No. That's exactly the point: people don't give money to charities to help a cause, they give money to feel good.
If they gave to help a cause, then they would support whatever (reasonably ethical) methods best helped that cause. The fact that so many donors bitch about frankly miniscule CEO compensation proves that the majority of them are not in it to improve the world -- or at least that there are other things they want out of their donation.
I don't know anyone who actually gives just to feel good. Feeling good is a by-product of giving, but only because you've done something worthwhile (or so you believe).
That people bitch about CEO compensation doesn't mean they don't want to improve the world. They bitch because they want to improve the world, and they believe that high CEO compensation (as they perceive it) is a modern evil that stands in the way of improvement.
Also, they bitch because it's hard to measure performance directly. The best we can do is often look at the % of administration vs programs vs fund raising. Even there you can have a lot of funky accounting.
If you really want to get into it, we can look at the names & brochures of the individual programs. Going all out, we might news search the names of the programs to see what news references we come up with.
We know that charities are inefficient. But we can't work out who or how. Charities don't have ROI or p/e. So we look at things like CEO salary.
If they gave to help a cause, then they would support whatever (reasonably ethical) methods best helped that cause. The fact that so many donors bitch about frankly miniscule CEO compensation proves that the majority of them are not in it to improve the world -- or at least that there are other things they want out of their donation.