First, let me say it’s wonderful that you’re doing all you can to make a difference in the world. That’s more than many can say.

Second…it kind of breaks my heart that your stance is to not give to charities. I worked in fundraising for arts organizations for 13 years and have a Masters in Nonprofit Management. While there are some not-for-profits that don’t manage funds well, a majority do. It’s up to you, the donor, to do your research to ensure your money is going to the right “pot,” so to speak.

Annual fund donations (when you get a letter in the mail just ask for a general donation) goes to fund anything and everything at the organization, from the electric bill to salaries to programs. It’s unrestricted. And while yes, you might not want to pay a hefty salary for a CEO, keep in mind that there are usually hundreds of lower-paid staff members who have dedicated their careers to doing good work in the community and the donations pay for their salaries as well.

Restricted gifts are those that are allocated to a specific campaign. For example, maybe a local theater company has an education program where they’re providing after-school arts programs to kids in underserved communities and they’re requesting support for that program. Funds raised are allocated within the organization as being specifically for that program, and nothing else.

As for CEO salaries…taken out of context, some might seem outrageous, but in my opinion the CEO of a major, nationwide organization should be making decent money. Not-for-profit doesn’t mean free labor (and trust me, the bill collectors don’t care if you’re a for-profit or not-for-profit employee, you still have to pay your bills regardless).

As the CNN article states, “Many donors assume that charity leaders work for free or minimal pay and are shocked to see that they earn six figure salaries. But well-meaning donors sometimes fail to consider that these CEOs are typically running multi-million dollar operations that endeavor to help change the world.”

The Boys & Girls Club CEO is listed in the article as making $1.85M, but runs a $130M organization; his salary is therefore less than 1.5% of the organization’s total budget. Personally, I’d prefer that someone who is running a nationwide organization make a salary on par with the work expected of him/her.

I’m currently on the board of a very small not-for-profit with a budget of $120,000. The head of the organization (the only FT staff member) makes almost nothing, but works tirelessly to keep the organization afloat. That’s not only unhealthy, but it’s not good for the organization. I’d love to be able to raise more money to increase her pay but people don’t like to donate to anything other than programmatic support. But without decent wages, there won’t be people to run the programs in the first place.

(This, BTW, is why there’s such huge turnover in the not-for-profit world. Staff rarely stay in place for more than a few years because of burnout — low pay, too much work.)

Anyway, this is a very long response (sorry!). I hope you don’t feel yelled at. It just triggered something in me when you said you never give to charities. I hope you’ll reconsider. Even if you don’t want to give to a national organization, there are so many tiny not-for-profits that need your support, from public libraries to arts organizations to zoos, public parks, and the like.

Thanks for letting me write a long rant on your page. :)