machado: is anything worth more than making life better for others?
in the end, non-profit work is about impact, not paycheques or who provides funding or what these dollars are spent on. it's about changing the world.
7 minute read
non-profits are the ones holding up our crumbling healthcare system, filling gaps in support, education and advocating for patients and their families.
getty
what’s more important than saving lives? this is just one message in “uncharitable,” a film based on a ted talk given by entrepreneur dan pallotta (if you have ever scoffed at how non-profit organizations spend their money, you are in desperate need of education and this movie is for you). pallotta, who raised millions of dollars for important causes like aids initiatives, breast cancer research and mental health, shares his experience of being slammed for using fundraising dollars for overhead costs like staffing, advertising, and customer service.
basically, he was criticized for spending money on the things that any business needs to succeed and make a difference. and make a difference pallotta did, raising almost $200 million across a number of charities. yet, despite the impact — literally saving lives — he, like many other non-profits, suffered crushing criticism in the media and subsequently from his peers. the claims were that he misspent fundraising dollars, diverting them away from the true cause, whether that be research, patient support or community development. in the end, pallotta’s non-profit lost the support of sponsors as they distanced themselves from the negative press, forcing him to lay off his staff and ultimately shutter his organization — and end all the good he was doing.
advertisement
it wasn’t the first — or the last — time that a non-profit would be scrutinized for the allocation of funding dollars. earlier this year, some of canada’s largest news outlets covered an analysis by the canadian press of 864 registered charities involved in animal protection and the environment and found 17 whose top executive took home compensation between $200k or higher. less focus was put on the fact that the rest of the charities, 59 per cent, what cp called an “overwhelming majority,” relied solely on volunteers, while 15 per cent had no employees earning more than $80k and 14 per cent paid no one more than $40k. (who can live on $40k?)
even more unpleasant were comments from sylvie st-onge, a professor of management at montreal business school hec, who said that non-profits should fill positions with people not driven by ambition, but by vocation instead.
“in these organizations, it is not so much the best in terms of expertise that you need, but the best in terms of mobilization, faith, belief in adherence to the mission — someone who doesn’t come so much to get the money,” said st-onge, who is also a part-time director and president of the governance and ethics committee of the order of certified human resources advisors (crha).
advertisement
charities across canada bristled at the flat-out implication that, somehow, the people who do non-profit work shouldn’t be paid a fair wage based on talent, education and experience, among other things — as one would in any other industry. one ceo of a leading charity responded on linkedin, writing:
“we deserve to be paid commensurately with our experience and the outcomes we achieve, and i am proud to work for an organization that recognizes my, and my team’s worth.”
the chair of the association of fundraising professionals (afp) canada, jennifer johnstone, also spoke out, releasing a statement that took aim at st-onge’s comments, reiterating how critical it is for the success of non-profit organizations to “have the most talented leaders, people who are ‘more than simply … the best in terms of mobilization, faith and belief in adherence to the mission …’ with the expertise that is needed to move missions forward and improve communities. to get there, we need to provide fair and equitable wages, johnstone writes, and like pallotta, she urges we shift the focus away from salaries to impact: what kind of change has the organization made happen, rather than how much are workers are being paid.
advertisement
and while it’s pretty difficult to pin down what st-onge herself brings home everyday, if one were to do the math, with a professorship at hec that spans 38 years and counting, plus a seat at the crha table that currently stands at three years, it’s safe to say that her compensation — plus benefits — likely falls quite snugly ahead of any of the 17 charities targeted in the cp story. but no one is talking about that. still, if you had to choose whose work is more valuable and matters more, no offence to all the professors out there, your vote would likely land with the ceo who is changing breast cancer guidelines so women can stop dying from cancers that were missed, and the executive director whose work makes sure the single mom who just left an abusive relationship has everything she needs to provide for herself and her kids, and the president who is leading the creation of a new brain health program to accommodate the tsunami of dementia cases that is headed our way.
critical work, right? especially during a time when non-profits are the ones holding up our crumbling healthcare system, filling gaps in support, education and advocating for patients and their families. so why do we continue to have these tired, energy-sucking misguided conversations about non-profits and money? and what is it about charity work that makes us think it has to be done cheaply, with the people who do it being paid peanuts? plus, why is there a deep belief that they can’t be run like a business?
advertisement
after all, no one balks — certainly not litigiously — at the salaries of ceos of for-profit corporations like hertz ($182 million), peloton ($168 million) and apple ($99 million). that’s a crapload of money for overseeing car borrowing, sweaty indoor bike-riding and hand-held devices that are wrecking our kids’ brains. and consider the amount of cash that goes into advertising, social media campaigns and sponsorships to inspire us to rent more cars, buy a bike for upwards of $3,000 or line up for the latest phone. yet, when non-profits adopt these sorts of monetization strategies to boost their brand and their communities, it’s frowned upon. in his film, pallotta makes the point that if you spend $10k on research, that’s $10k spent on research and when it’s gone, it’s gone. but spend it on advertising, staffing and content creation, and you could end up with ten times that much to spend on research — with a foundation that allows the sustainability of the organization and the mission. who can argue with that?
and yet we do.
but salaries and spending on overhead costs are just two ways that non-profit groups are prevented from fulfilling their missions, says pallotta, who also wrote a book called charity case. in addition to compensation, advertising and marketing, non-profits are not encouraged to take risks because failure will raise the ire of funders and the public, he says. then there’s the lack of time — businesses often take years to turn a profit, and no one bats an eye, while non-profits are expected to show results quickly, or else else lose critical sponsorship dollars. finally, pallotta says that non-profits are discouraged from investing in growth, focusing instead on running lean and keeping overhead costs low, which means they can’t increase their market share and help more people.
advertisement
just this week, the value and integrity of non-profit organizations were once again put into question by policy options (the digital magazine of the institute for research on public policy) writer mathew herder, in his piece on pharmacare and financial conflicts of interest. this time, the focus wasn’t on non-profits and salaries, or an out-to-lunch exposé of where they get their money from or what they spend it on. rather, herder resurrected the tired implication that patient groups supported financially by industry (pharma or insurance, for example) are incapable of making decisions and choices independent of where their funding comes from. yawn.
referencing the “committee of experts” that will be created to provide recommendations on what bill c-64 should look like, herder writes that patient representatives — as well as doctors, economists and others — funded by industry should be locked out from being members. why?
“because just as financial conflicts can shape doctors’ prescribing decisions, research funding relationships are apt to shape experts’ thinking about how to finance pharmacare,” he writes. this, like the criticism that pallotta faced, and the short-sighted (and incomplete) canadian press scrutiny of animal protection and environmental groups, and even herder’s questioning of patient rep loyalty, disparages and minimizes the very difficult work of the many dedicated non-profit organizations that are committed to making our lives — and the world — better. it also holds them back from helping communities as much as they could.
advertisement
in the end, what we’re talking about is measuring impact — not paycheques or who provides funding or what these dollars are spent on. it’s about changing the world.
everyone else just needs to get out of the way.
lisa machado is the executive producer of healthing’s advocacy & better health. she can be reached at lmachado@postmedia.com.
share story
