Where Does $100 to Compassion International Go?
Compassion International, Inc. (CI) is a Colorado Springs, Colorado based 501 (c) (3) engaged in Christian ministry to “release children from their economic, social, physical, and spiritual poverty.” With 1,181 employees, CI is one of the largest US charities (although the organization primarily operates internationally) raising $800 million annually and spending most funds on grants to foreign organizations and individuals.
According to CI’s website, the organization spends 81% of revenue on program services (which includes grants and program expenses), 11% on fundraising, and 8% on administration.
The IRS Form 990 (2015) for the year ending June 30, 2016, reports total expenses of $776 million (not including $11 million in depreciation) of which:
- $537 million (67% of revenue) were grants and other assistance to foreign organizations and individuals;
- $107 million (13% of revenue) were program expenses;
- $73 million (9% of revenue) was spent on fundraising; and
- $59 million (7% of revenue) on administrative expenses.
The remaining revenue – $24 million or 4% of revenue – was retained by the organization and is reflected in the net fund assets which totaled $213 million at year-end.
A comparison between CI’s website and the numbers submitted to the IRS are very similar:
- The website claims 81% of revenue is spent on program services and the tax return reports that 80% of revenue is spent on program services.
- The website claims 11% of revenue is spent on fundraising while the tax return reports that 9% was spent on fundraising.
- The website claims 8% is spent on administrative expenses while the tax return reports that 7% was spent on administrative costs.
- The website does not report that funds are saved but the tax return does. In reviewing 5 years of IRS Form 990’s, CI reported adding at least $9 million annually in revenue in four out of the last 5 years. Although the amount is relatively small in comparison to total revenue, there is a demonstrated commitment to increasing the net fund assets, which totaled $213 million as of June 30, 2016 (as of June 30, 2013, the net fund balance was $172 million).
Based on the above information, $100 in revenue was spent as follows:
$100: Revenue
-$ 67: Grants to foreign organizations and individuals
$ 33: Revenue Remaining
-$ 13: Program Expenses
-$ 9: Fundraising Expenses
-$ 7: Administrative Expenses
-$29: Subtotal Program, Fundraising, and Administrative Expenses
$ 4: Revenue Remaining to Fund Balance
As illustrated above $67 out of every $100 was spent on grants and other assistance to foreign organizations and individuals while $29 of every $100 is spent on program, fundraising, and administrative expenses.
An alternative way to look at how revenue is spent is to look at specific line item expenses ($776 million):
- $537 million or 67% of revenue: Grants to foreign organizations and individuals
- $131 million or 16% of revenue: Salaries, Benefits, Pension, and Payroll Taxes (avg of $111,000 per employee, which appears high compared to Samaritan’s Purse, a similar sized non-profit whose average compensation is about $45,000)
- $ 41 million or 5% of revenue (including $28 million to Deloitte Consulting): Fees for Services
- $ 36 million or 4% of revenue: Office, IT, Insurance, Occupancy
- $ 16 million or 2% of revenue: Travel
- $ 15 million or 2% of revenue: Advertising and Promotion
Using the above information, $100 in revenue was spent as follows:
$100: Revenue
-$ 67: Grants to foreign organizations and individuals
-$ 16: Salaries, Benefits, Pension, and Payroll Taxes
-$ 5: Fees for Services
-$ 4: Office, IT, Insurance, Occupancy
-$ 2: Travel
-$ 2: Advertising and Promotion
-$ 96: Total Expenses
$ 4: Amount Remaining to Fund Balance
As illustrated above, $67 out of every $100 in revenue was used for grants to foreign organizations and individuals while $16 was used for salaries and benefits to the 1,181 employees. 126 staff received more than $100,000 in compensation with the most highly compensated individuals (11 executives) listed below:
- $381,073: Santiago H Mellado, President and CEO
- $294,712: Edward Anderson, SVP and CFO
- $257,775: Mark Yeadon, SVP
- $252,626: Mark Hanlon
- $241,761: Scott Todd, SVP (part of the year)
- $235,609: James R Davis, VP USA
- $234,254: Michael L Johnson, Director Marketing USA
- $229,655: Jeremy A Henderson, Director Marketing USA
- $221,505: Cassandra Shepard, SVP
- $216,781: Dawn Williams, VP Finance ($114,423 was separation pay)
- $ 90,617: Wesley K Stafford, President Emeritus (part-time employee)
As illustrated above, 9 of the 11 (82%) most highly compensated individuals are male and the lowest paid SVP is a female. With the departure of Scott Todd and Dawn Williams, 8 of the 9 most highly compensated employees are male and the lowest paid is a female.
Summary:
As a church organization, CI does not have to file an IRS Form 990 annually but chooses to do so for transparency which is commendable. The Colorado-based non-profit raised $800 million last year and spent $567 million ($67 out of every $100) on grants and assistance to foreign organizations and individuals – primarily in Sub Saharan Africa, Central and South America.
After grants, the largest expense is compensation and benefits which totaled $131 million ($16 out of every $100 in revenue) for 1,182 employees which averages out to $111,000 per staff person (high compared to some other similar-sized non-profits).
$41 million ($5 out of every $100 in revenue) was paid for outside services including $28 million to Deloitte Consulting for consulting services – detail not provided). The remaining $67 million in expenses ($8 out of every $100 in revenue) was spent on office expenses, travel, and advertising. About $24 million was not spent. The fund balance, or what some people refer to as the endowment had $213 million at year-end. Assets consist primarily of cash and liquid securities and land, buildings and equipment.
And, finally it is worth reiterating that 8 out of the 9 most highly compensated individuals that were still with the organization at year-end were male. The SVP with the lowest compensation was a female and she was also the lowest compensated of the nine senior management staff.
To read the IRS Form 990 (2015) for the year ending June 30, 2016, click here.
To read an update of Where Does $100 to Compassion International Go (2018), click here.
To read an update on Executive Compensation at Compassion International (2018), click here.
Comments are closed.
Paddock Post 
1. 83% of your check does NOT go to that little girl. CI submitted a Form 990 to the IRS that states $67 of every $100 goes to grants (CI awards grants to foreign organizations who then deduct their expenses – which are not listed – before any of your check gets to that little girl). These are not my numbers. Again, these are the numbers CI submitted to the IRS. Please re-read the post.
What CI basically does is spend $29 of every $100 raising funds, managing their organization and awarding grants (which amounts to $67 of every $100) primarily to foreign organizations, and saves $4 of every $100. Donors need to understand this because those foreign organizations then deduct their expenses before helping the intended.
2. I am NOT passing judgement on CI. I did NOT say they are ethically obligated to reduce their salaries. I am reporting information CI submitted to the IRS. You may want to read the post again. Please note the title of the post is “Where Does $100 to Compassion International Go?” What I did in the post is take CI’s information submitted to the IRS and tell the reader in an easy to understand way how every $100 was spent at CI, so that donors understand where their donations are going. In addition, I often include or write a separate post about executive compensation and perks that are reported on the 990. I do this because many non-profits do not report this information on their website and yet, this is public information that people have a right to know. That people get offended for me reporting this information is perplexing. Non-profits who rely on public and government donations should be transparent and forthcoming (one of the ways is that they do this is by submitting a Form 990 to the IRS annually, but they could also post more information on their websites).
3. CI also retained $24 million that year bringing their net assets to over $200 million. Why were funds put into savings instead of helping more kids?
Sorry if I offended you, Anne. A couple of the commenters were suggesting 100%, “Mustard Soysauce” and another guy whose comment seems to be missing now. That’s who that part of my comment was intended for. As for the little girl, I suspect it will make her feel better to get 83% of my check rather than nothing. Yes, if most of CI’s sponsors threatened to drop support, maybe salaries would be reduced. But quite a few of them would have to carry out the threat before CI would take them seriously, and then what happens to the kids? As for passing judgment on others, that’s what you’re doing with CI. You’re saying they are ethically obligated to reduce their salaries, and I’m not unsympathetic to your viewpoint. In any case, I am writing to CI and asking for their response in the matter. Maybe that will get something constructive started. I have to use snail mail so it may take a while.
Well Carl….you do realize that “little girl who lives in a tin shack in Nicaragua” is not getting much of that check you send every month. But, by all means keep sending that check to make yourself feel better instead of standing up and demanding more from CI. And, no one EVER said they expect 100% of what they send to a children’s relief organization should go to the kids….honestly, that would be unrealistic. Instead of making this a black and white issue, there is grey matter which can move either way depending on donors like yourself who could and should demand more. And, who are you to tell anyone they are ethically obligated to do anything? Must be nice to sit on that chair of yours and pass judgment on others.
As a supporter of a child through Compassion International, I also am dismayed to find out the salaries of the top people there. Getting rich by helping the poor is not a paradox I’m real comfortable with. I suppose, though, that there are less noble ways to get rich, such as moving a ball around a stadium or reading jokes that somebody else wrote off cue cards in front of a TV camera to diss our leaders. Some have brought up the “going rate” argument but I suppose that doesn’t carry a lot of weight. Perhaps too many Christians have gotten caught up in good old American material madness. They forget the part about laying up treasure in heaven rather than on earth. In any case, if anybody can make contacts in countries that don’t particularly like Americans, put together a system that provides education, spiritual enrichment, activities, social contact, etc. for thousands of children worse off than any here, and do it with nobody getting paid more than a bus depot janitor, go for it. Let me know where to send the first check. In the mean time, I intend to maintain my commitment to a little girl who lives in a tin shack in Nicaragua through CI. I can’t ask her to take the hit for my idealism. And for those who somehow think that 100% of what they send to a children’s relief organization should go to the kids: feel free to collect the addresses of needy kids and establish an all-volunteer remailing service. Of course, you will have to pay all the postage out of your own pocket. And you are ethically obligated to provide some means of verifying to the donors that the money is actually getting to the kids and is actually doing some good when it gets there–also at your own expense.
Dear Compassion International, me and my wife have funded children. for over ten years. I regret we are no longer sponsoring your organization. We immediately wish to stop all payments today.
@Compassion Sponsor: Comparing the salary of the CI CEO to the CEO salary of other non-profit orgs does not automatically qualify the salary.
Compensation is compensation that the employee benefits from. Training costs and travel costs are not included in compensation. Employees of CI do not pay their own training costs or business travel costs. It is irrelevant to consider take home pay because every employee pays a different amount of taxes, which is dependent upon their life choices and many other factors. That is why every non-profit that is required to file a Form 990 with the IRS defines compensation the same exact way.
One must also consider the fact that total compensation may not refer to take home pay. It may also include the portion of medical insurance that CI contributes for each employee, workman’s comp. costs (whether a case is filed or not) paying into the unemployment system, half of social security costs, training costs, travel costs etc. Actual salary is much lower than this amount? Plus, CI should treat its workers fairly. Maybe you, reader, are not used to this high of pay but you also don’t run a company that deals with this huge amount of $ and responsibility. These numbers are not out of line at all. Compare them to the CEOs of other nonprofits that are actually bigger. That being said, I also sometimes think people don’t need to take the “fair” salary when they know others are hurting. But their salaries should be much larger than the average person because they don’t perform a common job – their salary shouldn’t be a common one.
No, I have not.
So, Anne, in your research have you discovered one or more organizations that do what CI does without the high salaries and overhead? Thanks.
You must not forget that the financial information in the post is the truth (as I assume Compassion International did not submit false information to the IRS). It really doesn’t matter what the WSJ wrote about Compassion International a few years ago because the amount going to the children right now is clearly not extraordinary. You may also want to read an update which shows compensation is even higher:
https://paddockpost.com/2019/11/13/where-does-100-to-compassion-international-go-2018/
https://paddockpost.com/2019/11/11/executive-compensation-at-compassion-international-2018/
228 of the 1,196 employees received more than $100,000 in compensation which means there are some very well compensated employees and former employees at CI.
$476,818: Santiago H Mellado, President and CEO
$404,566: Ken Calwell, SVP, CMO
$375,701: Ed Anderson, Former SVP and CFO
$369,371: Cassandra Shepard, SVP (unitl 4/18)*
$321,469: Paul Ackerman, SVP, CFO
$314,625: Mark Hanlon, SVP
$302,461: Mark Yeadon, SVP
$293,555: Stephen Oakley, SVP, General Counsel, Corp Secy (Until 12/31/18)
$282,742: Thomas Beck, SVP
$281,824: James R Davis, VP – USA
$274,796: Ronald Orrick, VP IT
$263,032: Mark Fugleberg, VP GME Leadership Office
$250,225: Michael L Johnson, Director, Marketing USA
$247,590: Raphael Louis-Edouard Lassague, Regional VP
$245,188: Silas Balraj, Regional VP
$243,610: Sidney Mwavu, Regional VP
$237,299: James Hansen, SVP, Interim Corp Secy
I also am surprised at the salary level, not only that of Mr. Mellado, but of the 16 persons listed below him. I will graciously suggest that each of those salaries be lowered by $38,000. I believe it would not affect their lifestyle, but 1,417 children would be given the basic necessities for one year. I have sponsored five children for many years. I do not regret that. Because I know these children benefited by my gifts. I well remember the year that the Wall Street Journal featured Compassion International because the percentage of each dollar that went into the field where the children are was so extraordinary. Please bring back the moral commitment of Dr. Wes Stafford. Jesus said, “suffer the little children to come unto ME…for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Why not give 100 Dollars of your 100 Dollars to the needy Child Directly? Why give to CI who keeps 33% for whatever. I never use 3rd party charities like CI and find the needy Orphanages myself. Like for Flaura who lives at the Kasih Agape Home in Surabaya, Indonesia.
Helen, I am in the same dilemma. I thought my monthly gift went to the child/family. But now I’m told that it goes to the local church which then decides what is given. Seeing these large salaries is making me wonder if I should back out. I live on Social Security, and am livid to see what the executives earn. Yet pulling out…how would that effect my sponsored child, both financially and emotionally? I am investigating some local charities in my area, but my thoughts keep going back to my sponsored child. Wouldn’t it be a good thing if these executives – after receiving their enormous paychecks – gave half of it back to the children…This revelation has disheartened me. It will take some time for me to work out, especially with all the difficulties occurring in my sponsored child’s country. Incidentally, I looked up some of my other favorite charities, and it seems they also have enormous salaries. Charities are there to help people. Yet I find it is crushing my spirits. Anyone agree?
It bothers me that so much of the funds go to these high salaries. The cost of living is higher in Denver than in My town, but is it that much higher? I also send money on a monthly basis to assist a child in Haiti but now I wonder how much does she actually get? At least I know she spent her Christmas gift money on a goat this year!
Now that I have this information it means I must ask myself, and ask the Lord, is this the group I need to support?
I thought the money I send every month went to help a child leave the world of extreme poverty. I guess I was wrong. The check I send to Compassion every month comes out of my Social Security and does not amount to a drop in the bucket when employee incomes are at the disclosed levels. I even sent a Birthday present earlier this week. My mistake! I will return all materials back to Compassion tomorrow and support someone locally. Thanks for nothing Compassion.
I understand 16% go out in salaries but the yearly salaries are obscene. They could live very comfortably on half or even a quarter of that.. Should Christians serve God for such massive returns? I give out of my pension to help an impoverished child.not to make those who run the organization rich! I know all the charities do the same in order to secure such staff but I think its immoral!
I find it very disturbing that men are getting paid more than women and I do not understand how these employees have such high salaries to begin with. I am a sponsor of one child through Compassion International and they are constantly asking me to consider sponsoring other children. I would like to know how many they sponsor. They certainly make more money than I do.
If you’re comparing AHA to CI (which I think is difficult to do as they are doing very different organizations) then you can’t just limit the comparison to the CEO compensation. You also have to consider that AHA reported having 4,572 employees who were compensated $372 million (44% of revenue) which equates to an average compensation of $81,400. 545 received more than $100,000.
CI reported compensating 1,196 employees $168 million ($18 out of every $100 in revenue), which equates to an average compensation of $140,500.
As a comparison, Samaritan’s Purse (a non-profit that also works in humanitarian aid) raises about the same amount of revenue but has 2,965 employees who were compensated $144 million or an average compensation of $48,700.
Looking at all three, one could conclude that the employees at CI have the highest average compensation at $140,500 but that doesn’t tell the whole story, does it?
For comparison though, you state that in 2018, CI raised $933 million and compensated their CEO $476,818, while the AHA raised $852 million and compensated their CEO $1,733,963. Example of why I laugh at the huge salary comment.
Jesus wasn’t referring to Compassion International. The statement you refer to is a general statement that you personally may believe. This blog recognizes the separation of church and state because not all readers follow your beliefs.
The CEO does not make 380K and total compensation is not 16% of revenue. See below:
228 of the 1,196 employees received more than $100,000 in compensation which means there are some very well compensated employees at CI.
$476,818: Santiago H Mellado, President and CEO
$404,566: Ken Calwell, SVP, CMO
$375,701: Ed Anderson, Former SVP and CFO
$369,371: Cassandra Shepard, SVP (unitl 4/18)*
$321,469: Paul Ackerman, SVP, CFO
$314,625: Mark Hanlon, SVP
$302,461: Mark Yeadon, SVP
$293,555: Stephen Oakley, SVP, General Counsel, Corp Secy (Until 12/31/18)
$282,742: Thomas Beck, SVP
$281,824: James R Davis, VP – USA
$274,796: Ronald Orrick, VP IT
$263,032: Mark Fugleberg, VP GME Leadership Office
$250,225: Michael L Johnson, Director, Marketing USA
$247,590: Raphael Louis-Edouard Lassague, Regional VP
$245,188: Silas Balraj, Regional VP
$243,610: Sidney Mwavu, Regional VP
$237,299: James Hansen, SVP, Interim Corp Secy
*The 990 represents the year beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019 which means the departure date of 4/18 did not occur in the operating year.
The 17 most highly compensated employees received a collective $5.2 million, which equates to an average compensation of $306,000. If the total compensation to all employees ($168 million) was adjusted for the compensation paid to the 17 most highly compensated employees, then 1,179 employees were compensated approximately $163 million which equates to an average compensation of $138,300 which means the employees of CI appear to be well compensated.
16 of the 17 most highly compensated employees (or 94% of the most highly compensated employees) listed above are male while 1 (or 6% of the most highly compensated employees) is a female (and she is reported to have left 4/18). Given that 47% of the workforce in the United States is female, how is that CI does not have 1 female, at year-end on the list of the most highly compensated employees?
CI raised $933 million in 2018, of which $635 million was awarded in grants to foreign organizations, individuals, and governments. $168 million was used to compensate the 1,196 staff, who received an average compensation of $140,500. 16 of the 17 most highly compensated employees (or 94% of the most highly compensated employees) are male while 1 (or 6% of the most highly compensated employees) is a female (and she is reported to have left 4/18). These two expenses – grants and compensation – account for 85% of expenses of CI.
The bottom line is that $31 out of every $100 was used to pay employees, office expenses and other organization costs while $67 out of every $100 was used for grants, primarily foreign. For those donors who gave $38 a month (or $456 annually), $12 of that $38 per month (or $142 of the $456) went to pay organization costs while $25 of the $38 (or $305 out of the $456) went to grants. It is important to note that if the grantor was an organization or government, their costs are deducted prior to reaching the designated beneficiary.
And, by the way I live in a world that believes in transparency and freedom of the press. I find it incredibly interesting that so many supporters like yourself are so offended or threatened by the truth as reported by Compassion International to the IRS.
Bahahaha “How can those huge salaries be justified”
Um, I’m not sure what part of the world you all live in, but 380k a year to pay the CEO of a company is not a huge salary. Total employee compensation is 16% of the funds they receive. That does not sound unreasonable. While it may be a non-profit, it is still a company that needs to be managed efficiently. Also pretty sure Jesus said that a worker is worthy of his wages.
True but the other issue is that women are not even getting the chance to be in the position (i.e. when 9 out of the 11 most highly compensated employees are male). There are qualified women out there to fill many of these positions but they are not getting them.
Thank you for the information. As to the wage/gender gap I believe (and I’m a man) if a woman can do the same job function as well as a man she should be compensated based on her performance NOT her gender.
I’m shocked at the high salaries. Very disappointed.
Why are these people paid so much money? I think that’s the number one question. I thought people do this to help, carry Gods work and make a difference, not to get rich. 😦 most of us make make 30-50K a year, not 100K( and that’s the lowest pay..)
The names listed are the most highly compensated employees of CI. As for why the female is making less compared to all the males, I was wondering the same thing?
I thought ever dollar was going to our child. I therefore withdraw my commitment to your bullshit salary at compassion. No doubt they halo a lot of children but but again even I’m our times. It’s all about money appearances and you can say one thing and do another. I’d rather take my money and help a child locally. For their salaries And administration fees.
Nice scam!i fell for it.
The 990 does not report the reasons behind the pay disparity. Please feel free to call the organization and inquire but note that a non-profit (or any other business) should be managed based on merit and competency, not seniority. 47% of the workforce is female so I find it hard to believe that CI cannot find females to fill at least half of the most highly compensated positions.
For more information on grants, see Schedule F of the link provided to the 990. But, note Schedule F provides only limited information and focuses primarily on the geographic location of where the foreign grants were made, the amount of grants and the purpose (with almost all being “child development”).
Good morning Anne. Great article. I too noticed the emphasis placed on the wage disparity between men and women in similar positions. I’ve read the comments and am not going to dive into the discussion regarding one’s intent and the purpose of mentioning of the disparity but I will ask, since no one else has, could the disparity in pay be based on seniority in those similar roles. If there are three “Senior VP’s” and one has to be a woman and also the lowest paid of the three. Could it be based on tenure and or experience when one entered that role. I understand your point and maybe that would be appropriate and definitely appreciated (from this post of view) to dive in and find out “The Why” that is. I’m also curious about the marketing aspect of Compassion. If the majority of the money of the $567m goes to “grants” what type of “grants” are they because the marketing is of mostly third world children and their poverty levels. I would like to know the actual breakdown of the $567m and what are the “Grants”, who are and what do the “foreign organizations” do and THEN how many “individuals” does that money go to and are those “individuals” actually children? I donate every month so I’m very curious to know that as well as the aforementioned item regarding gender wage disparity. But I guess that doesn’t come in 990 IRS report or does it? Very curious to know. Once again, great article and breakdown. But need more info and further breakdown.
That’s right Charlie…It is a fact that 8 of the 9 highest paid employees are men. The post is reporting facts that Compassion International reported to the IRS. You don’t get to decide what facts are relevant to report and what are not. You are but one recipient of the facts. There are many, many more.
It is a fact that 8 of the 9 highest paid employees are men. The relevance of that fact is opinion.
The information reported in the post is not opinion. Compassion International reported to the IRS that 9 of the 11 (82%) most highly compensated individuals are men and the lowest paid SVP is a woman. With the departure of Scott Todd and Dawn Williams, 8 of the 9 most highly compensated employees are men and the lowest paid is a female. Those are facts. So, if you don’t like reading facts, then don’t read the post. You may want to look in a dictionary to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.
For me the comment about woman’s pay vs men’s pay was political opinion and not useful in evaluating the worthiness of the charity. I’m sure your opinion is that the pay gap is troubling, and that’s a fine opinion to hold, but many hold a different opinion. I read your post because I was curious about the charity, not because I was curious about your political opinions.
I ask myself the same question.
How can those huge salaries be justified
My question is very simple are all this individuals who are listed below sponsors for children and why is the female is making less on salary compare to all the males.
Tags: Cassandra Shepard, Compassion International, Compassion International Inc, Dawn Williams, Edwar Anderson, James R Davis, Jeremy A Henderson, Mark Hanlon, Mark Yeadon, Michael L Johnson, Non-Profit, Santiago H Mellado, Scott Todd, Wesley K Stafford
Josh:
1. When I write a post, especially if it’s lengthy, I often write a summary that reiterates key facts reported on the Form 990. So, there is the body of the post and a summary and I assume you understand the difference. Key information in the body will be reiterated in the summary so that those who prefer to just read a summary have the opportunity to do so.
2. You appear to be taking issue with the fact that I pointed out that almost all of the highly compensated individuals at Compassion International are male, and that I included that information also in the summary. If you really wanted to have a constructive conversation about this fact, then you would address this fact, and not send me videos of your research that has nothing to do with the facts reported on the 990. For instance, tell me why 9 out of the 10 most highly compensated individuals are male at Compassion International? That’s relevant. Youtube videos about gender gap supporting your premise that there really isn’t a gender gap, does not justify Compassion International providing the highest compensation packages to primarily males.
3. You don’t appear to be taking issue that I pointed out 6 times in the body of the post and then once in the summary that $67 out of every $100 goes to grants. And yet, you don’t call the reiteration of those facts as “adding information” or “making a judgement.”
4. Contrary to your claim that I added information or made judgement calls, I did not. I reported information from the 990 in both the body of the post and the summary. I think the real issue with you, Rick, and Joanne is that you don’t like facts being pointed out that show Compassion International in a bad light.
5. You state “by baselessly calling people names (troll)…..,” that I would find good company with those people (whoever those people are). I did not call you a troll. I stated “Go troll elsewhere.” The word “troll” is used as a verb in that sentence, not a noun. And, the reason I told you to go troll elsewhere is because of the horrible statement you wrote in your previous comment (“Also, the story I tell myself is that you think Rick’s last question didn’t deserve a response because the Bible and Christians are so obviously stupid/irrelevant/evil that a it was a dumb question”). This statement is not about being honest about your assumptions or seeking clarity. This statement was antagonistic, inflammatory, judgmental, and you seem to be looking for an argument or a response from me, which you won’t get.
Maybe you should look at yourself and consider why this post is bothering you. Unless you specifically want to address why 9 out of 10 of the most highly compensated individuals are male, don’t bother responding.
It’s not “my” video. I didn’t produce it or anything, I just came across it doing some research (did you watch it?). I wonder why an invitation to dialogue is considered trolling to you? I am being honest about my assumptions, seeking clarity: does that make me a troll?
Rick and the previous poster, both pointed out that you added information. So no matter how much you say that the “topic” of the post was mere data, it’s not true.
You made a value judgment about the facts by writing at the end, “…it is worth reiterating…” The word “worth” carries the weight of judgment. To “reiterate” places extra weight on data.
If “it” is worth reiterating, then it is worth discussing why “it'” is worth reiterating. Otherwise, it’s NOT worth reiterating in the first place. You DID give me a platform on your blog, by opening up comments. You should close comments, or delete them, if you don’t want other people to share their thoughts on what you write. You would find good company with some current world leaders and news outlets in that course of action. Also by baselessly calling people names (troll) would also find you good company with those people.
Your wage gap video has nothing to do with the facts (that almost all of the most highly compensated individuals at Compassion International are male) reported by Compassion International on the Form 990 submitted to the IRS.
Rick’s question does not deserve a response because his question has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post, which is “Where Does $100 to Compassion International Go?”
Go troll elsewhere. You won’t get a platform on my blog.
There wage gap is questionable:
Also, the story I tell myself is that you think Rick’s last question didn’t deserve a response because the Bible and Christians, are so obviously stupid/irrelevant/evil that a it was a dumb question. Is that true?
Rick: I point out the fact: “Most of the highly compensated employees are male” in the body of the post and then also in the summary. If you don’t want to read a summary, then don’t read it. A summary is provided for those who do not want to read the long post.
The numbers are what they are. You, like Joanna, may not like it when facts are pointed out but that doesn’t mean they are not true.
You ask “why not report, multiple times, and draw conclusion from, the fact that a majority of funds go to the international organizations, unlike many other charitable organizations.” I pointed out 6 times in the body of the post that $67 out of every $100 in revenue was spent on grants to international organizations. I also point this fact out in the summary. That’s 7 times. That you and Joanna take offense to my pointing out the gender issue once in the body of the post and once in the summary and then ask a question like the above tells me that you really didn’t read the post or that you both fixate on facts you don’t want to read about.
As for why I didn’t say “unlike other charitable organizations,” my response is: This post is about Compassion International’s IRS Form 990 submitted to the IRS. It is not a comparison with other charities. If you look back at the title of the post “Where Does $100 to Compassion International Go,” you will realize what the topic is.
And, finally, your last question doesn’t even warrant a response.
To a degree I agree with Joanna, there is no reason to report, multiple times a statistic. Your report states the fact that men are paid more than women, as a category … Wouldn’t reporting it once be enough. It appears you are trying to draw a conclusion, and thus stear us to the same conclusion you desire. Why not report, multiple times, and draw conclusion from, the fact that vast majority of funds go to the international organizations, unlike many other charitable organizations? Better yet, why not report the number of children this organization has raised out of poverty and they have a bible in their hands and not a gun?
Joanne: Truth is not bigotry; nor is it what you call “rubbish.”
Compassion International reported the information you are calling “rubbish” to the IRS and to the public. I simply report the information in my post. If you are denying this information as truth, then explain why, as I would be very interested (Are you saying Compassion International reported false information or that you can’t accept the information they reported as truth?)
There is discrimination and inequality against both men and women in this country so when all (or most) of the most highly compensated individuals in an organization are male (or female), then we need to ask “why?” Me pointing out the truth is not bigotry. Bigotry is defined as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” The information reported on the 990 is very clear: 9 of the 10 most highly compensated individuals in this non-profit are men and the lowest paid SVP is a female.These are facts; not opinions. I think the real issue is that you don’t like the truth being pointed out.
As for liking or disliking football, that preference is not protected by our constitution….but, I’m guessing that maybe you didn’t know that…..you may want to google that document and read it.
As for height, the 990 does not report executive height but again, employers cannot discriminate based on height.
Could have done without the feminist bigotry comment at the end. Why not report categories like short people, or those who do not like football? Rubbish!