Pissed Off About Salary Disparities: Washington Post Discussion Keeps it Real

March 3, 2008 | Nonprofit Management

I’m over here reading the live transcript of the Washington Post online dicussion I mentioned about this morning’s article, Crunch Predicted in Nonprofit Sector. The people writing in with questions are really taking the big elephant in the room head on: low nonprofit salaries. It’s so striking and heartbreaking too, to hear these dedicated folks who are tired of working for pennies, even though they are doing good work. Nonprofit or no, we need to get real about paying good people well. Here are some snippets from the conversation:

Arlington, Va.: As a mid-level non-profit employee, I’m particularly angered that senior managers are paid extremely high salaries because they have to be “competitive” with opportunities outside of the non-profit sector. But those of us lower on the pay scale are expected to accept lower salaries because of the “satisfaction” our work provides.

This double standard is really infuriating. Not only is [it]about money. It also promotes this view that the senior leadership is so unique that they have to compete with the private sector, but the rest of us are taken for granted.

In fact, I could argue how the opposite should be true. You should really REQUIRE senior leadership deeply committed to the organization, taking those positions because they care, not because of a paycheck. Seems reasonable to offer these folks $200,000 instead of $500,000 and give the rest of us another 10%.

But of course it’s those at the high end who make the decisions for the rest of us. Those who have no trouble affording the high cost of living in DC. How do you suggest lower level employees raise these issues with senior management?

Arlington, Va.: I would love to work for a non-profit, but I can’t afford a more than 50 percent cut (or more) to my salary. I’ve lost track of the number of job listings with requirements far above my skill set (Web site development) starting around 30 or 40K. Not surprisingly, these listings are often listed for many months. EDs often make six figures. I can’t live on “excellent benefits” in this area. So I’m stuck with for profit work, for better or worse.

Washington, D.C.: I hope your study addresses the salary disparity between for profit and not. No one gives you a break when you are trying to get a mortgage or buying food because you do socially useful work. I don’t know how anyone coming out of college with the kind of backbreaking loans young people carry today can even think about working for a non profit.

Even some of the comments to the original news article come off on the negative side:

sindel1967: I noticed that they completely ignored the fact that staffers are treated HORRIBLY in the npo sector. I’ve worked for npos on both coasts, and I can tell you that the low pay, no career progression is just as important as the complete lack of respect that managers/directors treat staffers. In addition, these npos have no problem paying higher salaries to the managers/directors, but leave next to nothing (salary AND benefits-wise) for the staffers who actually get 90% of the work done in these organizations.

MissE: I worked for a national health agency for almost 8 years. I was overworked, under paid, not appreciated nor supported and unrealistic expectations consistently placed upon me and my team. It was not until I had children that I realized the amount of hours clocked. The organization was unwilling to work with me in terms of providing comp time are a flexible work schedule so I left the nonprofit sector. People are attracted to nonprofits because of the social impact they are making, but many nonprofits have no regard for the well being of their employees in terms of work life balance and treat new hires as if the expendable. Their main objective is bringing in the funds. It is disappointing as I felt like I was doing important work and thought I would have a career with that organization – but I needed to my family to be my priority – not my job.

I offer these remarks to underscore the situation. Many baby boomers say the younger generations are always “whining,”but this low pay bull is something we all need to start whining about, and loud enough so that something gives. I know there are challenges, but we’ve got to come up with some solutions here. Clearly, there are some pissed off nonprofit folks out there. I’m not saying anybody’s gonna go postal, but let’s not force any hands…

Did you enjoy this post? Subscribe and automatically receive new ones!

Subscribe in a reader

Tags: Human Resources, Nonprofit Management, Organizational Change

Anonymous

I read this nodding my head the whole way. I worked at a nonprofit for a year and gained some good experience from it, but I'm leaving because I've already wasted a year of my life, not having saved a cent nor having paid down my debts any noticeable amount.

It seems that nonprofits pander to their organization assessments and scores (like charity navigator) -- the "best" way to look good to outsiders is to cut operation costs. Namely, the salaries of so many hard-working Americans out there who give so much of themselves and receive so little in return.

I don't know how it is at other places, but the turnover I've seen is atrocious. But how can any company realistically expect their workers to stay when they can receive twice the pay (and better benefits, better treatment) elsewhere? The big execs at NPOs seem to have naive and unrealistic expectations that their simple underlings will be happy for the "cause," when in reality, it's easy to get disillusioned from the lack of worth they feel. I don't think I can ever again work for a nonprofit.
Barbara Ruth Saunders

The piece of this that gets me going is that many nonprofits, in my experience, are NOT saving money by paying these low salaries.

Example: An organization is paying three "martyrs" with minimal training $30K each to get given work done. Many qualified people who make $75K in the for-profit arena would gladly work for $60K and get the job done with a major increase in quality, productivity, and operations cost reduction.

Total cost: $90,000 plus benefits x3 as compared to $60K plus benefits x 1. I have worked in organizations where I was that $75k person who would gladly have worked for $60K AND I could see that constituents lives were literally being lost to the inefficiencies.

Not only does this stance make it hard to retain "talent", even the "untalented" who have self-respect, greater commitment to the cause/clients than to the institution, and other options are going to resent this scenario.
Janice

I agree with Jennifer Lynn. I also agree with whomever said that it's not about money so much as it is about respect. I'm lucky enough to work for an organization where my directors get it and even if they aren't able to pay us (the rest of the staff) super-high salaries, we know they care about us as people and they encourage us to attend trainings and trust our judgement on certain things. And that goes a long way, even if it doesn’t help with the bills. Plus, I know the directors don’t make exorbitant triple figure salaries—which probably also helps. Of course, I’d like to make more money and not have to worry about it. I guess, what I’m trying to say is, I have enough to cover what I need (and some extra) and I enjoy the work environment. Also, working with someone else from another organization on a project and seeing how this person treats their staff really makes me appreciate my supervisors and how awesome they are! If I were still making the same salary five years down the road, I wouldn’t be happy, but having spent my last year serving as an AmeriCorps*VISTA I think my idea of a decent salary is a little skewed.
chelsea

In response to what Anonymous said, I want to remind everyone that this is not a DC phenomenon, it is true here in Montana and many other places as well. Or maybe I should say that I hear this argument many places I go. I'm beginning to feel that it is just an excuse.

I also agree that salaries are not the heart of the issue-its respect. I want to feel valuable and worth investing in. I want to feel that the npo I work for will step up as long as I am willing to step up and invest in me as long as I am willing to invest in the org.
Allison

Elisa said it best. It extends beyond salary to creating professional barriers. Too many of us are sitting behind desks, twiddling our thumbs because the organization is too lazy or too cowardly to actively give us the skills we need.

The people who make the argument that "non profit workers dont do work for the money" are the same people who wouldnt dare take a job without adequate health care or inefficient access to technology. Never. Im utterly confused at this behavior. Shouldnt the goal ultimately be to attract as many people as you can to social justice work?

This behavior is unethical and hypocritical. Sounds like a new non profit needs to be formed: one for the ethical treatment of non profit workers!
Jennifer Lynn

I work in a NYC nonprofit and while I understand the frustration with higher paid execs, the solution is not to lower their salaries-- it's true, they do have to be competitive--it's to figure out a way to raise them for lower-level staff.

The problem is that nonprofits are supported by contracts and donations. Foundations and donors often prohibit their funds from being used for anything but direct program services. City, state, and federal government contracts allow a stifflingly small amount of their money to go toward salaries and overhead costs. The people and organizations upon which nonprofits rely couldn't care less about how their arbitrary regulations impact the people doing the work. As long as they can say X (high) percentage of our donations goes "directly to those in need" they're fine.

Unfortunately (like teachers or police officers), society says they value nonprofit workers, but if you follow the money, you'll see that's not true.
Anonymous

One element of this that should be mentioned - part of the the downward pressure on NP salaries for entry- and mid-level positions is the fact that DC attracts a talent pool with many ambitious young people willing (or more importantly, ABLE) to accept low pay because they see the nonprofit gigs as a stepping stone to something else, and in the meantime have someone else covering the rent or grocery bills.

Organizations don't do better in part because they don't have to. There are plenty of young people entering the sector that have the means to take the prestigious unpaid internships or low-paying but resume-boosting jobs without worrying about how they'll scrape together the rent.

Additionally, there is a problem with how nonprofits are structured. They are often too lean in the middle. By trying to get by with an insufficient mid-level workforce, organizations leave their few program managers/directors overextended and underpaid, and fail to establish a solid career path for emerging talent. The middle managers are the ones who, you know, DO THE WORK so it is not in organizations' best interest to understaff here.

Finally, I think this discussion naturally needs to implore the funding community to address this by recognizing that "efficiency" in nonprofit operations DOES NOT MEAN low overhead or low salaries. Efficiency and effectiveness requires skilled management and robust operational infrastructure.
Elisa

Hey Rosetta,
Though I'm excited that WaPo covered the report and that this issue is getting some publicity, I don't think the article got at some of the other concerns of the 'next gens'. Namely: lack of professional development opportunities, lack of mentoring, lack of advancement opportunities, etc. Obviously, salary is really important, but even a six figure salary doesn't mean much if you're still doing crappy work with no recognition or chance to move up (though some might disagree with me...)
Also, its not like this is some big shocker. There are so many other reports out there detailing this problem. I do wish the funders would focus more on solutions rather than exhaustive research about the problem. That's certainly what we're trying to get at over at NCNA/the Nonprofit Congress.
PS You go girl for getting quoted in the Post!! :)
Joe

I found your blog from the Washington Post article on nonprofit careers.

Having worked in a couple of nonprofits in my time, the report really rang true. Staffers at nonprofits are much more dedicated than other employees and yet are often treated rather poorly. It's ironic that organizations that strive to do good do so badly by their employees.

When I worked for a nonprofit, I obviously was willing to sacrifice some salary in the trade-off that I was working for a good cause. However, I ended up leaving because I was losing more than just money - I was missing out on training opportunities and the chance to advance my career.

Also, one thing not mentioned in the article is that the nonprofit world can be just as chaotic and poorly managed (if not more so) than the corporate world. When you work for a nonprofit, you may think you have more job security than your corporate peers - you don't.

But just because you don't work for a good cause doesn't mean you can't do good - donate your time or money rather than your career.
JRay

Thank you so much for this post!!! This is a topic that needs to be addressed in the non-profit community. I do not plan on becoming a millionaire working in this sector, but it is a slap in the face when an ED makes nearly five times your salary (sometimes even more than that)and you are barely keeping your head above water.

I think a KEY part of this problem is the impact that it has on retention and cultivation of talent. The message it sends to many employees is "you are not valuable."

Having a strong and talented Executive Director to lead an organization is important. But it's not a one-man-show, it takes a team (Board, ED, staff, and donors).

I wonder why this culture evolved, the dichotomy of luring ED talent with money while expecting paid staff to sacrifice for personal rewards.