3 ms·

Looking at the data summarized in [1], the compensation for 5 people was 20% of total expenses in 2022 while "Other Salaries and Wages" was 70%. Annual contribu

by Jun8 2y ago

Looking at the data summarized in [1], the compensation for 5 people was 20% of total expenses in 2022 while "Other Salaries and Wages" was 70%. Annual contributions of $3.5M is pretty robust. Comparing with, for example, Girls Who Code (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/300728021 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/300...), the compensation does not seem to be excessive. As another person commented this may be a case of spreading the org too thin. Couldn't they have pivoted with just a focus on the US rather than 147 countries and not shut the whole thing down?

giantg2 2y ago
"Comparing with, for example, Girls Who Code (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/300 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/300...), the compensation does not seem to be excessive." Maybe things aren't excessive compared to others. But a better question might be what should comp look like for non-profits?
- Icons8 2y ago
  Median is $360k https://www.salary.com/tools/salary-calculator/ceo-non-profit-organization/atlanta-ga?type=bonus https://www.salary.com/tools/salary-calculator/ceo-non-profi...
- irjustin 2y ago
  > But a better question might be what should comp look like for non-profits? I've looked into this a bit. The true answer is extremely unclear. General public has a mentality that if you work at a non-profit you should give everything to the cause including your salary. This only gets the most loyal people to the cause, but just because you're loyal and willing to work a lot doesn't mean you're effective. What about those people who are actually effective but demand a higher salary? And honestly speaking, they deserve it. So if you're unwilling to compensate at a level even close to industry your talent pool shrinks really fast, and many times, smaller than those who are effective.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Well, clearly the leaders at Women Who Code were not effective despite fairly high comp, otherwise rhey wouldnt be closing. I get the talent pool shrinks. I still believe that you should be able to find an intersection between the subsets. I don't think giving up salary entirely is the right move, but it does seem a bit hypocritical for almost your entire org to be volunteers then shut down the entire org because you don't have options but still collect your salary. I don't have any details on the specifics but I find it hard to believe that the org can't make some adjustments (unless leadership dug a deep hole) and that none of the volunteers already in the org couldn't be trained to fill the role. We're talking about a non-profit, not a Fortune 500 company. It's like selling girl scout cookies rather than used cars - it's much easier to get donations than real selling.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  One model could be to run the non-profit as an informal coop. First spend all money on all non-salary expenses. Then divide the remaining Revenue-Expenses according to some sharing formula. So, the executive can be paid a lot, but they will have to raise money for it.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Take the point of view of the marginal corporate or family foundation donor in that structure. “What will my $1M go towards?” The answer won’t be “a million dollars more programming [what the charity is setup to do]” but instead “a million more dollars for the executive team”. Compensation for charity execs is necessary and proper. What matters is how much funding can go to the charitable program work in the end.

by Jun8 2y ago

giantg2 2y ago

"Comparing with, for example, Girls Who Code (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/300 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/300...), the compensation does not seem to be excessive." Maybe things aren't excessive compared to others. But a better question might be what should comp look like for non-profits?

Icons8 2y ago
Median is $360k https://www.salary.com/tools/salary-calculator/ceo-non-profit-organization/atlanta-ga?type=bonus https://www.salary.com/tools/salary-calculator/ceo-non-profi...
irjustin 2y ago
> But a better question might be what should comp look like for non-profits? I've looked into this a bit. The true answer is extremely unclear. General public has a mentality that if you work at a non-profit you should give everything to the cause including your salary. This only gets the most loyal people to the cause, but just because you're loyal and willing to work a lot doesn't mean you're effective. What about those people who are actually effective but demand a higher salary? And honestly speaking, they deserve it. So if you're unwilling to compensate at a level even close to industry your talent pool shrinks really fast, and many times, smaller than those who are effective.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Well, clearly the leaders at Women Who Code were not effective despite fairly high comp, otherwise rhey wouldnt be closing. I get the talent pool shrinks. I still believe that you should be able to find an intersection between the subsets. I don't think giving up salary entirely is the right move, but it does seem a bit hypocritical for almost your entire org to be volunteers then shut down the entire org because you don't have options but still collect your salary. I don't have any details on the specifics but I find it hard to believe that the org can't make some adjustments (unless leadership dug a deep hole) and that none of the volunteers already in the org couldn't be trained to fill the role. We're talking about a non-profit, not a Fortune 500 company. It's like selling girl scout cookies rather than used cars - it's much easier to get donations than real selling.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
One model could be to run the non-profit as an informal coop. First spend all money on all non-salary expenses. Then divide the remaining Revenue-Expenses according to some sharing formula. So, the executive can be paid a lot, but they will have to raise money for it.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Take the point of view of the marginal corporate or family foundation donor in that structure. “What will my $1M go towards?” The answer won’t be “a million dollars more programming [what the charity is setup to do]” but instead “a million more dollars for the executive team”. Compensation for charity execs is necessary and proper. What matters is how much funding can go to the charitable program work in the end.