how charities operate in the 21st century and the public understanding of, let alone empathy for, how charities work.

"The task is to bridge that gulf. The sector needs to explain better why it does what it does. It needs to marshal its arguments to show that the £100k chief executive is a bargain, not a fat cat.

"It needs to explain that investing in fundraising is the only way to grow a charity to do more great work. It needs to stop people seeing admin as a shameful waste, but as the management oil that keeps the wheels turning. We have so much work to do to bridge the gulf and, at the moment, the sector finds it easier to dodge the issue than tackle it head on."

Dan Corry, chief executive, NPC

"Remuneration in the voluntary sector and particularly the issue of chief executive pay has always been controversial. Some people probably believe that chief executives of charities should not be paid at all, and The Daily Telegraph's story certainly has a flavour of this.

"However the key question here is whether or not each charity chief executive is worth it. We need to ask whether they help deliver for beneficiaries, the people their organisation exists to support. Do they drive their charity to improve its effectiveness and impact? Are they are good figurehead, do they manage stakeholders well, are they engaging for fundraisers? Some chief executives are probably worth their money—others may well not be.

"Every charity is unique and in each case it is the responsibility of the board of trustees to set chief executive pay. The process needs to be transparent, and they need to consider all of the questions above. It is quite possible that some charities have become a bit soft and that pay at the top has kept climbing even where performance has not justified this. But major charities are complex and difficult organisations to run with a set of skill requirements often more demanding than in other sectors.

"Of course pay is important and we need to keep an eye on it- but recent issues such as the Cup Trust tax avoidance scandal are a far greater threat to the charity sector's reputation."

Oxfam spokesperson

"As an organisation committed to ending poverty and inequality, Oxfam is very aware that we must not allow senior pay to escalate by more than necessary to recruit and retain staff of the quality we need.

"In the financial year 2012/13, Oxfam's chief executive was paid £119,560, which is in the lower quartile of what other large charities paid for their chief executives. We believe this is fair reward for a job that involves long hours, large amounts of time away from family, and overseeing a £360 million organisation that runs everything from a 700-branch national shop network to major emergency responses and long term development work. Our chief executive is also responsible for more than 5,000 staff and tens of thousands of volunteers.

"We pay our chief executive less than other charities of similar size and scope – and considerably less than someone could expect to earn running an organisation of this size and complexity in the private sector. Our market research showed that, in the same year, the median pay of other large charity chief executives was £135,700.

"In the UK, Oxfam aims to pay around the median level for UK charities. Charity pay is significantly below private/public sector pay – typically less than 80 per cent for senior managers and under 70 per cent for board members in organisations of similar size. This suggests our chief executive could expect to earn at least £75,000 more for a comparable job in the private sector.

"Our chief executive's pay has increased in recent years because our remuneration committee judged that it was becoming uncompetitive with the rewards on offer at other similar organisations of comparable size.

"For every £1 donated to Oxfam, 84p goes directly to emergency, development and campaigning work. Just 9p is spent on running costs."

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Finance
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

Abby Young-Powell
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Charities need to start acting more like charities and less like retailers if they're going to help transform the high street

There are always winners in a downturn and charity shops have had a good recession. There are now over 10,000 charity shops on our high streets and, according to the Local Data Company, that's more than double the number of shoe shops. In the last six months alone they've increased by more than 10%. What we are seeing, claim the Charity Retail Association, is "a national love affair" with charity shops. If that's the case, there are certainly signs that this is cooling and a long honeymoon period could be coming to an end.

After bumper profits previously, the last year saw Oxfam's income fall by £17.6million. Net income for the charity's shops fell by almost 10%. A drop in donations is just one challenge facing charity shops. The bigger problem on the horizon is the impact of the government's business rates retention scheme.

While charity shops have long enjoyed 80% mandatory relief on business rates, often topped up to 100% by local authorities, this generous tax relief is now being reined in. Councils are refusing to grant discretionary rate relief – because it cuts into their budgets – and we're also seeing court cases challenging whether charities should be entitled to 80% rate relief in the first place. If charities cannot prove they are using premises "wholly or mainly" for charitable use then local authorities will be able to claim back millions in business rates.

Against this tougher backdrop, there is only one thing charities can do and that is innovate. An recent article in Third Sector magazine argued that charities need to behave more like retailers and challenge high street brands. They don't – because that is a battle they won't win. They need to act like charities and demonstrate the real innovation in the third sector, rather than just copying a high street retail model.

The role of the third sector on the high street is dominated by charity shops, but there are plenty of good examples of innovation that needs to be scaled up to benefit a much wider population. From intergenerational networks, credit unions and the work of the charity 3Space to turn empty buildings into vibrant entrepreneurial hubs to social enterprises like Jamie Oliver's 15, which employs disadvantaged young people, and the civic hacking movement in the US that finds technical solutions to public problems, there is no shortage of vision.

These examples are few and far between, but there is nothing stopping charities adopting this approach to compliment their work on the high street. Instead of just expanding the charity shop model imagine the difference on the high street if charities shifted their emphasis to civic hacking in libraries under threat of closure, ran recruitment agencies for hard to reach people or low-cost community childcare for people who worked locally?

The structural changes that have caused so much havoc on the high street in recent years are not going to stop, and as the transformation of the high street continues it'll be experiences and innovative services that become the new premium currency. Charities are ideally positioned to benefit from this. Beyond the charity shop model there are plenty of other high street fundraising options. Let's see youth charities like the YMCA running indoor skate and bmx parks, charities like Age UK launching more lunch clubs, befriending services and pensioners cafes and the British Heart Foundation running community gyms.

None of this is wishful thinking. After all, social enterprise is a growing sector. In the last 12 months 38% of social enterprises in the UK have seen an increase in their turnover compared to 29% of SMEs. It has potential alright, but it's yet to really taken off on the high street.

One of the things holding back the high street is a sense that too many players operating there are trapped in a retail orthodoxy and cannot imagine doing anything different. In that respect, charities share similarities with chain stores, rolling out the same model everywhere and often lacking a real local connection to the community they operate in.

Chain stores stand accused of creating clone towns, and charity shops are not exactly blameless here either. High streets will continue to see business taken away by online shopping and an out of town mega mall culture, and their future lies in a model that's more community focused rather than driven by the ringing tills of commerce. People will need more reason to go there and charities will have to respond to the needs of the local geographic community rather than just their community of need.

A shift from raising funds to go back to central office to combining this with a local servicedelivery model, which delivers tangible benefits in the surrounding community, is a necessary evolution that will bring long-term benefits.

Charities have a proud tradition of innovation because of their links to the grassroots. If they're going to remain a strong fixture on the high street, like I hope they will, they need to return to this.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Research shows number of bosses on six-figure salaries at 14 leading charities has risen by nearly 60% in past three years

Leading charities have defended the income of their chief executives after research revealed that the number receiving six-figure salaries at Britain's 14 biggest foreign aid charities has risen by nearly 60%, from 19 to 30, over the past three years.

The number of staff on salaries of more than £60,000 at charities – which form the 50-year-old Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) and co-ordinate disaster relief during global emergencies – increased by 16%, to 192, between 2010 and 2012, the Daily Telegraph reported. Eleven of the executives were paid more than the prime minister's salary of £142,500 a year in 2013, while some senior staff at some charities had pay rises despite falling revenues and donations.

William Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission, said trustees of the charities should assess pay to judge if it is appropriate. "It is not for the commission to tell charities how much they should pay their executives. That is a matter for their trustees," he told the newspaper. "However, in these difficult times, when many charities are experiencing shortfalls, trustees should consider whether very high salaries are really appropriate, and fair to both the donors and the taxpayers who fund charities. Disproportionate salaries risk bringing organisations and the wider charitable world into disrepute."

A spokesman for the DEC said the amounts paid to top executives was vital to attracting the best talent, and that they were "broadly in line" with other charities.

"The Disasters Emergency Committee plays no part in setting executive salaries at our member agencies but we believe these salaries are broadly in line with pay at other charities of comparable size," he said.

"To ensure the most effective use of appeal funds, a balance must be struck between minimising overheads and ensuring a robust management system is in place. Good management of emergency responses in the UK allows our member agencies to deliver the planning, monitoring, accountability and transparency that this work requires and that the public rightly demands."

The spokesman said the proportion of DEC appeal funds that can be spent by charities on UK management of their disaster responses is capped at 7%. "Over the past five years the DEC has raised over £193m for its appeals and the cost of raising those funds was less than 4% of that total."

The top earners whose pay increased included Sir Nicholas Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, who has received a 12% pay rise to £184,000 since 2010, despite a 1% fall in donations and a 3% fall in revenues.

Justin Forsyth, the chief executive of Save the Children, received £163,000 last year, while Anabel Hoult, its chief operating officer, was paid £168,653. Revenue at the charity has fallen by 3% since 2010, although donations are significantly up. A Save the Children spokesman said the charity paid competitive wages benchmarked against two external salary surveys. "We want to save more children's lives. We can't – and shouldn't – compete with salaries in the private sector, but we need to pay enough to ensure we get the best people to help our work to stop children dying needless deaths."

The salary of Chris Bain, the director of the Catholic aid charity Cafod, increased by 9% between 2010 and 2012, from £80,000 to £87,000. Over the same period donations and revenue rose 16% and 24% respectively. A Cafod spokesman said its director's pay "remains much lower than any of his counterparts in the biggest non-governmental organisations, and has only risen in recent years in line with the increase for other Cafod members of staff".

Richard Miller, the director at ActionAid, saw his pay rise by 8% to nearly £89,000 a year, while revenues and donations fell by 11%. Janet Convery, ActionAid's director of communications, said: "Richard Miller's salary is well below the market rate for a chief executive of a major development charity."

The top paid executive at Christian Aid was Loretta Minghella, a former chief executive of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, who was paid £126,072 this year, up from £119,123 in 2011. A Christian Aid spokesman said the charity had a "strict policy that requires us to set salaries at or below the median of other church-based and/or international development agencies".

He said Minghella "brings substantial experience and skills in managing a large and complex operation to Christian Aid, strengths which are reflected in her salary that is on a level comparable with that of others of like position in the sector".

• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Executive pay and bonuses
• Aid

Alexandra Topping
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

New research by the Charities Trust predicts companies will abandon charities that fail to deliver

We are well into a new dawn of super accountability for business, but the charities businesses support will have to face up to the fact that they're next.

Already regulated by, and accountable to, the Charity Commission, the next few years will see heightened levels of scrutiny from business. Charities that can't deliver success, or at least prove progress, will lose their corporate supporters unless they start developing their survival plan now.

We commissioned a new report to look at the future for corporate giving and the findings spotlight change on the horizon.

Companies will increasingly want their charitable causes run like businesses, and, alongside meeting targets and delivering results, they will be expected to have a positive impact on company profits too. Quite simply, businesses are under so much pressure to account for company resources and demonstrate value, all expenditure (time or money) will have to yield tangible benefits. This forecast close to open-ended fundraising for causes will inevitably mean a shift in how charities are assessed by potential supporters.

Those at the sharp end within some of the biggest players in corporate philanthropy want to see their staff learning new skills through community involvement – skills that will contribute to the bottom line. Some will look to community involvement to help them develop new markets on the back of valuable field research gathered during their involvement in cause-related initiatives.

Charities that can evaluate and cope with running their organisations with corporate supporters on the inside will flourish. The report predicts that the goal posts could well be switched for some of today's charity winners and losers.

What seems certain is that the relationship between corporate business and causes is going to get more dynamic – and more demanding. Professionals from the corporate world and within the third sector working more closely and more effectively has got to be good news for those who raise money volunteer or donate too.

The report predicts that, once companies have found causes that 'fit', and align with their business, they will be more likely to stay with them longer as these partnerships become an accepted element of their own commercial objectives. All of this should give us hope that charities' ability to deliver the ultimate result – and achieve their overall goals – will take a healthy step forward.

Attitudes are already changing. Companies are realistic and open about their interest in particular charities. In the past some may have been suspicious if CSR activity was linked to core business, these days they're more likely to be suspicious if it's not.

Charities should prepare themselves for a seismic change in how they go about attracting and retaining support from the corporate world. It may be more difficult for some charities to raise funds through partnerships with businesses, but it will also appeal to companies to support more challenging causes. That has got to be good news for some of the less popular 'Cinderella charities' that have hitherto lost out.

The research, which also asked leaders from some of the most enlightened blue chip companies for their predictions, saw companies going much further with their investment in change for good. It found that they will be more likely to mobilise not just staff, but their own customer base, in the push for results – so there are huge opportunities for charities that can sufficiently align themselves – in terms of reach, influence and seeing the job through.

Further, the report predicts, competitor companies will be more likely to put their differences aside and work together for a shared goal. This could see the global business community taking the lead on change from governments and paving the way for the birth of more 'mega causes' bringing a business focus to delivering charitable gain. Another aspect to the challenges of the next decade will be co-related charities' ability to work together in the same way.

There's no doubt there will be some additional stresses at play for charities, but also opportunities that some may have believed forever closed to them. What is certain is corporate Britain remains committed to giving.

The full report can be found here. It was written after researching emerging trends, a review of community investment to date, one-to-one interview with global thought leaders and a survey of corporate giving professionals and other experts.

Linda Minnis is chief executive of Charities Trust.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Fundraising
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The role for the voluntary sector must be to bridge the gap between education and employment, experts say

The 'lost generation' seems an apt moniker for today's young jobseekers. Recent ONS figures show 1.09 million young people aged 16 to 24 in the UK are not in education, employment or training (Neets). Just over half (53%) are classified as unemployed.

At a recent event hosted by the Guardian in association with NPC, 'Can we prevent a "lost generation ?: the role for the charity sector', Paul Gregg, professor of economic and social policy, University of Bath, explained that from the 1980s and 1990s recessions, "we have learnt that a young person who has accumulatively had a year out of work by the time they are 24 are 70% more likely to have a further spell of unemployment five years later [...] roll on a further 10, 15 years, and you get a lost generation [...] they never really catch up."

The role for the voluntary sector, experts speaking at the event agreed, must be to bridge the gap between education and employment. Currently, said Gregg, "There is no single government department responsible for this transitional period [...] between leaving school and entering work, and that gap has widened for a lot of people. Half of Neets have never worked at all [...] This is where the charity sector can do a lot of good work, to keep them active, keep them connected and bridge that space."

However despite the vast array of voluntary organisations and public sector bodies attempting to do just that, it often proves frustrating. Cllr Rachel Heywood, cabinet member for children and families, Lambeth, informed that working in one of the country's most deprived areas, "the landscape is incredibly complicated. We have hundreds of different providers in Lambeth and something more is needed around co-ordination and making a more coherent offer... I can say to a young person that there are 500 organisations out there, and they reply 'but I have not been able to get any advice or help whatsoever'. That's absolutely got to change."

As part of its co-operative council model Lambeth has set up the Young Lambeth Co-operative (YLC), a youth-led committee to review and design youth initiatives. Abraham Lawal, a young representative of the YLC, said, "the previous way of youth service provision, as I have seen things, has been top-down, council-led, dictated at times, a lack of dialogue, and tokenistic – this has produced services that young people don't want or, worse, are not aware of [...] This is where the YLC comes in. As a membership organisation, young people are represented at all levels [...] acting as a nexus through which all parties interested in young people can enter."

The Princes Trust, working with 58,000 young Neets this year, focuses on bridging the gap through a portfolio of programmes designed to cover all stages from 13 to 30. "This takes young people from our education programmes right up to accessing employment", informed Richard Chadwick, the Trust's director of central operations. "A 13-year old might take part in a Prince's Trust XL club in a school, all the way up to our Enterprise programme for self employment." Each programme aims to provide quality work experience opportunities, typically in partnership with private sector employers such as RBS, M&S and HSBC.

Rhian Johns, director of policy and campaigns, Impetus - The Private Equity Foundation, provided the funders' viewpoint, agreeing that, "if a young person can recall four or more employer contacts whilst they are at school, they are five times less likely to be Neets [...] however many donors and businesses often comment that they want to work with schools, they want to work with young people and provide mentoring opportunities, but they find it quite difficult – sometimes schools are quite reticent, or they don't have a dedicated member of staff to do that. So organisations like us play an important bridging role, speaking the language of both business and charity." Johns also suggested that every school should have a governor dedicated to providing a link to local employers.

However some delegates argued that current funding mechanisms do not encourage cross-sector partnerships. "It can be difficult to work in partnership with the voluntary sector, we all have different expectations", said Heywood. "We've got to stop trying to carve out a chunk for ourselves, guarding it fiercely, and then saying 'let's try and work together'." Similarly, said Rosie Ferguson, a delegate from London Youth, "funding-specific interventions incentivise us in the voluntary sector to claim that we have magic bullet interventions, whereas actually what's really going to work is funding cross-sector partnerships to deliver against a set of principles that we know to work."

Sasha Leacock, a delegate from Forest Hill School, also responded, "I'm from a school, my role is to develop projects and partnerships for exactly this kind of thing. But funding is hard to access and if you want to make partnerships and join networks, because we're small we're a nobody [...] we've got a music project at the moment where we tried to develop some work experience and get young people learning about the music industry, [but] when I approach funders I was told 'oh, we only work with this set of schools in this area'... we talk about scaling up but its really difficult when the support isn't there."

Chadwick conceded that approaching large employers is easier for large charities such as the Princes Trust, but stressed that the biggest drivers of growth for new jobs are small to medium-sized local businesses. Also, he warned against chasing funding. "In the old days I would say we were quite funding-driven, looking for opportunities and adapting our programmes to those; we are more outcomes driven now. We've found that if you find those outcomes from the start, then the funding will often follow."

There was also some frustration in the room over the loss of effective policy measures such as the Future Jobs Fund and the Education Maintenance Allowance. Dan Corry, chief executive, NPC, and former head of Number 10 policy under Gordon Brown, offered an effective summary: "I feel very strongly that the voluntary sector mustn't lose its advocacy and campaigning role over issues it cares about, whether funders or providers. And the phrase the 'lost generation' – although I totally understand why people resist it – at the moment we need a bit of anger about the situation we're in... frankly there's not enough decent jobs that pay decent wages with decent progression opportunities. It is the voluntary sector's role to say, 'we will try and help these young people, but we [also] need the right policies to create more jobs and more hope'."

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

• Impact and effectiveness
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

Tim Smedley
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A social enterprise that taps into the hidden world of online sales referrals allows us to give to charity without opening our wallets

Would you donate more to charity if it wasn't coming out of your pocket? Thanks to the combination of several technologies and services, this is now possible through the social enterprise TheGivingMachine.

Every year, online shops pay hundreds of millions of pounds to other websites for sales referrals. This is a hidden pool of money to which we have all added by clicking on a link, buying a product and as a result unknowingly created a sales commission for someone else. TheGivingMachine taps into this established technique called affiliate marketing and enables you to generate a sales commission from buying what you were already going to buy from hundreds of the best known online shops. 75% of these commissions are then converted into free donations to the charities and schools you choose, with the remainder providing the income needed to operate the website and distribute the many donation payments every month.

The mature affiliate marketing platforms enable us to track commissions generated at hundreds of shops back to the user who generated them. By knowing the schools and charities users support (up to four in any percentage split), the donations can all be tracked and distributed correctly. For example, for every £100 spent online, between £2.50 to £5 in free donations is generated and donated to causes the user chooses.

This form of giving has some other interesting outcomes. First, the shopper can choose where to donate. Second, shops now see this type of giving has become a powerful engagement mechanism. Finally, charities and schools can develop a free and regular source of new unrestricted income by simply asking supporters for a small change in behaviour rather than directly "ask" for more money.

Our team, many of whom are parents who work between school drop-off and pick-up, have a very dynamic working environment which has a mixture of home working and community space working. Thankfully, there is a huge array of technologies that enable us to provide a professional service while keeping costs low.

Website, phone lines, email, document and issue management systems are all hosted on cloud platforms, which means we can easily cope with demand increases because all our data can be accessed, managed and amended from wherever we are. Team and board meetings around kitchen tables are as effective (perhaps more so) than around office desks.

Why is being a not-for-profit social enterprise important? Enabling you to generate free donations and manage the thousands of payments every month to charities and schools across the UK is a privilege and is driven primarily by our social purpose and outcome. Being awarded the social enterprise mark means that we join the many other social enterprises who are transforming commerce into a force for good for our communities and beyond.

In 2012, more than 17,000 new givers joined TheGivingMachine (that's more than 1,300 a month) and helped generate more than 220,000 donations that year. We hope to exceed a million free donations generated by the end of 2013.

Richard Morris is the founder and managing director of TheGivingMachine

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the Guardian Social Enterprise Network, click here.

• Innovation
• Social enterprise blog
• Social enterprises
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A social enterprise that taps into the hidden world of online sales referrals allows us to give to charity without opening our wallets

Would you donate more to charity if it wasn't coming out of your pocket? Thanks to the combination of several technologies and services, this is now possible through the social enterprise TheGivingMachine.

Every year, online shops pay hundreds of millions of pounds to other websites for sales referrals. This is a hidden pool of money to which we have all added by clicking on a link, buying a product and as a result unknowingly created a sales commission for someone else. TheGivingMachine taps into this established technique called affiliate marketing and enables you to generate a sales commission from buying what you were already going to buy from hundreds of the best known online shops. 75% of these commissions are then converted into free donations to the charities and schools you choose, with the remainder providing the income needed to operate the website and distribute the many donation payments every month.

The mature affiliate marketing platforms enable us to track commissions generated at hundreds of shops back to the user who generated them. By knowing the schools and charities users support (up to four in any percentage split), the donations can all be tracked and distributed correctly. For example, for every £100 spent online, between £2.50 to £5 in free donations is generated and donated to causes the user chooses.

This form of giving has some other interesting outcomes. First, the shopper can choose where to donate. Second, shops now see this type of giving has become a powerful engagement mechanism. Finally, charities and schools can develop a free and regular source of new unrestricted income by simply asking supporters for a small change in behaviour rather than directly "ask" for more money.

Our team, many of whom are parents who work between school drop-off and pick-up, have a very dynamic working environment which has a mixture of home working and community space working. Thankfully, there is a huge array of technologies that enable us to provide a professional service while keeping costs low.

Website, phone lines, email, document and issue management systems are all hosted on cloud platforms, which means we can easily cope with demand increases because all our data can be accessed, managed and amended from wherever we are. Team and board meetings around kitchen tables are as effective (perhaps more so) than around office desks.

Why is being a not-for-profit social enterprise important? Enabling you to generate free donations and manage the thousands of payments every month to charities and schools across the UK is a privilege and is driven primarily by our social purpose and outcome. Being awarded the social enterprise mark means that we join the many other social enterprises who are transforming commerce into a force for good for our communities and beyond.

In 2012, more than 17,000 new givers joined TheGivingMachine (that's more than 1,300 a month) and helped generate more than 220,000 donations that year. We hope to exceed a million free donations generated by the end of 2013.

Richard Morris is the founder and managing director of TheGivingMachine

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the Guardian Social Enterprise Network, click here.

• Innovation
• Social enterprise blog
• Social enterprises
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Charity Commission investigating concerns of possible fraud relating to £450,000 donation

Comic Relief has called in Charity Commission investigators over concerns of possible fraud relating to a £450,000 donation to a Ugandan charity.

It is understood up to £200,000 of the donation, given by the British public via Comic Relief to the Ugandan charity the Busoga Association UK, is unaccounted for or is the subject of possible abuse.

It is alleged that £50,000 of the grant was used to pay for consultants to make the bid for a donation from Comic Relief – an extremely high amount for such consultancy work, according to those familiar with the case.

The charity, which is registered in the UK with the commission, says on its website that it works in Britain and Uganda to provide support to men, women and children, including helping women living in urban slums in northern Uganda. Hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants given by other organisations are also being reviewed by the regulator as part of a check on its finance and governance.

The revelations come at a time when the Charity Commission is under political pressure to improve the detection of fraud. The parliamentary public accounts committee has begun an inquiry into whether the commission is fit for purpose.

Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, has said the commission's approach to regulation and enforcement lacks rigour.

This summer, the national fraud authority estimated that UK charities had lost £147.3m of public donations to fraudulent activity in the financial year 2011-12.

The Charity Commission confirmed on Thursday it was examining concerns raised by Comic Relief auditors over the Busoga Association UK. But nearly three months on from first being alerted by Comic Relief about donations which are unaccounted for, the regulator has yet to make a decision on whether to use its statutory powers to mount a formal investigation.

A spokeswoman said: "The commission has been approached by Comic Relief expressing concern about funding it has provided to the Busoga Association UK (1081149) on the basis that insufficient accounting records have been made available to confirm how the grants were applied.

"The commission has sought a meeting with the trustees of the charity to discuss what evidence exists concerning the use of the funds in question, together with the charity's governance and financial management arrangements. Before that meeting, the commission has not formed a view of what the outcome will be in terms of any regulatory advice or action."

The commission refused to say whether the police had been alerted over possible fraud or whether any contact had been established with Busoga's trustees.

A Comic Relief spokeswoman said: "do not comment on cases prior to outcome."She said the charity, which has made more than £800m worth of grants since 1985, pursued any abuse of its funding vigorously.

"We constantly review our systems and draw on expertise from external advisors to ensure our funds go where they are most needed and are used by organisations to make real change in people's lives," she said.

The Guardian made repeated attempts to contact the Busoga Association UK, which is based in Dalston, north-east London, but there was no response.

Two months ago, the National Fraud Authority revealed that nearly one in 10 UK charities with incomes of more than £100,000 were subject to fraud in the financial year 2011-12. It exposed the failure by many charities to regularly audit donations – only a fifth of the charities who responded to the fraud survey said they tried to measure their fraud loss each year. Nearly 25,000 UK charities failed to complete the fraud audit.

The chief executive of the Charity Commission, Sam Younger, responding to the NFA report, said charities had to embrace a culture of counter fraud and risk management.

The public accounts committee said in June that the Charity Commission had failed to detect widescale abuse by a charity called Cup Trust, which received £176m in income but made donations of just £55,000.

Questioning whether the regulator was "fit for purpose" Hodge said the episode had caused "damage to the reputation of the commission and charity sector". She added: "The Charity Commission's approach to regulation and enforcement lacks rigour."

• Charities
• Uganda
• Africa
• Voluntary sector

Sandra Laville
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Charity Commission investigating concerns of possible fraud relating to £450,000 donation

Comic Relief has called in Charity Commission investigators over concerns of possible fraud relating to a £450,000 donation to a Ugandan charity.

It is understood up to £200,000 of the donation, given by the British public via Comic Relief to the Ugandan charity the Busoga Association UK, is unaccounted for or is the subject of possible abuse.

It is alleged that £50,000 of the grant was used to pay for consultants to make the bid for a donation from Comic Relief – an extremely high amount for such consultancy work, according to those familiar with the case.

The charity, which is registered in the UK with the commission, says on its website that it works in Britain and Uganda to provide support to men, women and children, including helping women living in urban slums in northern Uganda. Hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants given by other organisations are also being reviewed by the regulator as part of a check on its finance and governance.

The revelations come at a time when the Charity Commission is under political pressure to improve the detection of fraud. The parliamentary public accounts committee has begun an inquiry into whether the commission is fit for purpose.

Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, has said the commission's approach to regulation and enforcement lacks rigour.

This summer, the national fraud authority estimated that UK charities had lost £147.3m of public donations to fraudulent activity in the financial year 2011-12.

The Charity Commission confirmed on Thursday it was examining concerns raised by Comic Relief auditors over the Busoga Association UK. But nearly three months on from first being alerted by Comic Relief about donations which are unaccounted for, the regulator has yet to make a decision on whether to use its statutory powers to mount a formal investigation.

A spokeswoman said: "The commission has been approached by Comic Relief expressing concern about funding it has provided to the Busoga Association UK (1081149) on the basis that insufficient accounting records have been made available to confirm how the grants were applied.

"The commission has sought a meeting with the trustees of the charity to discuss what evidence exists concerning the use of the funds in question, together with the charity's governance and financial management arrangements. Before that meeting, the commission has not formed a view of what the outcome will be in terms of any regulatory advice or action."

The commission refused to say whether the police had been alerted over possible fraud or whether any contact had been established with Busoga's trustees.

A Comic Relief spokeswoman said: "do not comment on cases prior to outcome."She said the charity, which has made more than £800m worth of grants since 1985, pursued any abuse of its funding vigorously.

"We constantly review our systems and draw on expertise from external advisors to ensure our funds go where they are most needed and are used by organisations to make real change in people's lives," she said.

The Guardian made repeated attempts to contact the Busoga Association UK, which is based in Dalston, north-east London, but there was no response.

Two months ago, the National Fraud Authority revealed that nearly one in 10 UK charities with incomes of more than £100,000 were subject to fraud in the financial year 2011-12. It exposed the failure by many charities to regularly audit donations – only a fifth of the charities who responded to the fraud survey said they tried to measure their fraud loss each year. Nearly 25,000 UK charities failed to complete the fraud audit.

The chief executive of the Charity Commission, Sam Younger, responding to the NFA report, said charities had to embrace a culture of counter fraud and risk management.

The public accounts committee said in June that the Charity Commission had failed to detect widescale abuse by a charity called Cup Trust, which received £176m in income but made donations of just £55,000.

Questioning whether the regulator was "fit for purpose" Hodge said the episode had caused "damage to the reputation of the commission and charity sector". She added: "The Charity Commission's approach to regulation and enforcement lacks rigour."

• Charities
• Uganda
• Africa
• Voluntary sector

Sandra Laville
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds