Thousands of charity workers earn six-figure salaries

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think its the reasonableness, I think I read somewhere the Liver foundation was the worst with something like 90% of money going to admin. It really is just math.

If you can take in $100k and it costs you $20k, you raise $80k......but,

if you can spend $200k to raise $300k, you have now made $20k more for the charity, but your percent is 66% compared to 20%.

Glad you brought that up Fotze.

Moneysense Magazine rated 100 Charities in 2010 (it's too be an annual exercise) based on a number of criteria, including the amount spent to raise $100.

While the methodology may/may not have flaws, I think the list holds a ton of valuable, reasonable, interesting data for consideration.

http://www.moneysense.ca/2010/06/17/the-charity-100/

Lastly - I ask that we don't turn this thread into an "I agree/disagree with the methodology" fight. I've posted the link for its information, not interpretation.

[llama64]

I think there are rules about how much money goes to the cause before you can call yourself a charity rather then a non-profit. (I think it was 35% of money raised has to go to the cause).

Can't remember specifics, but if you look at the difference between something like CIBC's Run for the Cure and the Weekend to End Breast cancer, the latter sends much less money percentage wise to an actual cause. But it does raise a lot of money in key areas for things like cancer care - definitely a grey area here.

I'd much rather "donate" my taxes and have the government fund research into these causes then try to do it privately - unless I was rich enough to verify that my donation was actually going where I was told it was going.

That said, for things like shelters, I will donate directly to them. I absolutely refuse to go through some bullcrap organization like Red Cross or United Way.

[GirlySports]

It's all in the proposal writing. Asking for funding where staff expenses are more than 65% (35% to other services as stated avobe) can be a bit dicey and may not be accepted. Government agencies who usually fund these have a formula. The higher the salary the higher the other expenses too so it's still going to a good cause and with high salaries, they draw talented people.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by comrade

What does that matter? If I were donating I would rather have someone knowledgeable about running a cancer institute allocate my money than do it myself.

Would you rather that each person who donates decides exactly what his money will be spent on? I don't see how that would be anything but extremely inefficient.

I think if we marketed the fundraiser as "all proceeds will go towards the janitorial staff of the institute to help keep our cancer research lab clean" we wouldn't get very much money

The promotional material talked about research, education, and patient care. The insinuation is that money donated will go to these things.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't get why this is an issue, are charities supposed to pay their expenses with some other source of funds?

my post was in response to a couple comments were people donate directly to a cancer institute instead of a cancer charity. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but they seemed to imply that the money would be better used at the cancer institute (i.e. less money going to admin). I was just trying to shed some light on what can happen with donations directly to a cancer institute. Typically, donors don't ask where their money will go, and we don't specify up front

[FlamesAddiction]

When my dad went through his cancer treatments, there were no facilities or treatment options in the town we lived in, so he had to stay at a facility paid for by the cancer foundation a 6 hour drive from where he lived. It was paid for by the charity and donations from philanthropists, and yes, some of that money went to maintenance and utilities.

I honestly don't see the difference. All that stuff needs to be paid for and is an important part of the bigger picture.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

my post was in response to a couple comments were people donate directly to a cancer institute instead of a cancer charity. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but they seemed to imply that the money would be better used at the cancer institute (i.e. less money going to admin). I was just trying to shed some light on what can happen with donations directly to a cancer institute

You are, of course, correct in this regard. Donations to a specific institution do not necessarily go to research or patient care, but they do go directly to the site you donated (as opposed to going to a central pool then being distributed based on whatever bureaucracies are popular at the time).

I do agree that running a charity isn't cheap, and administrative costs do add up. Administrative costs should not equal 80-90% of an organizations admin costs though. I have yet to see a private company have such high admin costs to ensure efficient operations.

[Byrns]

Obviously not all charities have the same efficiency, but to make blanket statements saying that you're OK with every large salary because they're talented is ignorant.

How do you know how talented they are? The best way to find out is to educate yourself on the charity's expenditures, and costs. Then give accordingly.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I think if we marketed the fundraiser as "all proceeds will go towards the janitorial staff of the institute to help keep our cancer research lab clean" we wouldn't get very much money

The promotional material talked about research, education, and patient care. The insinuation is that money donated will go to these things.

So every penny donated had a little tag placed on it saying when it was donated and what the promotional material at that event talked about? The idea that funds should be directed to x cause because that's on the brochure instead of paying to keep the lights on is ludicrous. There are fixed costs with running a charity, just like anything else, people who don't get that are in need of help. Perhaps from a charity.

Btw, not coming after you, just those who think that charities are somehow above having to pay fixed costs.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by valo403

So every penny donated had a little tag placed on it saying when it was donated and what the promotional material at that event talked about? The idea that funds should be directed to x cause because that's on the brochure instead of paying to keep the lights on is ludicrous. There are fixed costs with running a charity, just like anything else, people who don't get that are in need of help. Perhaps from a charity.

Btw, not coming after you, just those who think that charities are somehow above having to pay fixed costs.

That's all fine and dandy but those charities need to be accountable for their own operations and operate in an efficient manner.

I would not invest in an inefficient company so why would I give money to an inefficient charity?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

That's all fine and dandy but those charities need to be accountable for their own operations and operate in an efficient manner.

I would not invest in an inefficient company so why would I give money to an inefficient charity?

Good point - although the article doesn't discuss that and instead focuses on the fact that people in charities make 6 figure incomes without any regard for what the appropriate compensation for a similar position in the for-profit world.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by Byrns

How do you know how talented they are? The best way to find out is to educate yourself on the charity's expenditures, and costs. Then give accordingly.

Except the fact that not all charities accurately report these things and find many tax loopholes or other "legal" means to report their costs in order to look better. I've seen it in action.

Even on projects where you are given a budget, there are higher ups that will gladly take from that amount and put it towards more administrative costs or purposely overbudget in order to have extra's to put towards things like spa days for people that worked on the project or to provide higher salaries to people who are connected to large donor families in order to ensure they will keep donating.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

You know what isn't an easy task? Trying to cure cancer! This is ridiculous when the people doing the groundbreaking research earn a fraction of pay that non-profits rake in. When I did cancer research, after earning my PhD, I made a whopping $35k/yr. This was cutting edge research as well. A lot of these non-profits need serious restructuring in my opinion.

I worked in research as well following my bachelor degree. My supervisor was pushing me to do a post-grad. I could read the writing on the wall though and got out before I was committed. Unless you can get an MD to go along with the PhD it's pretty tough to make it.

[Ducay]

I'd prefer to see the ground workers (researchers, therapists, poor people) getting a bigger slice of the pie.

As an auditor, its basically ######ed the amount some fundraisers get paid. Its not a high skill job, but I think a lot of management sees it as such since they're the money makers.
Then the same management goes and gets an under-qualified accountant to be CFO/Controller and causes themselves nothing but headaches with the CRA/Regulatory Agencies.....oh NPO's you're always good for a laugh

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

When my dad went through his cancer treatments, there were no facilities or treatment options in the town we lived in, so he had to stay at a facility paid for by the cancer foundation a 6 hour drive from where he lived. It was paid for by the charity and donations from philanthropists, and yes, some of that money went to maintenance and utilities.

I honestly don't see the difference. All that stuff needs to be paid for and is an important part of the bigger picture.

I don't think people are angry about overhead costs (utilities, etc); they're angry with all the money going for "admin" stuff (see: fundraisers, management)

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Drury18

Except the fact that not all charities accurately report these things and find many tax loopholes or other "legal" means to report their costs in order to look better. I've seen it in action.

This is no necessarily the fault of the charities.

The public can't seem to decide what is an administrative cost and what is an operational ( programming cost). for example, how do you categorize the salary for the team leader supervising the front line care providers.

How do you categorize the people screening the research proposals?

When you are giving money for research projects, you need someone to review the funding proposals, do the background work, develop a research contract and evaluate the outputs from the research. I have heard of one example where a charity will fund any research project that comes along and never ask about the results ( very low administration costs). I know there are many other projects where there is a lot of due dilligence (and some serious discussion of the effacy of certain lines of research).

Due dillegence takes more leg work but is it a program cost of an admin cost? Does the public recognize the costs of due diligence to be part of the cost of running an research program or is part of those costs that are "too high?"

[Drury18]

I completely understand where you are coming from and I do know that somethings cannot be easily measured or reported. Although when categorizing salaries, it can easily be cut and dry reported as a salary. Money going into research can be categorized as a general research expense.

However, I'm speaking more about when the money is put into a more general expense or overestimated (purposely) in some other area's so they don't show a surplus of money not being spent on the project and therefore be able to ask the donor for more. It's part of what lots of charities like to call stewardship. You create budgets with edited information showing the larger donor's how they are using all of the money or even running short so that they maintain or up their donation. Unfortunately, its not very uncommon for these projects to have information a little "fudged" in them so that they are showing the money is being used just to get more. The extra money is sometimes put into a general fund or worse, the person running the project is using it for parties to promote the iniative or to take employees out for extravagant lunches or spa days. It's basically a personal spending account for "Team Morale".

[Husky]

I call bull.

I audited one of the larger NPOs in calgary and onyl one person was about 6 figures....the person was equalivalent to a CEO positon.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Drury18

I completely understand where you are coming from and I do know that somethings cannot be easily measured or reported. Although when categorizing salaries, it can easily be cut and dry reported as a salary. Money going into research can be categorized as a general research expense.

However, I'm speaking more about when the money is put into a more general expense or overestimated (purposely) in some other area's so they don't show a surplus of money not being spent on the project and therefore be able to ask the donor for more. It's part of what lots of charities like to call stewardship. You create budgets with edited information showing the larger donor's how they are using all of the money or even running short so that they maintain or up their donation. Unfortunately, its not very uncommon for these projects to have information a little "fudged" in them so that they are showing the money is being used just to get more. The extra money is sometimes put into a general fund or worse, the person running the project is using it for parties to promote the iniative or to take employees out for extravagant lunches or spa days. It's basically a personal spending account for "Team Morale".

So charities and non-profit orgs shouldn't be concerned about team morale, taking people out to lunch or having a Christmas party or Staff Development days? That is only something that for-profit companies should worry about?

Unless you are claiming that they are bringing in $100 a person lunches to feed their staff, then that is a different story.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So charities and non-profit orgs shouldn't be concerned about team morale, taking people out to lunch or having a Christmas party or Staff Development days? That is only something that for-profit companies should worry about?

Unless you are claiming that they are bringing in $100 a person lunches to feed their staff, then that is a different story.

I'm speaking of lunches in exclusive downtown resturants and spa days at upscale spas. And only for certain team members. People like assistants, admin or even those who worked on the front lines of the project were excluded. It was more for executives and project managers that sat in boardrooms, not those who did the work.

The parties were held at some of the biggest downtown hotels (Hyatt, Hotel Arts, etc) and were wine and high end appetizers and mainly for the larger donors (I believe $50K plus) and executives of the company. No other team members that worked on the project were permitted to attend.

Not exactly ordering pizza, subs or taking the whole group out for bowling to reward a team for hardwork and late hours.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Drury18

I'm speaking of lunches in exclusive downtown resturants and spa days at upscale spas. And only for certain team members. People like assistants, admin or even those who worked on the front lines of the project were excluded. It was more for executives and project managers that sat in boardrooms, not those who did the work.

The parties were held at some of the biggest downtown hotels (Hyatt, Hotel Arts, etc) and were wine and high end appetizers and mainly for the larger donors (I believe $50K plus) and executives of the company. No other team members that worked on the project were permitted to attend.

Not exactly ordering pizza, subs or taking the whole group out for bowling to reward a team for hardwork and late hours.

Yeah that's a little messed up.

The most upscale thing I get is lunch at Brewsters, which I think is totally in line.