Salaries of Charity CEOs

[kimmchii]

OMG i didnt know these CEOs get such a good pay, more than USD400K!!!

Here are the most accurate figures for the above-listed executives I could find in reliable sources:

# Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross, was paid $468,599 in salary and benefits in fiscal 2003. (Source: BBB Wise Giving Alliance)

# Brian Gallagher, President and CEO of United Way, was paid $432,709 in salary and benefits in fiscal 2003. (Source: Charity Navigator)

[mouser]

its crazy isn't it!??!

wtf is going on - shouldn't there be a limit to this?
this world is crazy.

[Carol Haynes]

The thing that makes me laugh is they will be appealing for funds ...

[brotherS]

There are some more quotes to be made:

But it's fair to ask: Is one charity automatically more worthy than another just because its leader is paid a lower salary? Not necessarily, says Charity Navigator, a Web site that evaluates and compares the financial health of charitable organizations.

Marsha Evans' salary, generous as it seems, amounts to only .15% of American Red Cross' annual expenses. By contrast, Brian Gallagher's salary is .97% of United Way's total expenses, and W. Todd Bassett's compensation amounts to .29% of the Salvation Army's annual expense budget. All these figures are well below the annual average calculated for the thousands of organizations in Charity Navigator's database, 3.4%.

I admit that $40,000,000 salaries for some CEOs are out of touch with reality, but let them have $400,000 if they do a good job! They are managing many, many people, and the bigger the organization the more fires they have to put out every single day.

Just don't look at the amount of $ they get but also at what they lose: many CEOs are so busy that their kids are running to mom when they return home at daylight, screaming "there's a strange man in our house!" - because they are working 80+ hours a week.

Also, you need to consider if they'd limit their salary to say $100,000 the best CEOs will probably go to some regular company instead of chosing the charity. This could lead to bad decisions, which in the end could result in attracting less donations, so the charity might lose way more than it saved in the CEO salary.

So, regarding all that, I say: let them have their $200,000, $300,000 or even $400,000 if they do a truely good job successfully managing some big charity!

[mouser]

i don't know..
i mean in business terms of course it makes perfect sense.

charities have become businesses when it comes to raising money - they hire sales people and ad firms, they hire sales people and pay them huge commissions, they throw lavish parties and hire lobbyists, etc.  they are become big businesses.  and as such they compete for ceos with influence, connections, and experience running big businesses. 

i see scam exposes regularly about charities which spend 95% of all they raise on employee perks, only spending 5% on the actual charity.  so make sure if you support a charity that most of the money goes to charity spending.  there are some watchdog sites that track this.

on one hand i understand the reasoning here - if the job of a charity is to do good, and doing good is entirely dependent on raising and spending money, then like any other business it pays to compete in terms of salary to hire the most powerfull ceo.

still part of me cant help but think - maybe it would be better not to have the highest power $500,000 a year salaray ceo, and sales people paid with giant commissions, and instead hire people who really believe in the cause.  and if that means not being as big or raising as much money, maybe that would still be a better situation..

again this gets back to one of the ideas of this website here:
what is the goal?
is the goal to make the most money possible as fast as possible? or is it something more.
i worry that charities are morphing into a state where the goal is to make as much money as possible, as fast as possible.  yes they want to help people with that money, but im not sure whats more important to them, helping people, or insuring they build a luxurious giant business.

[Carol Haynes]

It strikes me a similar to churches trying to raise funds to maintain buildings when the "Church" (ie. the establishment) is a hugely wealthy organisation. For example in England the Chrush of England is the second largest land owner to the Crown - and yet it expects people who have no relationship with religion to dip their hands in their pockets to maintain their cathedrals!

[JavaJones]

Seems to me the measure of "percentage of expense for CEO's salary" is fairly reasonable. The larger an organization the smaller it should be as a percentage, but it should still increase in absolute terms. In other words if an organization makes 1 million annually, the CEO's salary should be no more than $50,000 IMO, which is 5% of revenue. If a company makes 10 million annually, the CEO's salary could be $200,000, that's 4 times more, but only 2% of revenue. Ultimately, if nothing else, I think there should be a CEO salary cap. No one, no matter how influential their decisions, deserves to make upwards of 10 million a year. Hell the president of the US doesn't make nearly that amount.

Anyway I tend to agree with BrotherS for the most part. These numbers need to be considered in context. $400,000 is a *lot*. But if that's the highest paid charity CEO then I'm comfortable with it. However if there are charity CEO's out there making millions, I'd be very, very mad. It's all a matter of balance. As long as a charity is successful at its mission, which should be to help its target audience, and the executive's salary is a reasonable percentage of revenue and not outrageous as an absolute value, I'm fine with it.

- Oshyan

[yabbadabbado]

In terms of charity, I always try to give to the Salvation Army. They give the highest percentage of their donations to charity, much more than any other charity and pay their CEO very little. 

[Shades]

@Carol:

Churches are also exempt from (practically) all taxes. I am sure of that in the Netherlands, but I think that is the case in most countries (especially the 'old world').

Besides that they own the grounds on which their churches (and associated buildings) are standing. As such they have a lot of value on which the Vatican can bank. And does. And is tied up as well.

But this does not mean that no money is required for the internal/external upkeep. You would not believe (no pun intended) the cost involved to keep those old buildings standing. And how much the work of the required level of expertise in masonry/woodworking/metalworking costs nowadays.

[Stoic Joker]

still part of me cant help but think - maybe it would be better not to have the highest power $500,000 a year salaray ceo, and sales people paid with giant commissions, and instead hire people who really believe in the cause.

Damn Straight!

[Deozaan]

This is why I almost always donate to charities where 100% of the money goes to the cause, and all work is done by unpaid volunteers.

[Renegade]

If you look at it as "enlightened self-interest", it's in the best interest of the charity to get a CEO that can push them forward as much as possible, and if you can get someone that can triple your ability to help people, and your current CEO is making $300,000, then why not pay $900,000 for that new CEO? You're ahead, and the people you help are better off for it.

Yeah, it seems idiotic, but I can see why charities would pay more for a good CEO.

Then there's Sarah Palin's daughter who made something like 10x the amount the charity actually spent on the cause...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110407/twl-teen-sex-charity-pays-bristol-palin-3fd0ae9.html

http://www.onlinecardonation.org/charitynews/archives/163

Non-Profit Pays Bristol Palin $262,500, Donates Only $35,000 to Charity

A lot of charities are scams or end up as scams. That makes the CEO salary a very touchy issue.

I simply won't donate to charities that I don't know.

[wraith808]

This is why I almost always donate to charities where 100% of the money goes to the cause, and all work is done by unpaid volunteers.

You can't have people fully devoted to the cause if they're unpaid volunteers- it's just the way of the world that they have to have money for essentials, so they have to work for someone else, and those influences can spill over (not necessarily intentionally).  That's why I'm in favor of them getting decent salaries- so they have some other sort of incentive to make sure that the funds are distributed well.

[cranioscopical]

Here's an idea…

Pay CEOs private-sector-level salaries but have them shot at the end of the year if they've not performed 

[Renegade]

Here's an idea…

Pay CEOs private-sector-level salaries but have them shot at the end of the year if they've not performed 

That's not very charitable~!

[Shades]

@cranioscopical:
Why limit that rule to charities only?

[Renegade]

@cranioscopical:
Why limit that rule to charities only?

Why limit it to CEOs only?

Muahahahah~!

[Carol Haynes]

But this does not mean that no money is required for the internal/external upkeep. You would not believe (no pun intended) the cost involved to keep those old buildings standing. And how much the work of the required level of expertise in masonry/woodworking/metalworking costs nowadays.

That's all very true BUT there is also a huge amount of wealth inside the church (beyond the buildings and land) - esp. the Roman Catholic Church which has billions in art treasures.

Personally I think all the old buildings should be given to communities to use for community purposes (then there would be a reason for people to pay to maintain the buildings). The point of the church is (or at least should be) religious belief - not land and building management. They can always rent a hall for services and then focus on what is important rather than fund raising for ancient stones.

[40hz]

My GF and I always check the financial reports (and ratios) of any charity before we contribute. Our general rule of thumb is: no more than 15% of the total intake should be used for administrative purposes (i.e. salaries, expenses, communications, fundraising activities, etc.). At least 85% of all contributions should go directly to the cause.

Any activity has expenses associated with it. Charities are no different. But we like them to be kept withing reasonable limits. We have no use for so-called charities that spend 50% or 60% of the contributions they receive on salaries and overhead.

[tomos]

Coincidentally I just came across this today about a charity called "ONE":

ONE has since been forced to remind confused civilians that it is an advocacy organisation and not a grant-making organisation. This became necessary after the New York Post revealed that in 2008, the most recent year for which tax records are available, ONE took $14,993,873 in donations from philanthropists, of which a thrifty $184,732 was distributed to charity. More than $8m was spent on executive and employee salaries.

Who knows, maybe they use the money well...

from an interesting Guardian article: Bono: the celebrity who just keeps giving. (including a very entertaining urban myth in the first paragraph)

[wraith808]

But this does not mean that no money is required for the internal/external upkeep. You would not believe (no pun intended) the cost involved to keep those old buildings standing. And how much the work of the required level of expertise in masonry/woodworking/metalworking costs nowadays.

That's all very true BUT there is also a huge amount of wealth inside the church (beyond the buildings and land) - esp. the Roman Catholic Church which has billions in art treasures.

Personally I think all the old buildings should be given to communities to use for community purposes (then there would be a reason for people to pay to maintain the buildings). The point of the church is (or at least should be) religious belief - not land and building management. They can always rent a hall for services and then focus on what is important rather than fund raising for ancient stones.

Who is to say that this is what would happen?  I've seen when this is done- then the building becomes either (a) dilapidated, or (b) dilapidated and a home for unsavoury activities.  It's not space that charitable and community organizations hunger for- it's money.

[cranioscopical]

Why limit that rule to charities only?

I've been trying to introduce it for governments, believe me!
The plan is a little rough around the edges as yet; we're having a trial run in Libya right now.

[wraith808]

Why limit that rule to charities only?

I've been trying to introduce it for governments, believe me!
The plan is a little rough around the edges as yet; we're having a trial run in Libya right now.

I thought that was just the latest in a series of live run trials?