Donating

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:17 pm

As you open your pockets for yet another natural disaster, keep these facts in mind:

Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross... salary for year ending 06/30/03 was $651,957 plus expenses.

Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary, plus numerous expense benefits.

The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:23 pm

Email: Salaries of Charity CEOs Compared

Netlore Archive: Forwarded email purports to compare the salaries of top executives of U.S. and Canadian charitable organizations.

Description: Forwarded email

Circulating since: Oct. 2005

Status: Mostly false / Outdated (see details below)

2005 Example:

Email text contributed by Galaine, Oct. 26, 2005:

As you open your pockets for yet another natural disaster, keep these facts in mind:

Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross... salary for year ending 06/30/03 was $651,957 plus expenses.

Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary, plus numerous expense benefits.

The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization.

No further comment necessary

...

Analysis: Regardless whether one feels charity CEOs are overpaid or underpaid, such judgments ought at least to be based on real facts and figures, not outdated and fictitious declarations such as the ones above.

Even a cursory comparison of these two messages, collected five years apart, reveals that much of the information contained in the 2010 version was repeated verbatim from the text originally distributed in 2005 — yet the 2005 version wasn't accurate in first place!

Rewind to 2005

As of 2005, these were the most up-to-date and trustworthy figures I could find for the executives originally listed:

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)

W. Todd Bassett, National Commander of the Salvation Army, was paid (along with his wife, who also works for the organization) an estimated $94,091 in salary and benefits in 2003 (including house and car). (Source: Fayetteville Observer)

Fast-forward to 2010

As of 2010, Marsha J. Evans, was no longer employed by the American Red Cross. According to United Press International, Gail McGovern took over as CEO of the American Red Cross in 2008 at an annual salary of $500,000 plus a signing bonus of $65,000.

Brian Gallagher is still President and CEO of United Way, and currently earns $1,037,140 a year, according to a December 2010 report from the American Institute of Philanthropy.

W. Todd Bassett is no longer National Commander of the Salvation Army. The current National Commander, Israel L. Gaither, is paid somewhere between $79,389 and $243,248 annually for his services. (Since the Salvation Army, as a religious organization, doesn't report its expenses to the IRS, the only available figures for executive salaries are estimates, which vary greatly from source to source.)

UNICEF's Executive Director, Anthony Lake, earns $201,351 a year, according to a 2010 communique from the organization — dramatically less than the $1,200,000 per year claimed in the message above.

Dave Toycen, the President of World Vision Canada, earns $184,000 per year plus a "moderate vehicle allowance," according to that organization's annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency. Again, that is significantly less than what is claimed above. Salaries of Charity CEOs Compared - Urban Legends

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:32 pm

If I earned half a million in one year that would be me - that's enough to live on for the rest of your life.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:40 pm

Too late, I already donated $100 to the Red Cross. I'll probably donate blood next week too.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:10 pm

I can't see any reason to donate to those organizations that pay their CEOs 6 figures in salary. That's ridiculous. Just think about all of the underlings that probably get paid similar amounts.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:25 am

Scrat;1409595 wrote: I can't see any reason to donate to those organizations that pay their CEOs 6 figures in salary. That's ridiculous. Just think about all of the underlings that probably get paid similar amounts.

Agreed.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:24 pm

That's an anti-capitalistic attitude. Isn't it? If the CEO of a charity is paid $99,000.00 annually, which is $10,000.00 more than their predecessor and they bring in an additional $10,001.00, they're worth the difference. Aren't they?

If that would also be the case for a six figure salaried CEO, why not pay the six figures?

High-powered people come with high powered incomes and if they can deliver high charity donors, you'd advise not hiring them?

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:59 pm

High-powered people come with high powered incomes and if they can deliver high charity donors, you'd advise not hiring them?

Substitute "high-powered" for "rich".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:13 pm

along-for-the-ride;1409636 wrote: High-powered people come with high powered incomes and if they can deliver high charity donors, you'd advise not hiring them?

Substitute "high-powered" for "rich".We'd need to define "rich". At what level of assets or annual income should we consider rich? Do you have a figure in mind?

Rich is what the majority of Americans aspire to, isn't it? The question capitalism can't seem to answer is: how can every American become rich enough that it no longer matters?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:35 pm

It Is about percentages.

If you pay someone peanuts, they will do a average job and raise peanuts for the charity.

If you want the charity to raise millions, you need brains and the know how how to do It.... that costs. But, look at It In comparison to lesser known charities who raise very little..... you get what you pay for.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:17 pm

People, when they donate to charity, expect their donations to go to the cause for which they are donating.

Whether or no a CEO can increase the amount the the charity can screw out of the public is immaterial - if the salary is being paid out of public donations intended for a specific cause then six figure salaries are out of order.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:30 pm

I don't really believe much in organized charities. I believe in finding someone you can do something for and doing it.

I used to give blood through the local red cross, but since that isn't doable anymore, that was really it for national giving.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:07 am

Bryn Mawr;1409825 wrote: People, when they donate to charity, expect their donations to go to the cause for which they are donating.

Whether or no a CEO can increase the amount the the charity can screw out of the public is immaterial - if the salary is being paid out of public donations intended for a specific cause then six figure salaries are out of order.

Sorry but I see It differently.

Charities are no different In that In today's market, they have to compete. To compete successfully and achieve the aim, ie raise as much money as possible, they have to get marketing right.

I am more comfortable knowing that the charity of my choice Is continually pro-active and making far more money for my charity than the one's who hire some numpty for £50 a year and makes them nothing.

Take the sentiment out of It... the sole aim of any charity Is to raise as much money as possible... the more money they make, the more they have to Invest in saving lives In wider area's.

To raise millions which requires skilled marketing and media awareness costs. If you don't speculate, you can't accumulate.

What's better? The charity who pays It's un-skilled £50 a year and raises £20,000 for your cause, or the charity who pays It's high flyer's £100,000 a year but who raises 3 million for your cause? You get what you pay for.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:46 pm

oscar;1409855 wrote: Sorry but I see It differently.

Charities are no different In that In today's market, they have to compete. To compete successfully and achieve the aim, ie raise as much money as possible, they have to get marketing right.

I am more comfortable knowing that the charity of my choice Is continually pro-active and making far more money for my charity than the one's who hire some numpty for £50 a year and makes them nothing.

Take the sentiment out of It... the sole aim of any charity Is to raise as much money as possible... the more money they make, the more they have to Invest in saving lives In wider area's.

To raise millions which requires skilled marketing and media awareness costs. If you don't speculate, you can't accumulate.

What's better? The charity who pays It's un-skilled £50 a year and raises £20,000 for your cause, or the charity who pays It's high flyer's £100,000 a year but who raises 3 million for your cause? You get what you pay for.

Your examples are invalid, we're talking about paying an average professional wage, maybe £20,000 to £50,000 against over a million.

Whatever, we'll have to agree to disagree. I certainly do not give to a charity in order to support their infrastructure costs and pay their CEO a multinational board level salary, I give it for the work they are supposed to be doing. The job of a charity is not to raise money, it is to do the work in the field that they are fundraising for and I believe that the vast majority of the funds raised should go to just that.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:09 pm

I fail to see why charities should not be job creators. They're still tax exempt as long as they're non-profit.

Where do you think the cutoff should be for the CEO of a charity? Anything below six figures ($99,999.99)?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:35 pm

Ahso!;1409887 wrote: I fail to see why charities should not be job creators. They're still tax exempt as long as they're non-profit.

Where do you think the cutoff should be for the CEO of a charity? Anything below six figures ($99,999.99)?

I'd put it in terms of the average professional wage and the size of the charity but that would be a reasonable figure - no-one should become rich on the back of charitable donations.

As an example of the differences you can see, take two similar sized charities, American Cancer and Food for the Poor. Both have a turnover greater than a billion dollars a year but one uses 97% of that turnover for charitable work and the other 71% - guess which one pays it's CEO the million dollar salary :-

America's 200 Largest Charities - Forbes.com

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:47 pm

Let me put It another way...

If I subscribe to a charity to save the lives of stray dogs In Bosnia then I want It to save as many dogs lives as possible.

If they hire their PR on the cheap, they may make £20,000, enough to build one shelter and save the lives of 20 dogs.

With the right people, the high flyers, they will publicise and market the charity to compete with other charities so that they may raise 5 million which will build 20 shelters and save 100 dogs lives, as an example.

I would rather some of my donation go toward running costs and ultimately attract new sponsers which In turn creates more money for the cause than have them floundering In a cut throat market of charities all vying with each other.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:49 pm

oscar;1409894 wrote: Let me put It another way...

If I subscribe to a charity to save the lives of stray dogs In Bosnia then I want It to save as many dogs lives as possible.

If they hire their PR on the cheap, they may make £20,000, enough to build one shelter and save the lives of 20 dogs.

With the right people, the high flyers, they will publicise and market the charity to compete with other charities so that they may raise 5 million which will build 20 shelters and save 100 dogs lives, as an example.

I would rather some of my donation go toward running costs and ultimately attract new sponsers which In turn creates more money for the cause than have them floundering In a cut throat market of charities all vying with each other.

Some, fine - but better than one pound in four? No way!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:00 pm

Bryn Mawr;1409895 wrote: Some, fine - but better than one pound in four? No way! If It was a local charity, I would agree with you but I think It's like any big business who's marketing spend accounts for a high percentage of expenditure. The bigger you become, the more money you make, the greater the expenditure to sustain growth and without continual growth, you will fail.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:04 pm

oscar;1409896 wrote: If It was a local charity, I would agree with you but I think It's like any big business who's marketing spend accounts for a high percentage of expenditure. The bigger you become, the more money you make, the greater the expenditure to sustain growth and without continual growth, you will fail.

When there are charities of similar size spending one or two percent on overheads and doing very nicely thank you, your argument does not stack up.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:08 pm

It takes a hell of a lotta people's hard earned $25, $50, $100 donations they make, to first get past those million $$$$ salaries. "Before" it actually starts getting to the part of the intended donations going to those that are actually in need!