• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Annual salary for CEOs of Canadian top charities

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canova

Banned
Make sure you know where your charity money is going to. I'm a bit relieved the charities I donated to is not on this list.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ies-the-norm-at-top-charities/article1533823/


Some of Canada’s largest and best-known charities are paying top officials more than $300,000 annually, government filings show.

Top earners include executives at Plan International Canada Inc., Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario, York University Foundation and five hospital foundations. Those charities all paid their chief executives more than $300,000 last year and some, including York, doled out more than $350,000.

Several other charities – including the British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital Foundation and Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation – paid top executives between $250,000 and $300,000. And still others, including the Canadian Red Cross, paid officials between $200,000 and $250,000.

The compensation figures are contained in the charities’ 2009 filings with the Canada Revenue Agency and they mark the first time Canadian charities have disclosed compensation information for their ten highest-paid officials. Previously charities only had to provide limited information about their five best-paid officers.

The new filings still offer an incomplete picture. There are no exact salary figures or names of the highest-paid individuals. Instead, charities must identify the number of people who earn a salary within a certain range, with the top range “$350,000 and over.”

Compensation among charities has been a hot topic since last fall when Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children revealed it paid its former president $2.7-million in 2008.

Liberal MP Albina Guarnieri recently introduced a private member’s bill to require charities to reveal details about their five highest-paid executives and cap salaries at $250,000.

Ms. Guarnieri said Tuesday that the more expanded disclosure in the CRA filing doesn’t go far enough.

The new form “doesn’t really provide the donor with the type of disclosure that he really deserves,” she said. “What I am asking is for the same disclosure that companies have to give to their shareholders and that governments give taxpayers.”

Ted Garrard, chief executive of Sick Kids Foundation, whose annual salary is $400,000 plus up to $100,000 as a bonus, agreed that more disclosure was needed. “Donors, like shareholders, should have the opportunity to know,” he said Tuesday.

But others say focusing on salaries alone is a red herring.

“I have yet to be convinced [excessive compensation] is a serious problem within our sector,” said Mark Blumberg, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in charity law.

Mr. Blumberg said most charities pay little or nothing in the way of salaries and forcing them to disclose more information will take up badly needed resources. He added that there are many other areas where better disclosure is needed, such as requiring charities to offer details about the effectiveness of their programs.

Don McCreesh, chairman of Imagine Canada, a charity umbrella organization, added that capping salaries at $250,000 is unworkable. “Some of these charities are big complex organizations and you need some skilled people running them,” he said. “If I’m giving money to a big complex organization I want to make sure it’s managed right and that may mean paying somebody more than $250,000.”

Tim Price, chairman of the York University Foundation board, said the foundation paid CEO Paul Marcus $394,000 in salary and bonus last year. The payment “was in the context of the competitiveness of talent to be able to get a first-class person,” Mr. Price said. The foundation was established to create for the university a top notch fundraising operation. “And we wanted to hire the very best talent.”

Salary disclosure by charities is haphazard in Canada and some organizations are forced to reveal more than others. For example, a few Canadian charities have offices in the United States, like Sick Kids Foundation, and they must file annual reports with the Internal Revenue Service, which requires detailed information about all executive compensation. Some organizations receiving provincial grants also end up on lists like Ontario’s so-called sunshine list, which publishes salaries of public servants and others earning more than $100,000 annually.

But Ontario’s list is inconsistent. For example, the 2010 report included salaries of executives at charities such as the CNIB and the YMCA. However, charitable foundations are exempt, meaning there was no salary information about officials running foundations such as The Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation or St. Michael’s Hospital. CRA filings show CEOs at both are paid more than $350,000.

Charities who paid execs more than $350,000 in 2009

Figures are from Canada Revenue Agency filings

All from 2009 annual filings with CRA (note only a handful of charities have filed 09 reports yet)

$350,000 or more:

* The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto
* St. Michael's Hospital Foundation, Toronto
* York University Foundation
* Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Toronto
* Montreal General Hospital Foundation

$300,000 to $350,000:

* Mount Sinai Hospital Foundation, Toronto
* Plan International Canada (formerly Foster Parents Plan)
* Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario
* YMCA of Greater Toronto

$250,000 to $300,000:

* Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation (4 people)
* British Columbia's Children's Hospital Foundation
* VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation in Vancouver

$200,000 to $250,000:

* Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Division
* Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada
* World Wildlife Fund Canada
* Salvation Army Territorial Headquarters
* Hockey Hall of Fame and Museum
* Canadian Red Cross


One of the best comments

The first 30,000!!! donations of avg. $10 goes to paying the salary of the prime employee! And that the contributions of thousands of other Canadians goes to other administrative costs! Yikes!

For more on this "racket", see this MoneySense Magazine article from Dec 2009 http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/canadas-40-biggest-charities/

For example, according to the article, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario uses 50%!!! of donations on "admin, fund-raising and management" (that's about $68 million out of the $135 million donated!). MS Society of Canada 48%, Canadian Cancer Society-Ontario Division 43%, even Ducks Unlimited 21%!
 

Jex

Member
Charities still need to employ skilled people. They can't run without money. How much the CEO's get paid personally can be up for debate, of course.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Those salaries don't really seem that high given the probable scale of the organisations and taking into account the executives can't otherwise be additionally compensated via usual mechanisms such as stock options, profit share, or profit based performance bonuses.
 

LakeEarth

Member
You gotta pay for the best, even for charities. I know it sucks to think that your $20 donation goes to CEO salary, but you have to prevent them from going elsewhere somehow.
 
At the end of the day its still a business, you need skilled people to run said business. I dont see it as extortionate or anything. I bet the CEO's of these companies could be earning twice that in a private business environment.
 

quaere

Member
These are low compared to another type of large non-profit organization, the university. US university presidents average ~500k.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
canova said:
that's not the point. These are are charities, non-profit organizations
and their salaries have to be approved by the Board of Directors, many of whom want to hire top talent for both fundraising/development and leadership purposes.
 
I don't see any huge issues with these. Again, top talent require good pay.

That said, it wouldn't hurt for charities to be more strictly monitored. Many become nothing but lucrative fundraising machines that take advantage of their tax-exempt status.

I'm not trying to make a broad generalization here, because there are obviously thousands of reputable charities that are fiscally responsible and do great work. But governments need to be more stringent when it comes to regulating them.
 

Ventrue

Member
I agree that it's not too much. However, the figures in the last quote box there are a little alarming. Charities should be spending more than 50% on actual charitable operations. Maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, but I would've expected more like 70%.
 

J-Rod

Member
Usually you can get a breakdown by just googling a charity organization. 50+% is outrages. 20% on admin cost and 80% into the hands of the people that need it in some form or fashion is good and normal. 85/15 split I consider great.
 
Mario said:
Those salaries don't really seem that high given the probable scale of the organisations and taking into account the executives can't otherwise be additionally compensated via usual mechanisms such as stock options, profit share, or profit based performance bonuses.

Most sensible post in the whole thread. A non-profit/charity organization doesn't mean that the folks who work for it are all volunteering. While some organizations have volunteers, many also retain salaried, full time staff.
 

Doytch

Member
I use the Globe for my daily Canadian news, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's to never, ever, ever, fucking never read the comments section. It's unreal how daft and partisan the commenters are.

Also, I've always thought that focusing strictly on percentage breakdowns isn't as useful as people make it out to be. You spend 0% on advertising/admin, you're not gonna reach a lot of people. Sure, some people will volunteer their time, but if you push advertising campaigns, you can reach a lot more people and get a lot more donations. It's all about finding the sweet spot, and if these charities have found that it's at X%, then spend X%.
 

neptunes

Member
canova said:
that's not the point. These are are charities, non-profit organizations
Just because they run a charitable organization, they're not supposed to be living like beggars, Good work requires good pay.
 

J-Rod

Member
Doytch said:
I use the Globe for my daily Canadian news, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's to never, ever, ever, fucking never read the comments section. It's unreal how daft and partisan the commenters are.

Also, I've always thought that focusing strictly on percentage breakdowns isn't as useful as people make it out to be. You spend 0% on advertising/admin, you're not gonna reach a lot of people. Sure, some people will volunteer their time, but if you push advertising campaigns, you can reach a lot more people and get a lot more donations. It's all about finding the sweet spot, and if these charities have found that it's at X%, then spend X%.
I think that % is the most important part, because if I find out 60 cents of every dollar I give goes to TV ads and not to the poor, then I'm not going to donate to you, no matter how much money you rake in. I would consider that an ineffecient use of the money.
 
These numbers are nothing compared to what CEOs at US charities and non-profits receive in compensation. A couple years back I was working on a campaign to support patients with debt sued by non-profit Catholic hospitals (who don't pay any property taxes) and the CEO of a two hospital system in Springfield OH was making ~/$1.5 million.
 

Trickster

Member
I came in here expecting them to be getting many millions. Needless to say I don't really have an issue with those salaries.
 
Title had me thinking millions. Wall Street has made us all jaded. I can't begrudge one or two individuals in a massive (and helpful) organization making a few 100k.
 

Doytch

Member
J-Rod said:
I think that % is the most important part, because if I find out 60 cents of every dollar I give goes to TV ads and not to the poor, then I'm not going to donate to you, no matter how much money you rake in. I would consider that an ineffecient use of the money.
If I make a charity that gives 100% of my donations away and I only employ myself as a volunteer, I have a hard limit on the number of people and potential donators I can reach. Be it how far I walk, how many people I can call, whatever.

If I designate (let's say) 60% to hiring people to walk and talk to donators, and to advertising so that people come to me, I bring in more money in donations, and can give more dollars to my actual charitable purposes. I don't see how this is a bad use of money.

If charities didn't advertise, you'd be relying on people going out and seeking out charities themselves. Let's face it: that's not happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom