| There is absolutely no requirement that workers at a charity must work for charity. You're clearly confused about mission versus methods. Are there bad methods with good missions? Yes. Are there bad missions with good methods? Yes (most for-profit companies fit here). Furthermore, CEO salary is one of the most dismal metrics. UNICEF USA's CEO is often in chain-letter-type posts about CEO salary, yet UNICEF USA raises gobs of money for highly successful programs saving millions of lives per year in developing countries. UNICEF vaccinates somewhere near half of the worlds children. Half. Somehow, hiring talent seems over-rated. This seems related to "efficiency" which is % of dollar going to "programming". Fine salaries paid to employees is cash they cannot hand out to homeless. I get it. It's usually not those trade-offs that reduce "efficiency".
There's a ton misunderstanding about what "programming" is. If a company installs a landing strip to fly in 10 years of supplies, have they spent that money on "programming" or "overhead"? The worst offenders, in my opinion, are the tiniest hobby non-profits that do virtually nothing. If I fly to the third world and install a well for some people, have I done real good? Perhaps! If I hand out food once a year around thanksgiving, have I? yes! But that labor, effort, and money may have been better invested in policy changes or continuing-support programs. In almost all cases I've seen, the tiny non-profits bemoan the cost of doing this compared to the larger non-profits. Why are some programs more expensive when implemented at a larger non-profit? The main reason is they include this "extra" work such as publicity, policy, continuing support, and yes, hiring good people so they can do better next year with more money. Any business-minded person will tell you that you must reinvest in your organization to do more. What that more is might be up for debate (the mission), but to avoid self-investment is to have a bad method. |