Think Of The Children! And their wallets!

January 1, 2009 9:27 AM

Won't Someone Think of the Children? Filter: I gave some money to a charity dealing with helping children in disadvantaged countries. My partner is pretty irritated by this, telling me that the money is really going to make some CEO richer. Am I being really naïve to think that this was really a good idea, or is he just really jaded, or both?

Anonymous because if this is, as suggested to me, one of the top ten dumbest things I've ever done, I'd rather not have it link back to my MeFi profile.

posted by anonymous to Society & Culture (16 answers total)

According to Charity Navigator, Children International rates three out of four starts (58.04). Here are comments about the charity with some people concerned about the CEO's salary.
posted by ericb at 9:35 AM on January 1, 2009

BBB 'Wise Giving Report' for Children International.

GuideStar Report (free registration required) for Children International.
posted by ericb at 9:38 AM on January 1, 2009

According to their annual report for 2007, 80% of donations went to charitable programs, 11% to fund raising, and 7% to salaries and operation expenses. That 7% totals nearly $9,000,000, so it is probably fair to say the executives are being generously compensated. The audited financial statement reports the same figures.

I think you are both right.
posted by netbros at 9:38 AM on January 1, 2009

*four stars*
posted by ericb at 9:40 AM on January 1, 2009

That 7%, if accurate, is really low. Really, really low.
posted by lunasol at 9:56 AM on January 1, 2009 [2 favorites]

ericb writes "Here are comments about the charity"

Yuck, from the comments:

I sponsored a girl thru CI for many, many years, starting when she was just in grade school. But when she became pregnant at age 17 they booted her out of the program. Why? It would seem like that was when she needed them the most. They promised to let me contact her one more time, but they didnt fulfill on that promise. All I wanted to tell her was that I was glad to be her sponsor for all those years, and that I was in no way disappointed in her, and to wish her the best. But they wouldnt let me do it. Why? She probably thought I just blew her off or something, and that was not the case.

posted by orthogonality at 10:05 AM on January 1, 2009

That's a ridiculous claim on the part of your partner. Now, he might have a valid point about excessive administration expenses (despite the fact that 7% for administration is, as lunasol indicates, quite low). However, your money is not going to the CEO's salary. More accurate is that 0.27% of your donation is going to the CEO. So, if you donated $100, a whopping quarter is going to the CEO. The proper response is to offer to donate an extra quarter to the organization to make up for that, if he really wants you to.

I'd consider asking him why he has such a bias against compensating good CEOs. Good CEOs are worth their compensation. It'd be odd for a organization to pay any employee more than they return to the organization (of course, that still happens). Unless your partner has an argument that the CEO of Children International is not doing his job, there's nothing wrong with compensating the CEO. In the end, the CEO does not just "cost money". If the CEO is doing their job, they make money, which is a particularly good thing for any organization.
posted by saeculorum at 10:22 AM on January 1, 2009 [8 favorites]

You can usually read their 990 (equivalent of a tax return for a nonprofit on guidestar). It looks like you have to do a free registration now to use their service. I find the 990s the best way to evaluate a nonprofits financials (as opposed to their annual report which can be tweaked or just show the most glowing bits).

But, without reviewing the 990 I agree with folks above and suspect that the vast majority of your donation went to program expenses (ie helping kids)....so, what you have done is a good thing!
posted by fieldtrip at 10:36 AM on January 1, 2009

13% overhead is pretty standard. 7% is extremely low. Doesn't sound like salaries are high at all.

Plus, some big charities need well-paid CEOs. The humane society needs someone to hob-knob to get big donors.
posted by k8t at 11:31 AM on January 1, 2009

Looks like the commenters have pretty well addressed the stats for this specific charity; here's some food for thought on the broader ethical issue.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:54 AM on January 1, 2009

Did you sell your hair to get the money, so that his gift of a hair ornament was useless? Did you mortgage your house and give them every penny? You made a generous donation of your own money. This was an act of kindness. The CEO may make "too much" but your gift was an honest act of generosity, and I think you are better for having made it.
posted by theora55 at 12:05 PM on January 1, 2009 [4 favorites]

What exactly did your jaded partner do to help children in disadvantaged countries? Or your own country?

Before your partner criticizes your donation, perhaps he needs to pony up his own solution to help others. Otherwise, he's really just being a douche.
posted by 26.2 at 12:22 PM on January 1, 2009 [4 favorites]

Your partner is really irritated that you didn't spend the money on him, but he knows he's not allowed to say that.
posted by the bricabrac man at 3:51 PM on January 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

>It'd be odd for a organization to pay any employee more than they return to the organization (of course, that still happens)

This should be true. It isn't, as we have all painfully seen in the past four months.
posted by yclipse at 4:53 PM on January 1, 2009

As well as pointing out that the CEO is not especially fat in the wallet as a result of your donation, your partner ought to become familiar with the idea that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."
posted by rodgerd at 5:50 PM on January 1, 2009 [1 favorite]

I just today listened to an interview about this very idea, and I think it makes it pretty clear that what you did was a really good, helpful thing. Pallotta's argument is that paying so much attention only to how much money goes into overhead leads us to overlook whether a charity's really doing what it means to do.

Here's the link, to a podcast with Terrence McNally interviewing Dan Pallotta.
posted by lauranesson at 8:28 AM on January 2, 2009