Dan Pallotta states the prime “Catch 22”, If we compensate at the going rate, we get accused of high overhead and wasting dollars that should be going to the cause. If we don’t spend the money, we don’t earn the high level of donations that we need to operate. What we need is, as Mr. Pallotta says, is a new metric to assess how a non-profit uses its money.
I’m in the same boat. But I wonder if there are economic reasons at play beyond just a need for an attitude shift. Like supply and demand: there are a lot of people who’d rather be working for their churches/synagogues/schools than their corporate jobs, so of course the corporations need to pay more. In a capitalist society, charities are always going to be dependent on patrons who make money at capitalist business, which is another economic reason there can’t ever be enough nonprofit jobs for everyone who wants one. There is also the existential complexity of the double bottom line.
Great post, Cari! You’re point is very clear and is being espoused widely in the secular community. Check out Dan Pallotta’s TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html
Dan Pallotta states the prime “Catch 22”, If we compensate at the going rate, we get accused of high overhead and wasting dollars that should be going to the cause. If we don’t spend the money, we don’t earn the high level of donations that we need to operate. What we need is, as Mr. Pallotta says, is a new metric to assess how a non-profit uses its money.
I’m in the same boat. But I wonder if there are economic reasons at play beyond just a need for an attitude shift. Like supply and demand: there are a lot of people who’d rather be working for their churches/synagogues/schools than their corporate jobs, so of course the corporations need to pay more. In a capitalist society, charities are always going to be dependent on patrons who make money at capitalist business, which is another economic reason there can’t ever be enough nonprofit jobs for everyone who wants one. There is also the existential complexity of the double bottom line.