Home » Nonprofits » Charities » Children's Charities

What do you think about CEO's of Children's Charities receiving salaries above $300,000?

From the lens Children Charities: Salaries of the Executives.

Would you prefer to donate to a children's charity where the CEO did not receive a high salary? Or do you think that it is necessary to pay a high salary in order to recruit a talented CEO?

  • Philip Badger Greenwood May 11, 2012 @ 11:00 am | delete
    I also did an investigation into the greed of CEOs in England. Not only do these people take a great chunk of the money donated but, in most cases, the charity keeps 83% of all donations for themselves. For many years, my wife and I donated 10% 0f our wages to a number of charities whom we believed were taking our mony for the beneficiaries and not for themselves.30 years ago we paid a percentage of our donations to an animal charitie. We did not know that the CEO Brian Davis, was taking £120,00 per year wages. This was not including his so-called expensives. When this greedy man retired, The Canadian Government gave him $2000000,000. This man now runs an animal charity in London. In 2009 the CEO of nspcc was paid between £1010000,000 and £130000,000. The charity refused to give facts. Nor would they name the CEO. However they did admit that they kept 83% of donations for themselves. I swated up on many charities and came to the conclusion that ther are just businesses out to make money for their own concerns. A few months ago I was asked to sponsor a nurse to travel across the world and climb a mountain. she asked me to give her £14000,000. £4000,000 to pay her expensives and £10000.000 for her chosen charity. I told her that I would rather give the mony to the people that need it and not pay for her to go on holiday and pay some charity boss his high wage etc. We no longer give our money to charities. We now purchase animal food and take it up to our local animal shelter.
  • Tolovaj Apr 14, 2012 @ 3:35 pm | delete
    Just have to re-read this lens again. I noticed i forgot to press LIKE button before and I am glad I can correct this;)
  • JMas Mar 5, 2012 @ 8:30 am | delete
    I would donate to a charity where a CEO earns $300,000 a year. There are many factors to consider. One factor is that many of these charities are international organizations that require a skilled executive team to effectively run a global organization. You also need to have a salary structure that can attract talented and experienced individuals throughout the organization. In many of these non-profits the executive team and professional staff came from the "for-profit" world and had to take very large cuts in pay. Most non-profits salaries are on the low end of the salary spectrum compared to their for-profit counterparts - which means you get less qualified individuals or if you are lucky you get people who have managed their personal finances well or have made money in the for-profit sector and are willing to take a cut in pay. People get upset when they see the salaries but fail to recognize the experience and talent needed to run an organization effectively (profit or non-profit). If you don't have a capable executive team and staff less money will go to the children because the organization is not being run effectively. I am not condoning exhorbant salaries, but the salary structure needs to be somewhat competitive to attract the people with the skills to do the job. As for the CEOs salaries in this article, they are a fraction of the salary they would be making for the same job in the for-profit world. So, you can blast them for high salaries, but most of them either have taken a significant cut in pay, or could go somewhere else and make significantly more. The executive teams of many of these organizations work just as hard, or harder than CEOs in the for-profit world, but without the huge salaries or perks.
  • MSE Mar 5, 2012 @ 9:00 am | delete
    JMAS

    Thanks for your response. I respect your desire to donate to charities where the CEOs are making big bucks. That is entirely your decision. But you and almost all of the people who feel the way that you do, happily choose to ignore the main point of this article. What about the people who do not want to donate to charities where the CEO is living in luxury? Shouldn't they have the right to decide? In the poll on this page, I ask people if they are aware that many children's charity CEO are earning over $300k. Currently 70% say they are not aware. When I was donating to a child sponsorship charity, I was not aware that I was actually helping to make several executives rich. And no wonder. That information is VERY difficult to find. You have to really dig to find it. This is why I make the executives salaries easily available here. I believe that the CEOs salary should be stated clearly on the charity website, within one click of the home page so that people who are earning a modest income can decide if they want to support wealthy CEOs. But unless congress requires this, we will NEVER see that happen. Why? The majority of donors probably feel as I do and will stop donating. No Charity Executive will have the courage to post his salary clearly on the charity website. However, if I am wrong about this, then what is the risk in doing it?
  • prodiarist Feb 29, 2012 @ 2:36 pm | delete
    I idolize those people who give charity to those who are in-need. I wish everyone should help the needy even in a simple ways. helping doesn't always means giving money, sometimes giving a hand or material things..
    http://www.squidoo.com/nurses-without-pay
  • Iain84 Feb 11, 2012 @ 10:18 am | delete
    Excellent lens! It's great to see controversial subjects again. People will always take advantage of money grabbing opportunities but maybe these high-paid CEOs are what the charities need? I wouldn't be suprised if many of them were making more money than necessary but I guess there's two sides to every story?
  • MSE Feb 11, 2012 @ 10:33 am | delete
    Yes, there is two sides to every story. But I think everyone seems to get my main message wrong. I would not donate to a charity where the CEO earns so much money, although many people seem to be OK with that. So, I believe the charities MUST be more forthcoming about the salaries. I believe that they should be compelled to clearly post the salaries on their website.
  • Marie Jan 29, 2012 @ 11:30 am | delete
    I think that it is disgusting that they should earn that kind of money. Many people are making do with les and still donate because they feel it is right. I am appalled. I have been a donator since the the 1980's and I am very disappointed. I want a charity where the CEO is not getting rich off my money whle I worry as to where my next penny is going to come from
  • WhiteSockGirl Jan 26, 2012 @ 11:33 am | delete
    I love your lens! Congrats for being brave enough to tackle this topic
    I am a human rights activist; I only worked for non-profits in my country. I left my last job after I discovered that the Director of the organization has been claiming a 25% consultancy fee on all donor income funds in addition to his salary. You can imagine what type of earnings he is taking home.
    Anyhow, I exposed him and I left because the rest of the staff members became hostile towards me. They are very loyal to him because he was turning a blind eye to their less than honorable activities.
    It was the first organization that I worked for that is so blatantly exploiting the ‘plight of the poor’, and I am now looking at ‘charitable’ organization differently.
    I am of the opinion that staff members of non-profits should get paid. However, if you want an excessive salary, then you have no business working for non-profits, charities or human rights organizations. Get yourself a fabulous job in the corporate world and do the capitalist thing properly.
    I think it is immoral that anyone uses the plight of the poor, or any other social cause, to get rich.
    Ps. This lens deserves a purple star, and that evasive LOTD status. I don’t get the Squidoo politics. Why ignoring brilliant lenses like this one whilst awarding iffy lenses, about sweet boring nothings, with purple stars and LOTD status? I just don’t get it.
  • Tolovaj Jan 9, 2012 @ 9:07 am | delete
    I like provocative lenses. This is very to the point. And as i already said: charity should not be mixed with any kind of profit.
  • jadehorseshoe Dec 22, 2011 @ 4:03 pm | delete
    A thought provoking lens.
  • seeker2011 Dec 17, 2011 @ 8:05 pm | delete
    I dont use charities for this reason. There is no justification for a CEO to take from a chaiity. It is a sad world where we justify such large salaries when children are dyiing. If just $2 a day can feed a child then how many children can a CEO feed!
  • baby-strollers Dec 13, 2011 @ 9:32 pm | delete
    seems a little excessive...
  • TRUTH Dec 11, 2011 @ 11:41 pm | delete
    I cannot believe these [C]heating [E]xtorting [O]gres can even sleep at night or look at themselves in the mirror. Thank The Good Lord for The Day Of Judgement. His Wrath will NOT be contained RE: the likes of these Satan's minions.
  • Tiggered Dec 8, 2011 @ 12:02 am | delete
    What a fantastic lens! I actually got here because I was researching for writing something similar... I'm so glad someone has already done it, and done it with so much spirit! I will probably still write my page - the more angry voices there are, the better.
  • JaguarJulie Nov 13, 2011 @ 11:16 am | delete
    I'm still thinking about your question, "Did you know that some Children Charity CEOs earn nearly $0.5 million per year?" Isn't that rather like an oxy-moron? Holy smokes batman! Charity might be said to "begin at home" but it sure does seem to reward royally ... in the wrong place.
  • MSE Nov 24, 2011 @ 1:46 am | delete
    Hi Julie: I agree. But my biggest problem with it is that few people are aware when they donate that the CEOs are living in such luxury. I really wish that congress would require that their salaries are clearly posted on the website. Then things would change pronto.
  • ouriloilo Nov 6, 2011 @ 12:37 am | delete
    That is sad, turning a Charity as a source of income for the CEOs
  • KidsOverKancer Nov 2, 2011 @ 10:39 pm | delete
    This lens is fantastic. For the record, I have my own non-profit organization and yes, I WORK FOR FREE. That's what happens when you work for a NON-PROFIT. If you want to make money, then you are working for the wrong organization. I work a 9-6 job to support me, and all the rest of my money goes towards my non-profit. We have grants, and we receive donations. We perform fundraisers, and we raise money like NORMAL charities do. People just don't realize how crucial $1 can be to child in need. It's crazy how CEO's actually think they DESERVE that salary. Not a change. It's a non-profit for a reason.

    Check out my organization called Kids Over Kancer, where 100% of the dollar goes towards the child, and not to my pocket.

    www.squidoo.com/kidsoverkancer
  • Mermaiden Oct 6, 2011 @ 6:31 pm | delete
    There's so much amazing information packed into this page. I was just reading an online article yesterday on Forbes about the 10 most inefficient charities. Many of them spend the majority of their donations on their fundraising campaign! (http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/17/charity-10-personal-finance-philanthropy-10-least-efficient-charities_slide_5.html). I would like to link to your page on my lens. This is a really important ethical subject.
  • BusinessSarah Sep 29, 2011 @ 9:29 pm | delete
    This is an incredibly valuable lens. It's far too easy for an organization to use a noble purpose as a smokescreeen and hope people don't think too hard about where their money is going. When I was in grade school, I called the number on the screen one day and asked what percentage of every dollar goes to the children. I was told they weren't allowed to release that information. Lovely.
  • Maurice Fuller Aug 25, 2011 @ 5:56 pm | delete
    The entire charity "industry" is wrong and prohibitively expensive. A far better way to help orphans and children in poverty would be to contact local Christians in the area and arrange foster care in Christian homes with a mom and a dad. Orphanages and other aid through charitable agencies can too easily turn into a money-making racket. Even the sincere ones are too expensive and give care that is greatly substandard compared with foster care in Christian homes.
  • John Watts Aug 6, 2011 @ 3:47 am | delete
    There should be a law created to stop this its criminal.Its theft.
  • danielma Nov 1, 2011 @ 3:02 pm | delete
    The name itself displays what is he doing - A broad minded activity which is called CHARITY, If he cannot think that way, then it is a money making business for him like all other business,. He advertise one photo of very poor sad looking looking child and manipulate people that this money going to that child, whereas he is actually making an dodgy advertisement of his business and he is getting more benefit than the child. Actually everybody starts donating by looking at that child's photograph, without thinking anything else, hoping that it will reach that child. If they really wanted to help those children, arrange with their parents and help them to open a bank account with a trustee of bank and provide us that Bank account Number including international transactions, so that everybody can donate the money and this money then definitely reach to that childs hand. What charity organisations can do is to collect all children's details and their status and they can publish it may be in a website and users can choose to help for someone who really need help and the user can be 100% confident that they are helping the right child and in right way,.
  • BSieracki Jul 16, 2011 @ 6:58 pm | delete
    look up how much the top person at the salvation army or the vfw gets, it will shock you how low.
  • Donnette Jun 23, 2011 @ 2:47 am | delete
    The mind boggles.. we were just chatting the other day about "NPO's" who have exhorbitant admin costs and so what percentage of funds raised ACTUALLY gets to where it's meant to be? Information you have included on this lens needs to be highlighted and emphasized. Thank you.
  • kenjennings Jun 15, 2011 @ 8:24 am | delete
    It's not just the CEO. Where there is a CEO, there is also a CIO, a CFO, a CTO, and likely dozens of other C-type and near C-level people making bucket loads of money. In most corporations these people imagine they are important, but are the greatest liability to the corporation. So called "Top producing CEO"s are rarely accountable for company success or failure -- often the C-level employees receive big bonuses in the same year the company posts a loss and lays off "regular" employee. Even when a C-level employee is ousted it usually comes with a contracted golden parachute giving them more than when they were employed. This is not an organizational model any charity needs to follow.

    The argument that the CEO's salary defines all other employees salaries is likewise false and greedy. If a charity can pay a CEO 75K a year, but they need to pay 100K to hire a computer programmer with specific skills then so be it. Where is it written that the CEO's salary must be the maximum around which all other salaries are based? It's just plain greedy.
  • Steve Jennings Jul 30, 2011 @ 2:15 pm | delete
    WOW! I made a similar post just prior to reading your post. You and I basically made the same analysis about the charity scheme. Could it be that is because we share the same last name, Jennings??? There is no nepotism here.
  • HokieJeep Jun 8, 2011 @ 5:20 pm | delete
    Thank you. Most people just don't know.
  • ross Apr 26, 2011 @ 6:48 pm | delete
    You will find that the founder of Nepal Youth Foundation is a retired Lawyer...who probably has a great deal of money to live on anyway. so where you require charities to be trasprent, i think you need to put all the facts out there yourselves too! And now she enjoys a great life giving back...which is fantastic of her...but lets look at those who are not retired and this job they do is the means to support their family and all of their aspirations for a good life, whilst also trying to help others. But, yes, its imorral for them to come into an industry such as this and be money hungry...thats the wrong motivation that this industry should have. Go to the Financial Markets if thats what you are looking for and you are good enough to be a CEO there...if you come over to this side of things, you shouldnt be looking for a bankers salary...but thats not to say you shouldnt be able to earn a reasonable amount if you are good at what you do and as a result are making a difference and adding value! I infact was a banker, only young and left the industry at 30. I have decided to come over to this side of the world and volunteer in the feild. Yes for free, but one day Ill need to start making a living again...as I am now only 32 and have no money! But I will pick fruit this summer back at home, and that will see me through the winter again volunteering out with the children in Guatemala. But one day, Ill prob meet someone, make a family and Ill need to support them! anyway, I have now set up my own charity...this will be my career choice (rather than fruits one season). I want this to be successful and I want it to sustain a lifestyle for me where I can continue to be on the ground helping to make a better life for a child that needs the worlds support...but as a young man, I also need to be thinking ahead...everybodys got to make a living, and if you are doing the best by the world, you deserve ot be paid for it, just like any other job, if not more so! And think of it like this...if there is one CEO who can bring in say 10m, and another who can only bring in 4m...would you not rather pay the first CEO 1m for 9m that will go those i need than the latter, 100k for just 3.9m that will go where its needed? What is your objective here people...to create the most money you can for those whoes lives you want to improve. You do get what you pay for! But again, I stress, the motivation from a CEO shouldnt be about money..I think that would otherwsie be immorral! I am here because I want to help, and the only selfish thing about that is, well, the work I am doing makes me happeier than I ever was behind a desk in the City!
  • yourgoldenfuture Apr 20, 2011 @ 11:30 am | delete
    It was always a discussion on paying the ceos etc... in germany too. The other side I also saw...donors letting their own missionaries/workers etc. living near poverty level - living themselves in all comfort ... arguing on every penny... but 500K is not good to find arguments for...
  • 06BlackHeart Feb 24, 2011 @ 1:26 pm | delete
    You made it!! You submitted this lens for the top Nonprofits Lens section and you made it to the top 5 ... Be sure to go check this page: http://www.squidoo.com/top-5-nonprofits on the first of the month to see what your position in the top 5 is and tell your friends and visitors about it too

    Oh but it's not over!!! CONGRATULATION you also made it to the top 5 lens overall section too check it out here http://www.squidoo.com/top-5-lens-overall on the first too
  • Jack2205 Feb 16, 2011 @ 7:14 pm | delete
    Helping people should be more important than making a lot of money. Excellent lens. Blessed by the Charities Squid Angel.
  • Rafick Jan 29, 2011 @ 2:41 am | delete
    Thank you for this lens. I am absolutely against high salaries for charity CEOs
  • Jan 3, 2011 @ 9:04 pm | delete
    Disgusting.Thank you MSE for exposing these scumbags.I am going to favorite this lens so I can keep track of the comment updates.
  • phill Dec 29, 2010 @ 7:23 pm | delete
    would leave the greedy b(*&^%$££rds right in the place where the kids are that they are pretending to care about no escape just some guy trying to hide taking money meant for them and pocketing it and actualy laughing at them the thieving gits and to the CEO i wouldnt wish it on your kids JUST YOU GREEEEEEEEEEDY B*&$(*&^%rds
  • Dr.Lucy Mathen, Founder and proud-to-be-unpaid CEO of Second Sight Dec 12, 2010 @ 2:45 pm | delete
    Hello folks all over the world!
    We are ten years old.
    We are a volunteer-run zero overheads charity
    We cure men women and children who are unnecessarily blind from cataract in the worst areas for poverty and blindness in the world (rural Bihar and Orissa states in India). After ten years of superb efficiency and massive impact for a 'small' charity, we are even more determined to remain volunteer-run and with zero overheads. The behaviour,inefficiency and wasted money we have seen on the part of large organisations working in this same field is staggering. Read my book A Runaway Goat:curing blindness in forgotten India to see that this waste is simply not necesary. It is a complete myth that you have to pay mega bucks to get good people to run charities. I have the finest doctors and all kinds of non-medical volunteers working with me. What drives their perfectionism is not money but the thrill of using their skills where they are most needed. The other part of the equation is a BOTTOM UP approach,listening to the locals and,most importantly the beneficiaries. And NEVER dictating policies from afar.
    Read A Runaway Goat and you will never run with the herd again!
  • poppy11 Nov 30, 2010 @ 12:34 am | delete
    A useful lens and one that has a message that needs to be got across. I have favourited it to help it rise up through the Squidoo ranks.

    My sister in law has just got a job in a charity - after having done voluntary work 5 days a week for months to prove her worth - and found that there were a lot of people queuing up to get the same job. For her, helping people was more important than money and she was happy to take a drop in salary to get the work.
  • GeorgeSampress Sep 19, 2010 @ 4:59 pm | delete
    Wow, you guys are rich. I've worked hard all year round in hard labour for over 10 years and make about 16 000 dollars a year, and still have a college debt to pay off which I can't even make a dent in, and can't afford things like a vehicle, internet, home phone, family, girlfriend, beer, and any extracurricular activities except what is practically free.

    Still, anyone of us living in a first world country should feel shock and guilt that there are children in the world that only need $22 a month to survive (not all of which even goes directly to the children)! I should feel guilt... you should feel guilt! We all should! We'll never achieve the standards Christ would like for us, but it is always something we should constantly thrive for. We should support the organizations which understand what poverty is all about! If the CEO lives below the poverty line, all the more reason to support them. As for me, "All God's Children" is a high-rated company on Charity Navigator, whose CEO is the only one that makes less money than me. 95% of their costs go towards program expenses. I will look into them in greater detail.
  • Viktoria Dec 7, 2010 @ 8:42 am | delete
    i see your point of view, but they are still helping those people in need, unlike many of us just chat about it.
  • GeorgeSampress Dec 9, 2010 @ 12:13 am | delete
    Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here Viktoria.
  • The_Health_Lady Sep 17, 2010 @ 2:59 pm | delete
    I know that some will say that unless they pay the CEO's well they will leave and go to another type of company. However, there are always good people out there who could do the same work but did not with a ridiculously high salary.
  • Brad. Jun 29, 2010 @ 1:12 am | delete
    I read comments left by supporters of high paid CEO's and I read comments left by people offended by the insane salaries of these CEO's. Seems they all have something in common. The people that support it argue that they should not work for free, and the people against it say they should be paid so much. It just seems that some people are really missing the point here. I agree that CEO's of these charitable organizations should be compensated fairly because these top performers produce results. If you paid a CEO $10,000 annually, and he was able to raise $100,000 annually, versus a CEO that was paid $300,000 annually, and brought in $3,000,000 annually, most people would agree that it would make sense to hire the CEO that was paid $300,0000. That doens't make it right though. That same CEO could make an excellent wage, at the top 90 percentile at about $150,000 and could bring in $3,150,000 annually. Anyone that argues that they need to be paid more then that should take a good look in the mirror. Money is not the root of all evil, and people deserve fair compensation. Its the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil, and $300,000+ annually exceeds what any reaonable person would consider fair compensation. I would like to know how much money these CEO's give of their own money. Remember that most of the people that are giving this money, which is going to pay for these CEO's is probably less then $50,000 annually. Its not right. I used to be a big contributor to UNICEF, however, when I hear that Anthony Lake (the new executive director) is making nearly 2 million dollars, I pulled the plug. Most people have limited amounts of disposable income, and when I give my hard earned money to make a difference in kids lives, I'm not expecting 90% of it to go to operating costs. These days I give to the Salvation Army and Doctors without Boarders. Both of them pay their CEO's under $100,000 and these people make a huge impact in peoples lives. Now that you're informed from all the postings here, I urge all donators to look into their carities and stop giving your hard earned money to line the pockets of these fat CEO's and give to organizations that put the bulk of every dollar into services that make a difference.
  • Brandy Oct 19, 2010 @ 11:12 pm | delete
    I think you are right - the issue is being blurred. The mission of organizations such as World Vision is to provide a perspective on equality. We see that even "poverty" in this country is very well off compared to so many other parts of the world. The CEO should be upholding this principle the most. A $500,000 salary is not much compared to other CEOs, but World Vision is not holding the standard to other CEOs, it is holding the standard against the truly impoverished parts of the world. Think for just a minute - if $35 a year can SAVE a child, $350,000 could save 10,000 children a year!!!!!!

    The biggest point to drive home is that if we are living in a society where we "need" a 6-digit salary while other people in the world are content with hundreds of times less, then something is wrong and these salaries simply reflect that. The CEO is supposed to embrace these ideals the most otherwise the corporation is merely a sham.

    I have donated to World Vision for many years, never thinking of these salaries, and I even had to really stop and think about it for a while before coming to a conclusion. But I realized that if I have learned to be content with less, to conserve and to embrace a lifestyle that puts less emphasis on material goods, consumption and luxury, surely the charity I support should do the same.

    These CEOs should go out into the private sector where they can be rewarded better since it is obviously money that they want. I personally don't know if I could live with myself knowing that my family was living better than almost all Americans (who already live better than anyone else on the planet almost) much less allowing tens of thousands of children a year to remain impoverished so that I can have a life of luxury for all my work.
  • JCwhimzie Feb 24, 2011 @ 8:16 am | delete
    Great response!
  • Betsey Swire Jun 18, 2010 @ 9:17 am | delete
    My question to you is have you ever sat on the board of a multinational not for profit or even a local not for profit? It is the job of the Board to determine the salary. If the CEO is bringing in the donors and properly managing the services then he or she is worth the money.
  • MSE Jun 21, 2010 @ 5:46 pm | delete
    Betsey: My question to you is, why does the board or the CEO simply have the courage to inform their donors of the magnitude of the salaries? Why is this information so difficult fo find? I think it is wrong. You think it is right. Why shouldn't we both have the information provided to us so that we have the right to choose? The goal of this site is to inform people of how these so called "not for profits" are spending their donations so that people can make the right decisions. I will not donate to an organization which uses its donations this way but now that you know what they are doing, if you want to support that it is your choice.
  • LPR Jul 22, 2010 @ 12:18 am | delete
    No, they are not entitle to take advantage of the generosity of the contributors! They are entitle to a reasonable salary not a corporate salary.
    And yes I have been a board member.
  • Brandy Oct 19, 2010 @ 11:13 pm | delete
    If the CEO is suckering in the donors to pay for his salary, then he is worth the money. Well said. Would Jesus take $500,000 a year for his services?
  • MR MCGILL Mar 23, 2012 @ 4:45 pm | delete
    no jesus would not take any money because he does not exist but most humans would there is a lot of evidence using technoligy that our time on this planet is a test for the after life where these things will be evened out only intelligent people are meant to understand these things not people whom are good at games like lawyers executives etc so have peace of mind knowing every mouth they have taken from or life they have taken with there excessive lifestyle will be evened with the spirits in the afterlife i am glad its not me. "think"
  • TertiusBester Jun 14, 2010 @ 7:23 am | delete
    At Meals on Wheels in South Africa, executives receive far less. There is also very limited government funding. You can follow them on at www.twitter.com/mowaged
  • Meals on Wheels Jun 14, 2010 @ 7:20 am | delete
    That is extremely high. Executives of Meals on Wheels receive far less. All funds raised is privately raised. You can follow us on www.twitter.com/mowaged. Follow us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/mow/275216323827
  • brad Jun 29, 2010 @ 1:17 am | delete
    oh come on... seriously. as of 2007, your ceo was making $205,560. I'm sure its right up there by now. So how much is far less than $300,000? $299,999.99?
  • auscause May 29, 2010 @ 5:46 am | delete
    there is also a very nice way to help children.
    we are also working for children charity if you you want to contribute. you can do.with us
    we have a online shopping facility we have more than 500 stores in our network you just shop with us and we donate a portion of your purchase for charity to your favorite cause.
  • Carol May 18, 2010 @ 2:56 pm | delete
    I believe that CEOs should receive fair compensation, BUT anything over $100,000. per year is TOO MUCH. My income is just $30,000. so I intend to investigate the salaries executives of the organizations I support and adjust my giving appropriately.
  • Jess Feb 10, 2011 @ 3:05 pm | delete
    Carol,

    You cannot compare you salary to that of a CEO of a company unless that is the title you hold. For-profit companies make far more than that, and $250k a year is reasonable for someone that over-sees an international organization.
    $100k a year would probably barely cover the cost of their student loans and travel expenses, let alone afford them a non-impoverished life.
  • kab Jan 3, 2010 @ 6:08 pm | delete
    I'm not really happy that Save The Children has an internet affiliate program that is willing to hand over $5 of any $10 web donation to the person who put that link online. I am certain that the people donating money don't realize that half of their $10 does not even make it to the charity's door.
  • MSE Jan 4, 2010 @ 4:00 pm | delete
    Kab:
    Wow! I didnt know. This is just another example of how charities are acting like corporations. How does a charity pay up to 50% fees for a donation and then report on their website that 92% goes to program services and only 4% goes to fund raising. Seems hard to believe doesn't it?
  • THETIMEISNOW Nov 1, 2011 @ 2:28 pm | delete
    basically its business. jus cuz they say nonprofit in front of it doesn't change anything. Also, i think the very question posed by this site brings an altogether different issue as well....the VERY system itself of our monetary system an capitalism which is the VERY reason to begin with why their are people starving an poor an why their are different social classes of status. I think people who donate have a good heart an i've considered donating before relenting only because its the system we work within to help that i disagree with. (i only go along with the system because i dont want to live in cave away from the majority of society, but honestly if I had it MY WAY, we would be living in a strictly eqaul standing egalitarian society where we work together directly with an for each other. I see the good intentions of people who donate, but in the longstanding scheme of things, people are only encouraging a world of ineqaulity where the have's and the have not's will still go on and where peoples' donations are only putting a band aid on a wound that will only go on bleeding untill the SYSTEM WE LIVE BY CHANGES!!!!!
  • scuk Dec 5, 2011 @ 5:14 pm | delete
    when will people in the UK get it save the children (Farringdon) is NOT a charity they are a business the top brass earn 250,000 pounds plus - most of the directors are between 125,000 to 200,000 pounds - i worked for the company for over 2 years to learn what they do and how they do it - managers in the company earn 75,000 to 120,000 - they get uni kids on work schemes

    Putting in a water tap in a developing country does not cost much anybody knows that - but when you have anout 20 teams raising the funds it does all add up - non of the management ever put their hands in their pockets to donate - having worked there for two and half years withn over 600 people
    most of these people are nothing less then a con.

    save the children are not all that they claim to be - its a BIG con to the britsh people, a very good company to work for pay rises to directors and managers of 10% average manager salary is over £75.000 the directors earn over £125,000 some people earn alot alot more. The company earts over £275M yet a very small amount is spend in a third world country? ask yourself the UK has poverty yet there is no help from savethechildren to them?. The building in EC1 is owned by them how many charities do you know who own a 15-20 million pound building in London? They have two tenants in this building who pay going rate rent to this business. The management pension fund is excellent which they dont want to share with any new staff.

    If you really want to donate its best to goto
    Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC)
    www.dec.org.uk atleast here you know you money is not used to pay big salaries and the rest paid on small projects with no ends (bottomless pot)

    Savethechildren is a big bully as a company they bully thier suppliers and business partners, bussiness with them is not a good idea you might never get paid. Some companies have cut their losses and taken what they could and run as far as they can. You cannot say a bad thing about this company they have many contacts and can ruin you and your business as one can imagine.

    A company that earns over £275M and spend a very small amount of its money in a third world country alot is just a show. They spend some of their money and most of it is help from govermant agencies. Helping a developing country thousands of miles away which nobody is going to ever see?. We cleaned the plannet pluto last week can we have a payment now.
    This so called chairty help the dividing people and their country for their own benefit.

    This company makes lots of money alot of it comes from british people, but the management take home big far pay cheques SORRY. The salaries of the company management and its staff should be an open paper for everyone to see who they support what they earn.

    Everytime there is a disaster anywhere in the world they are among the first few charities to respond. This is for publicity and they are first to colect funds from goverment agencies. They find volunteer offer them some free training and give them a basic kit and send them off to these disaster hit countries at their own risks.

    If you ever get an invite to visit them at their offices in london EC1 go and have a look for yourself at the people around you their faces tell a story. The 3 pounds to save a child's life the tv advert, its the interns who work very very hard for the company and get nothing for their hardwork. The interns get paid travell and pounds £3.00 for lunch, while the management reep big bonuses.....your charity goes to their big FAT pay cheques SORRY.

    In many large companies management dont buy lunch because they are always in some kind of a meeting and the company then supply them with lunches savethechildren are the same management lunch is delivered by M&S in ready to serve tray's, while the rest of the staff look for best buyes from local stores.

    In the last 6 months alot of the staff were told their contracts have come to an end and their work has been passed on the interns who were trained by the very people who were asked to leave. Interns are paid travell and lunch money lunch is £3.00.Most of their internal staff dont talk to each other most dont even know who sits in the same area, Internal depatmental relations are so so bad.
    So the next time you think of giving just think who is going to benifit and will you see it? starting a project that never ends is no help or isit?

    The management and directors dont even buy their own food its all paid by the company - all their travell is paid for - weekend lunch and dinner for the family id=s paid for by the company - who is the chairty case? just think twice before paying to thieves like save the children uk
  • MSE Dec 31, 2009 @ 6:09 am | delete
    I have to comment on this statement by "Brookelorren" Above: "You can't just hire anyone to run a large organization and expect them to run it well. These CEOs could probably make a lot more elsewhere."

    In my opinion they SHOULD make this money elsewhere. I wonder if people forget that a Charity is a non-profit? There are no shareholders. There is no drive to grow this thing into a mega business that a corporation has. A Charity gets its money, not from having a better product, but from donors who are giving the money for a cause. A humane cause. The people behind that cause are supposed to be in it for doing good. That is why donors give them the money. What is the reason to bring in a corporate bigshot to grow the charity faster than the next charity? What is the reason to pay a wage that is competitive to what they could make elsewhere? Why is it that in America if it is not growing exponentially it is seen as a failure? As I have said several times in this article, if a charity wants to post that its objective is to have a fast growing charity and that for this reason it has brought in a corporate heavy hitter and will pay them gobs of money, and if people want to donate to that, this is fine. My problem comes in the fact that none of these charities communicate that they are paying mega salaries to their executives, and their donors are generally unaware of the magnitude of their salaries. This is, in my opinion VERY, very wrong.
  • Kate-Phizackerley Dec 30, 2009 @ 4:00 pm | delete
    It would be good to keep this bang up to date but the idea is sound and the lens very worthy. Blessed by a Squidoo Angel
  • MSE Dec 30, 2009 @ 9:36 pm | delete
    Hi Kate
    This information IS up to date at the moment. I just updated it about 5 days ago, Dec 26, 2009. Problem is that tax forms 990 are not submitted by the charities until about 1 year later, so the available data is always old. Also, one or two charaties have out of date information. It is difficult to find all of the forms and get the data together. They are not all available from the same source. But I hope the information on this site illustrates the issue.

    Thanks for the blessing.
  • ed team Dec 10, 2009 @ 8:12 am | delete
    Don't just count the salary when you are considering compensation. Also look at the number of overseas junkets they take, the lavish dinners, luxury hotels, ira's and pension plans. I know of a national organization that instead of sending the money to build and paint a school in Haiti, had their members fly over, stay in a fancy hotel, endulged in "ethnic meals" costing 100x local meals, and had meeting after meeting. What a waste of money. Large organizations have many ways of squandering money. Check the charity's tax return (and then think how much they fudge it).
  • Nel Mar 24, 2009 @ 8:16 pm | delete
    I really focus on what the top dogs make. Non Profits are big money makers including churches. When you are at the Grocery store and they ask you to donate, ask what the top dog draws in as a salary. Wait to see the reaction as they are puzzled. I noticed one employee saying that she will not solicit that anymore until her manager can answer that question. www.nelsonmoyle.com
  • Quirina Mar 6, 2009 @ 5:52 pm | delete
    Well, I just made a lens on 'African Angel'. what a great idea! ;) It is my favorite charity, like I mentioned below, and absolutely efficient!
    For the lens, please see: http://www.squidoo.com/African-Angel ;)
  • Quirina Mar 6, 2009 @ 7:09 am | delete
    This is an issue I am absolutely concerned about. I used to donate to Plan International, but cancelled the commitment because I felt unhappy with it. I do not know what their CEO is making, but I felt uncomfortable because of the glossy surface of their printed matters and advertisements, and also in my particular case they did not keep their promises on personal communication between my foster child and me.

    However, I have a new favorite charity, which is based in Germany (like me) and supports children in Ghana. A very small organisation, and very convincing. All work done by normal people in their leisure time, I think. It is called 'African Angel'. http://www.african-angel.de/en/index.html
  • claudia Jan 9, 2009 @ 12:10 pm | delete
    I recieved one of those letters with a childs picture and was moved to sponsor one. When i went on line to see if they are actually legitimate. I found this link and i agree with you. I am glad that someone cares enough to encourage people to do their research before choosing an organization and although the CEO's salary may seem high. It is a fair salary for the amount of work that they do.
  • Chakravarthi Dec 17, 2008 @ 4:11 pm | delete
    Very information article. Certainly, we should know about the organization we are contributing to.
  • Jess Feb 10, 2011 @ 3:01 pm | delete
    any organization you contribute to should have an "open book" policy about their taxes and revenue, to include what their higher-ups make.
  • Brenda Oct 27, 2008 @ 4:03 pm | delete
    I appreciate this article - it is very informative. It will make my decision of who to sponser a lot easier!
  • Rudy Sep 5, 2008 @ 3:00 pm | delete
    I use to donate to Children International, once I found out the CEO was taking almost half a million dollar salary a year, I did cancel, help is needed everywhere, even in USA, so.. I am helping now from single mothers to elderly people abandoned in nursing homes, and yes I feel better.
    Rudy H, California.
  • Margo_Arrowsmith Sep 5, 2008 @ 6:54 am | delete
    Your point is well taken, it is important how much of the money you donate goes to the actual source of the need. However, I also know that running one of these organizations is a lot of work. I am giving this lens 5* because of the work you did and the thought you put into it, it was obviously a labor of love, but will say that I don't think most of the salaries that you listed are out of line for what they do. But I totally agree that one should know what is being done with the money before one donates.

    http://www.squidoo.com/HelpHeiferEndHunger
  • jimluce Aug 17, 2008 @ 8:50 pm | delete
    Well, I have just written a piece for the Huffington Post on what > I < want out of being the C.E.O. of a global development effort to aid children.

    You can read it at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-luce/will-a-vow-of-poverty-fil_b_118268.html

    Also, feel free to "friend" me on FaceBook or LinkedIn. Cheers, Jim
  • Linda Jul 20, 2008 @ 9:31 pm | delete
    Well, I am the Executive director of an orphnas charity and I make $1. per year. www.oiww.org

    So, of course most orphans care charities don't do this. Jim Luce, our founder, is supposed to get $47,000. a year and keeps putting it back into the organization. There are humanitarians, and there are businessmen. Know the difference.
    Linda Stanley
    Orphans International Worldwide
    NY, NY
  • Joan May 18, 2008 @ 4:43 pm | delete
    Children Foundation for Children and Aging just received the highest rating of four stars for the seventh counsecutive years by the Charity Navigator- and a A rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. I've sponsored a child for 6 years and have been to Guatemala and met Bob Hentzen. He is the most compassionate, amazing and humble man I've ever met-a former missionary, but is married and has 6 children and 9 grandchildren. He has lived in Gutemala nearly all of his adult life. Last year his salary was 92,409 and with that he travels to the CFCA projects in the 25 countries where there are sponsored children. I've seen where he lives-- he lives among the people that he loves, and I've seen for myself how the Guatemalan people love him. By the way, in 1996 he walked 4,000 miles from the headquaters in Kansas to San Lucas Toliman in Guatemala in a pilgrimage of faith to show his love towards the poor and to call attention to their difficult situation.
  • LPR Jul 22, 2010 @ 12:29 am | delete
    No doubt that this man has a good heart, but US $92,409 in Guatemala is an incredible salary, the average salary in a large city is US $5,000 a year or less.
  • mulberry Apr 20, 2008 @ 3:30 pm | delete
    I'm not sure, afterall to attract good CEO's you have to compete with other types of organizations for the talent, that means a salary that is closer to that of others. My guess is few CEO's are worth their salary and particularly when their companies are failing...the good ones are worth it, the other 95% aren't. The market for CEO's overall is probably the problem.
  • Shannon Darring, oak ridge 37830, TN,Hotfuse150@aim.com Mar 22, 2008 @ 6:52 am | delete
    I dont know if I was more shcoked or more bumed out that people will manipulate those who choose to give. Though with many greedy people there are good, those kind of people give many more a reason to fight to change the name of mission work and charity.

    But anyone who wants to give should really reseach it before sending their money out
  • Rachael Mar 12, 2008 @ 4:13 am | delete
    WOW! That is ridiculous!!!! Teachers, who are in charge of children's lives, are paid crap compared to those CEO's!!! This world is soooo screwed up!! Rappers, sports players, actors & these CEO's make so much money! This makes me so angry!! I am going to be a teacher because I love children & I want to make a difference in their lives. It is just really unfortunate to read about someone who is supossed to be making a difference in childrens' lives , making $100,00-$400,00 a year!! These children are still in poverty & are still hungry! They live shitty lives while these SELFISH CEO's are sitting pretty!! PLEASE SOMEONE DO A STORY ABOUT THEM SO THINGS CAN CHANGE!!! I'm sure if more people knew that when they donated money it went into some CEO's pocket, they would further investigate the company before sending money!! I wish these CEO's could spend just a day living the life of these children & maybe they wouldn't be so fucking selfish & heartless!!!!!!!
  • Carl Mar 9, 2008 @ 11:46 pm | delete
    I just watched a tv presentation of "Feed The Chilkdren". Any idea about how their CEOs are paid?

    The former President of Red Cross was paid half a million a year. That really destried public trust for charity organizations in US.

    Can a CEO grab a billion a year, and still claim non-profit?
  • lisadh Jan 22, 2008 @ 4:37 pm | delete
    I don't think every person who works for a nonprofit needs to take a vow of poverty, but I do think high salaries look bad. Having said that, I'd still rather see someone earn $400,000 to run an organization that does good deeds than see an actor, sports figure or corporate exec make far more than that and hoarde it all. Hopefully these execs donate a lot to charity. :-)

    I used to volunteer for an excellent, little-known charity called Trees for Life, and most of their staff is volunteer, the top "execs" earn very little and they all live very simple lives dedicated to helping others.
  • steveffeo Jan 22, 2008 @ 12:15 pm | delete
    This is a great lens. It is a crime CEO's for charities get paid so much. Maybe they should take a que from the CEO of Squidoo Seth make $1.00 per year. The President of Food for Everyone Foundation (my cause) makes $0.00
    Great lens I will lensroll and favorite/rank TY for pointing this out
  • quasilyonchase Jan 20, 2008 @ 11:05 am | delete
    I agree 100%;If the goal is compassion, sacrifice, then I expect the CEO of any charity to make a reasonable salary. So he/she can't live in a 7 figure valued house,in an elite neighborhood and wear suits that cost 3 or 4 figure. So what? I especially hold Religious Organization to a higher standard. If they really believe the principle of Christ, then prove it
  • BookReview Jan 11, 2008 @ 2:53 pm | delete
    I have no problem with the salaries of these CEO's. If they worked in the private sector they would most likely make double or much more than what they are currently earning.The statistic that is probably more important is what percentage of the revenue goes to the actual charity and to the admin.
  • Melvin Jul 25, 2007 @ 1:56 pm | delete
    I have heard Wess Stafford several times on the radio talk about the materialism and selfishness of American culture. Yet his salary is 10X what my family of 5 has to work with! You have voiced exactly my feelings. But how can you find a charity that does give careful stewardship to your money?
  • David Elswick Jul 30, 2010 @ 9:26 pm | delete
    Check out www.nyof.org. They have been rated 4 stars by Charity Navigator for the past 4 years. This is their highest rating. Its means over 85% of the money raised gets to the people they say they are raising the money for. And their CEO doesn't draw a salary. Check at: www.charity navigator.org
  • ellie Jul 16, 2007 @ 10:07 am | delete
    THANK you for raising this issue... I have been scouring the internet for other people writing about it. i can't believe the huge salaries these ngo-executives take home.
  • Thank you to those that want to do something good in this world Jun 18, 2010 @ 6:45 pm | delete
    So - we should not reiburse people like the head of Save the Children - who has a Doctorate from Columbia and another degree from Harvard - with large amounts of money just becuase they chose to dedicate their time to helping children around the world. However, it is not repugnant for people in finance, who may be equally well educated, and who are not even attempting to help anyone. The implication of the discussion here is that if you are trying to help people you should not be paid well. The logic would dictate that you would then not get as good people trying to help people. I would hate to live in the world you are all describing - where we value those who are in it only for the money and are willing to pay them big bucks, but those that are trying to do something good should not be paid well. That is not a place I want to live and you should all be ashamed that you are implying this!
  • Brad Jun 29, 2010 @ 1:36 am | delete
    Wow.. the idiocy in that comment you left is unmatched in that thread. Do you really believe that the arguement there is that "if you are trying to help people you should not be paid well"? Are you serious? That is not that arguement at all, and that is not what people are expressing in that thread. That is, unless you have some rediculous definition of what you think is "paid well". The facts are that only 1.5% of Americans make above $250,000 a year. So the thread reads "What do you think about CEO's of Children's Charities receiving salaries above $300,000?" I think that anyone in their right mind would say that a $300,000 annual salary is being "paid well". So if you're saying that at $300,000 a year, that they are not being "paid well" then your argument is that the only people that should be "paid well" then are Charity CEO's, because at over $250,000 they are in the top 1.5% in the country. It makes no sense. No one is saying they should work for peanuts or that they should work for free. They are simply saying these CEO's should not be making more then $300,000. I'm just a high school teacher, but I have a masters, and I help kids. I only make $48,000 a year. If someone told me that they would give me a job that paid 6x that for completing a phd, I really don't think I would hesitate for one second to go back to school for an additional 2 years. Personally, I used to donate heavily to Unicef. When I learnt that Anthony Lake is making nearly 2 million a year, I don't have to tell you I stopped. Now I give my hard earned money to doctors without boarders. They are men and women, many with Phd's, that spend their time in third world contries giving needed medical attention to war victims. Their CEO takes an annual compensation of only $100,000. These are true humanitarians, and people that really care. They are on the front lines. Not fat CEO's lining their gold pockets with money donated by hardworking people. Your defence and "boo hoo" remarks for the poor, poor CEOs make me sick. Good day.
  • David Elswick Jul 30, 2010 @ 9:23 pm | delete
    If you want to see a CEO of a child charity who is not getting a high salary check out: www.nyof.org

    Their CEO pays her own expenses and draws no salary.

by

MSE

I am the owner of Med Services Europe a European based company which designs and distributes innovative Wheelchair Accessories. I live in Europe with my... more »

Feeling creative? Create a Lens!

Related Tags