How much are overseas children worth?
A cool $50 million, according to one of the top names in the Christian music industry.
This is why sponsoring vulnerable children has become a mainstay of the contemporary Christian music (CCM) scene — as much as the prayer and praise music.
Scarcely a concert goes by where the audience doesn’t see a heart-wrenching video, then hears a plea to pledge money to children in the Global South to transform their lives. Such a request, usually delivered by the artists themselves amid smoke machines and lights, is hard to refuse.
Many people raise their hands for a piece of cardboard with a child’s face on it. Later, in a tent filled with branded merchandise and music, concertgoers sign up to sponsor that child monthly until he or she turns 18.
Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report, and you can elect to receive our featured offer, “When Shepherds Prey: Confronting Abuse in Church Leadership—A Call for Reformation” by Ron Cantor. – click here.
What the donors don’t know is that the initial downpayment goes to the event organizer for administration fees. It may take up to a year for any of their funds to directly reach the child they signed up to help.
They also don’t know the band makes money from these sponsorships.
Nonprofits like World Vision, ChildFund, Feed The Hungry and Compassion rely on CCM concerts to net many of their donors. For that, they need the artist to bring their charity onto the stage.
Some of this backstage bargaining got revealed in a recent lawsuit filed by Wes Campbell, owner of the band Newsboys Inc., a leader in recruiting fans to sponsor children.
The band was so successful that Campbell estimated child sponsorship is a $50 million business.
In his April 20 lawsuit, he said charities are so integral to the chaotic economics of CCM that “most agree that without nonprofit participation, there would be no live CCM touring market.”
Campbell alleges that a host of defendants, including the band MercyMe, promotion agency LiveCo/TPR and nonprofit World Vision Inc., conspired to deprive him of a $50 million sale to Dutch holding company Waterland.
Campbell also named Roys Report (RR) as a defendant. He claims an RR article destroyed Campbell’s brokerage business, Thriving Children’s Advocates (TCA), which acts as a liaison between artists and nonprofits such as World Vision. Waterland then stole TCA’s business model, the suit alleges.
For the public, what was most shocking wasn’t the amount of money that almost changed hands. It was the idea that child sponsorship is a business opportunity.
“I’m not at all surprised by the lawsuit,” said Threads user @joshuarcrocker. “What’s worse, though, IMO is the details of those kickbacks from World Vision for every sponsor that signs up during a bands tour. Y’all really out here profiting off the back of starving children in Jesus name?”
Touring artists receive a payment of $200 to $500 for each sponsor who signs up, the lawsuit states. This gives an artist who completes at least 60 shows per year the chance to earn up to $7.2 million. Many CCM artists struggle with this.
“We always felt very uncomfortable taking money from a nonprofit,” said Mike Donehey, lead singer of Tenth Avenue North (TAN). “Here’s the problem: they’re a nonprofit and I’m a for-profit.”
Donehey’s group partners with Compassion International, a nonprofit that serves more than 2 million children in 29 countries through educational, nutritional and other programs. In TAN’s early days, Donehey would promote the cause voluntarily with no remuneration. Compassion later offered them a fee structure, which gave them tour support and payment in return for advertising Compassion during their concerts.
Naturally, the group had mixed feelings about accepting money on behalf of the poor.
“I think as a Christian, anything I do is ministry,” Donehey said to RR. “So, one of the ways we came to terms with our conscience feeling conflicted is we started a charity golf tournament once a year. I hear that through that event, year after year, we’re able to raise more money for Compassion than we ever received in tour sponsorships. To me as an artist, that’s the goal. I’m in partnership.”
The common thread among CCM artists is they want to use their platform for good. Early in their careers, many bands lack the resources or means to do so substantially. When a charity or a go-between like Campbell’s TCA reaches out with a lucrative offer, it seems like a perfect opportunity to make a difference.
Successful and philanthropically minded artists such as Donehey face questions about the moral structure of this system.
“The reason I would give up stage time to an organization is because I personally believe in what they are doing,” he said.
“I think the saddest part — it isn’t that anyone didn’t do anything necessarily (wrong). I think from a business perspective, I don’t know that I could say anyone did anything that wasn’t above board, right? But philosophically . . . as an artist, am I cool with just whomever made the biggest bid?”
The business of child sponsorship
“Partnering with CCM artists gives Compassion access to audiences we may not otherwise be able to reach,” Tim Glenn, head of Compassion’s global public relations, told RR in an email.
“We have found that this model is one of the most cost-effective, financially efficient ways to reach Christian audiences and connect them to our mission of releasing children from poverty in Jesus’ name.”
Compassion has partnered with more than 100 artists to date, resulting in more than 400,000 children being sponsored. It’s fair to say that many of those sponsorships wouldn’t have occurred unless a Christian music artist had spoken about the organization at a concert.
The staggering figures in the Campbell lawsuit left many shocked. But Glenn says that people can rest assured that the largest part of every donation to Compassion goes toward the child and family that sponsors designate. He added that any child shown as available for sponsorship, either on a packet at a concert or on Compassion’s website, is already receiving some benefits. This occurs through a church-based, or occasionally home-based, development center.
According to Glenn, “Seventy-five to 82 cents of every dollar goes directly to support our programs, which provide educational, health, spiritual and socio-emotional support for each child. The remaining 18-25 cents goes toward administrative and fundraising costs, which includes artist partnerships.”
Often, the nonprofit sees its relationship with the artist as a way for that artist to give back.
“Compassion’s focus in every partnership is to work alongside those who share our commitment to Jesus and a desire to release children from poverty around the world,” Glenn said.
“The Christian music industry can be volatile. By partnering with Christian artists, we are also able to help them build their ministry through support of their gifts and talents.”
In other words, a rising tide floats all boats. And now, they are tied to each other.
Sponsorship deals distinguish the CCM touring industry from its secular counterpart. At a Christian concert, Campbell said in his lawsuit, fans and artists “share a mutual sense of engagement, goodwill and trust.” Fans expect to be moved and empowered to change the world — whether it comes through buying an album, purchasing a Christian-themed T-shirt or sponsoring a child.
If just 6% of an audience of 4,000 sponsor a child, the band will receive at least $48,000. This could make up to half of the artist’s entire budget for a performance.
In this environment, artists and child sponsorship organizations have become linked to each other and incorporate each other in their budgets. With funds from sponsorships, Christian artists can afford bigger stages, more lights and bigger trucks.
A glance at the Newsboys 2016-2017 rider — a contract given to the event promoter prior to the performance — reveals how a typical band used these funds.
In addition to what the band earned through sponsorships, the Newsboys were paid 100% of the performance fee: what a promoter pays an artist for a show. The more prominent the artist, the bigger the fee. Given the Newsboys’ stature and their vaunted ability to sell out events prior to front man Michael Tait’s resignation in January 2025, their fee ranged from $40,000 to $74,999, according to Celebrity Talent International.
Throw in $48,000 from sponsorships, and that’s a 64% jump to $122,999 per show, not including extras like corporate partnerships, which Campbell often negotiated. Such a substantial budget helped the band with perks like a 45-foot bus, a 20-foot trailer and one 65-foot semi-truck for equipment and instruments, plus ample space for 12 people to sleep, work and live on the road.
And it doesn’t include costs that Campbell passed on, such as having the promoter or venue pay for hotel rooms, some production and lighting equipment, security and catering. When the Newsboys required an opening band, that was either subsidized by the promoter, or the band covered its own expenses.
Thus, sponsorships made life much easier for the Newsboys, and luckily for its members, TCA took care of all the business details. All the band had to do was deliver the message during the concert.
Thriving Children’s Advocates
Campbell opened TCA in 2016 and quickly became a lucrative middleman between nonprofits and CCM artists or promoters. Along with the Newsboys, artists on the brokerage’s line-up included MercyMe, Tauren Wells, Danny Gokey and Micah Tyler. With TCA’s help, the musicians worked with child sponsorship charities, including World Vision, a defendant in Campbell’s lawsuit.
The relationship between TCA and World Vision ended acrimoniously in October 2019, Campbell alleges, when World Vision set up its own department to manage artist relationships. As of 2025, TCA was publicly working with only one nonprofit, Children International.
The charity-artist-middleman model isn’t exclusive to TCA. But it was one of the first intermediaries between artists and charities, so it’s fair to say that Campbell changed the face of the Christian touring market. The model is straightforward. TCA approaches the charity on behalf of the artist, offering to give the nonprofit roughly 15 minutes of airtime during a show. This mainly consists of a video and the artist encouraging fans to sponsor a child.
In return, the charity gets a new sponsor, and the artist gets a commission on each new child sponsored. TCA also receives a percentage of the total deal for its services. Just how much remained an industry secret prior to the lawsuit, but filings by a former nonprofit partner suggests the arrangement was highly lucrative.
For instance, when TCA partnered with ChildFund International in 2019, TCA raised $11.3 million in sponsorships and donations. However, ChildFund retained only $2.06 million (18%) and TCA got the remaining $9.2 million or 82%, as first reported by Ministry Watch.
The next year, when TCA raised $16.5 million for the charity, TCA pocketed $3.2 million with ChildFund getting the rest ($13.2 million). However, the same IRS 990 form shows ChildFund paying TCA $7.9 million that year as a contractor, which combined with the earlier amount, equals $11.2 million. Thus, ChildFund ended up with more money — $5.3 million or 32 percent — but TCA still retained the bulk (68%) of the proceeds.
Some of that money gets passed onto the artists. Donehey says TCA approached him early in his solo career with an attractive offer. Despite being promised a “very lucrative” return, he turned them down.
“The opening pitch was, ‘You already love this, you’re already great at this, and how would you like to make far more than you’re currently making doing it?’” Donehey said.
Donehey soon saw TCA’s involvement drive up the costs for child sponsorship nonprofits. Brokerages such as TCA started pitting nonprofits against each other, and they started seeing each other as competitors, he told RR.
With TCA’s brokerage business flourishing in August 2024, Dutch hedge fund Waterland offered Campbell $50 million for his company, including the exclusive model and artist roster.
Campbell’s lawsuit alleges that Waterland broke a confidentiality contract it signed during negotiations. Waterland, Campbell says, then went on to replicate TCA’s model, using its recently acquired tour promotion agency LiveCo/TPR as a broker and World Vision as the charity of choice.
TPR soon came to represent about 80% of all Christian music tours and shows, giving it a monopoly in the Christian concert business, Campbell said. Artists were promised a $500 kickback per sponsorship, allegedly boosting Waterland’s top line by $60 million.
Then in June 2025, RR began publishing multiple stories alleging that Michael Tait had sexually assaulted nine people. In addition, RR published a story alleging Tait watched while a woman was reportedly raped by a Newsboys contracted crew member in Fargo, North Dakota, in December 2014.
Soon afterwards, Newsboys, owned by Campbell, lost radio airplay, tour dates and a record contract.
Campbell believes the June 2025 article was “formed, facilitated and fomented, to destroy Campbell and his companies as a competitor, seize his business for themselves and thereby consolidate and maintain their monopoly power.” As a result, he says, TCA was worthless by the end of June.
MercyMe allegedly broke their contract a month later, Campbell said. Children International followed suit in September when its contract ended. Along with MercyMe, Children International moved to LiveCo/TPR as their broker of choice.
Consequently, Campbell says, he and his businesses became pariahs. He put a five-bedroom villa — Bellavista — on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, on the market to pay bills. Previously advertised as a bed and breakfast, it’s worth almost $1.7 million.
A new way forward
Brokers such as Campbell’s TCA aren’t the only entities that profit from child sponsorships. Major conferences, book tours, popular podcasts and YouTubers also partner with charities to finance their work.
On a recent episode of the podcast Faith Adjacent, social commentator Jamie Golden explained how this works.
Her employer, Popcast Media Group, had also been offered a lucrative sponsorship deal in the past, she said, by an unspecified nonprofit that offered $200 per child sponsorship for a tour. But the media company negotiated the contract for a pre-established fee per show, rather than per child, because it felt “icky.”
“It’s pretty easy to justify and to be like, well, we’re really changing people’s lives. But when you’re not disclosing it and saying I’m a tentmaker (to the audience)?” Golden added.
“So we negotiated the contract where we were like, ‘No, we’re not going to make money (per child).’ They’re like, ‘We’ve never done a contract like that.’”
Golden and other staff members would later travel overseas to see the nonprofit’s work. She said they refused to publish photos from their trip, believing it commodified the people they were visiting.
“We were the only people on that trip that did not take photos of children and post them publicly,” she said. “We are not white saviors.”
Some artists are rejecting the sponsorship model and giving 100% of funds donated at concerts to nonprofits they’ve started themselves.
One of those is David Zach, lead singer of Christian rock band Remedy Drive. After partnering with a small nonprofit for 13 years, Remedy Drive started its own charity last year called Daylight United. All funds raised go toward a network of organizations that fight human trafficking, with a focus on raids and investigation.
“I love that we know exactly where our impact is,” Zach said. “I’m allergic to the customer acquisition model. Instead, we have introduced this cause to people and helped raise millions of dollars and millions of in-kind donations.”
Zach told RR he believes the sponsorship model is “morally ambiguous at best.” He added, “Ninety-nine percent of audiences would be shocked and disillusioned to hear how this works and what is being kept from them.”
For Zach, this conviction led him to leave a Christian record label in 2013. At the height of the band’s success, he began volunteering with a counter-trafficking organization.
Volunteering undercover in sting operations in Thailand, Zach helped gather intelligence and evidence against traffickers. He wanted to make music about the survivors he met, but his record label disagreed, and Remedy Drive became independent.
This made the band less commercially successful. But it also prompted more fans to participate in anti-trafficking efforts like band members were doing.
“Why ask our fans to risk their lives if we are not also risking our lives?” Zach asked.
Zach isn’t the only artist to find a new way forward in the Christian music/nonprofit model.
Chris Tomlin and his wife Lauren founded the charity For Others in 2019 to help end the child welfare crisis in America. They work with churches and volunteers to support struggling families, provide for children who have aged out of foster care, and reunite families. In 2025, they served 152,940 children and raised $14,503,449, 7.42% of which was invested in fundraising and 6.9% covered the salaries of 13 staff.
Likewise, Jars of Clay founded Blood:Water in 2004 with activist Jena Lee Nardella to help end the water and HIV/AIDS crises in Africa. The band doesn’t currently perform, yet fans have helped raise more than $40 million to help communities in 10 African countries.
Once the charity commits to a community, it stays for eight years. In 2025 it earned $2,020,361. With a staff of 13, including a Kenya office, 56.67% went toward salaries and 17.46% went towards fundraising.
Other artists stay close to traditional charities but work closely with artist liaisons who cultivate an ethical relationship between the band and a nonprofit partner.
Donehey’s former bandmate, Jason Jamison, left Tenth Avenue North in 2018 to become an artist liaison with Compassion. This relationship gives artists space to ask questions about financial transparency, ensuring profits are reaching the promised children.
Other artists sponsor children and travel overseas before promoting a sponsorship nonprofit.
In the CCM world, it is difficult to cover the costs of touring without a nonprofit partnership, especially if fans or record labels expect a show filled with bells and whistles.
For Donehey, the tension of profiting from child sponsorship will remain until he can platform them for free, no strings attached. He hopes his fellow CCM artists will follow suit.
“My goal is to keep advocating for Compassion and just stop taking money, which I’m scared to do because it means I will probably be back in a van (and) I’ll make less money on a tour. I’ll have to be gone from my family longer.” he said.
“(But) a pure heart is worth fighting for. We’re gonna get it wrong often. We’re gonna fail and fall. Keep striving to go back to your first love. When you make a career out of something, it’s easy to make concessions in the name of good things.”
*The author of this article sponsors a child through Compassion International.
*This article has been amended to reflect new information from Compassion international.
Jessica Morris is a music journalist, podcaster and author based in Melbourne, Australia.
45 Responses
So “Child Sponsorship” is the latest Christianese for “Child Exploitation”?
Use of photos/stories of children in need to raise money through guilt manipulation is the very definition of sympathy slacktivism. And guilt manipulation is already endemic and established in the Christianese bubble world; works great in the short term (as long as it’s being constantly reinforced) but not so well in the long term.
I remember similar scrutiny of the “We Are the World, We Are the Children” phenomenon circa 1985. How much actually helped and how much was just doubleplusfeelgood doublepluswarmfuzzies for the Big Name Celebs and their fans?
No it is not. I am a sponsor for a child through Compassion. I have went to Colombia South America with other sponsors to meet our children in that area. The children are definitely helped through the money we send. Don’t base your belief in the sponsorship of children on this article. Research beyond this.
This article was quite an eye opener to the dark side of child sponsorship. My wife and I give to support ministries only if we have experiential knowledge. Staying as close to the money as possible is an act of good stewardship. Would Jesus be flipping the tables at these concerts? I appreciate the artists who have wrestled with the ethics of this issue and chose a higher calling and alternate pathway to loose themselves from the shady business promoted by middle men.
Thanks for researching and writing this article, Jessica.
It sounds like millionaire Michael Tait was the ultimate sponsored child.
Tim Glenn assures us that Compassion’s business model is entirely legitimate, but he doesn’t explain why he’d never told most of his donors about it. It seems to me that, even without the blatant corruption, the costs would still outweigh the benefits of both child sponsorship and the “Christian” music industry. Maybe Christians who want to serve others and advance Christ’s teachings should find other ways to spend their money.
By the way, I’m pretty sure it’s just Thriving Children Advocates, not “Children’s”…
*The author of this comment sponsored a child through Compassion International during the 1990s and wasted unfathomable amounts of time and money supporting the “Christian” music industry.
“ It sounds like millionaire Michael Tait was the ultimate sponsored child.”
That’s pretty good.
To the subject at hand:
Philanthropy can be complicated. This article is a bad look to be sure. And maybe it’s a grift. But one has to at least look at the other side of the fence.
Let’s say a charity is completely on the up and up and asks politely for sponsorships and they get no money.
So then they decide to do a hard sell and use triggering music and sad photos. Now they get some money. Is that wrong to do because it’s manipulative if actual help gets accomplished as a result?
So they start showing the pictures at events and they get no money. Nobody gets helped. But they start providing “kickbacks” and suddenly that’s renin the places they need to be to get the money flowing. Is THAT wrong because it’s setting up a system that generates SOME help from enriching CCM entertainers rather than NO help?
I think everything obviously should be held to scrutiny. And this sounds like something that needs more exposure. It at the same time, it’s easy to do nothing and throw stones at people trying to make something happen. The best way to avoid any criticism to to sit in the dark and do absolutely nothing.
I’m curious of Tim Glenn’s of compassion international , salary. All salaries should be disclosed.
Including Roy’s report to be fair. Judgement will always start in the house if the Lord- which in the new covenant is our hearts. Excessive profit from the kingdom is a gross offense to our Father. We all stand before the great white throne, may our consciences withstand.
Our salaries are public. Just go to our donate page and click to see the 990 tax forms we’ve posted there.
Where can I “like” this comment. Thanks for your transparency.
Every person should STOP giving to these so-called “ministries!” Give to your local church!!
I would not want to be in these singers, Daystar, TBN, “ministries” etc., when they give an account to the Lord, about stealing from helpless, innocent children!
I rarely go to concerts of big-name bands, but I have gone to see Sons of Korah a few times. Well-regarded Australian band that made songs out of the Psalms. At one of their shows they were promoting Compassion.
Were Sons of Korah or any of their business associates making money out of their partnership with Compassion?
Sons of Korah is not the main job of those participating – the lead singer pastors a church for most of the year, for example. The group only performs for small periods of time each year or so. It’s possible they do get a return from Compassion sponsorship; I’d assume any monies go towards tour and production costs and that the band themselves and their manager/coordinator do not enrich themselves from it.
What a substantive and sad article. Thank you for taking all the time needed to research this. I had no idea.
Might be appropriate also for a credible researched story based on how western nations such as the US interfere in the political, economic & social life of other nations which causes generational stagnation & poverty in other countries.
Perhaps it’s this that western Christian’s & evangelical churches should politically challenge with their local & federal political representatives & advocate
against. Just a thought 🤔
Very well said, Ian! Same goes for immigration – the US has done a lot of interfering in other nations that has led to significant poverty, yet we are surpised when the people impacted come showing up at our borders!
Rarely is the cause (or solution) for such problems as simple or binary as we’d like it to be.
Excellent question, Ian.
Imagine if the endless pleas were not necessary because the free market addressed each poor nations needs, rather than endless charity. Even conservatives who call for welfare reform in the US (which I do) act like mindless liberals when it comes to the poor elsewhere.
And of course, imagine all those thousands if people raising hundreds of millions to care for the poor children around the world…. if they actually encouraged the parents to care their own children…. they would all have to go an get a job.
It is largely an industrial complex that is very lucrative.
Do you factor in, Rob, the fact that western nations (especially America) plunder those other nations before giving them aid? Many of those nations wouldn’t NEED aid if they hadn’t had their natural resources stolen beforehand.
It’s unreasonable to take a people’s islands, waterfronts, oil, gold, pineapples, coffee, tobacco, and anything else worthwhile and then say “There. Fend for yourself with whatever is left. Not my problem.”
Hi Brandon,
Plunder? I do work that is related to Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, and South Africa. I have lived in Zambia and what was called Swaziland. I am on the board of a group working in the Sudan. One of the best jobs most locals can get is usually from a western country that operates in country. Mining is not plundering. It created local jobs and income. Why do you call it plundering? The jobs are often the best available. Please explain how these countries are plundering? You prefer the plundering of donors to feed the poverty industrial complex that does little to actually create economic life in the countries they ‘serve’.
I recall once driving in a part of Kampala that I was not familiar with. It was prior to elections and there were some rioting. I received a text to get back to my hotel. Because I was unaware of my surroundings I paid close attention to every sign as I drove.
It was discouraging.
Every sigh along the road were of ministries and NGOs offering this or that for free to Ugandans. The country did not need fatherhood and productivity. One just needed to sign up for help with some of the thousands of NGOs all ready to offer you free stuff.
One could suggest that those entities, all genuine in their care, were plundering caring Americans to take care of the poor starving and helpless Ugandans.
And the net result? Uganda stays poor. Uganda had thousands of organizations all helping with this or that. It just keeps Uganda poor.
A good book going into this is “When Helping Hurts” by Brian Fikkert.
According to Tim Glenn, “Seventy-five to 82 cents of every dollar goes directly to support our programs, which provide educational, health, spiritual and socio-emotional support for each child. The remaining 18-25 cents goes toward administrative and fundraising costs, which includes artist partnerships.”
So, roughing this out, over 20% of financial support DOES NOT go to supporting the children. Can you imagine a group of Christians saying to a needy child: “Those two dimes are mine, not yours.” ? Can you also imagine a needy child saying: “Those two extra dimes mean the world to me.” ?
Why are some of Jesus’s followers, who have been “called” to music ministries and who encourage their audiences to rely on Jesus to meet their needs, suddenly incapable of fully relying upon Jesus THEMSELVES for their own needs?
People are comfortable with charities having administrative costs. But not comfortable with rich bands promoting a charity and, unknown to the audience, pocketing a slice of money donated.
If Compassion’s leaders are willing to give undisclosed kickbacks to the musicians who recruit new donors, it isn’t clear how those same leaders could reasonably be trusted not to accept undisclosed kickbacks from Compassion’s child-support programs.
In reality, those “two dimes” are being used so that the organization can find eight more dimes for other children in the same situation as them.
It might be worth noting that a portion of those “two dimes” goes to pay their own salaries, and that every time they find another sponsorship, they find another “two dimes.” It might be worth asking whether there are children in the world for whom God isn’t calling Compassion to arrange sponsorships, and whether Compassion ever arranges sponsorships for any of those children by mistake.
I have been a Compassion sponsor since June of 1987. I was one of the earliest sponsors to be trained to be an official volunteer representative of Compassion International. Every charity has overhead expenses, including charities that are run by churches and church denominations.
David, agreed. Donors should have no objections to administrative disbursements. Such are the costs of doing business, and a small but reasonable portion of my monthly payments to support a Rwandan student through Africa New Life Ministries is devoted to overhead expenses.
The problem highlighted in this article is the lack of full disclosure by all parties, especially the conflict of interest that arises when a performing group receives financial benefits for promoting a charity. My profession’s code of ethics stricly regulates such arrangements. Sadly, similar restrictions appear to not be applied (at least now) within the Christian music industry.
Agreed — I actually found this article to be super balanced and not “a bad look” as many are making it out to be. There’s room for abuse in this arena, to be sure, but seeing that $0.75-0.82c of every dollar was going towards the sponsorship is actually pretty impressive. Most churches in America have less than 10-20% of their revenue going towards service + philanthropic efforts.
“Such a substantial budget helped the band with perks like a 45-foot bus, a 20-foot trailer and one 65-foot semi-truck for equipment and instruments, plus ample space for 12 people to sleep, work and live on the road”.
I don’t understand why these are described as “perks”? They are pretty standard and NECESSARY requirements for bands on tour.
It’s an important article but it could have been written a bit more objectively.
The facts are enough.
I was a long time promoter in Christian music. I personally booked the Newsboys dozens of time in multiple cities.
The numbers floated for the cost of a newsboys show were grossly over stated. The numbers floated was derived from a third party broker and not the actual booking agent. It is from a middle man and doesn’t reflect true cost.
In the 90’s these youth group bands routinely drew a few thousand people. Once 2000’s rolled around it seemed like attendance declined into the 2000 range for the newsboys.( probably some higher and some lower), even less once 2010’s rolled around.
Before donating to any charity, I check them out online at one of the websites that shows the breakdown of where the funds go. If i see that the CEO makes more than double what I am able to live on, then I won’t donate there. I realize that the cost of living varies, that’s why I allow double. I ask myself, as well, why these people would live in an area where the cost of living is so high and do they live in single-income households? If the CEO of a charity is living way more comfortably than most people, then that organization doesn’t get my money.
I have wondered when this type of fundraising gets a close review.
My look into it showed that very little goes to the actual mission. The mission needs the musician to promote and sign up fans by the thousands, and not stop. Sign up they in the moment filled with emotion – not always realizing that their payment is a recurring payment. Once they realize this that they frequently cancel – but the artist (who does not want one time giving in their contract) gets paid a significant sum for each sign up. That is why it takes about a year to eventually get to the mission of the organization, not to mention the child. The magic is to keep signing more new people faster than those who drop out, and for the organization to do all they can to avoid people cancelling.
In my experience, it is a very costly way of raising money, and its true cost is hidden from donors.
I know this after being encouraged, as a board member, to sign a continued contract for a well-known Christian actor proposing to promote the mission (which suddenly became his favorite mission). The appeals were emotional and highly effective, but there was no way the numbers worked unless new donors were added at every performance. Despite a very expensive and a shot of the most expensive Armagnac, the deal was rejected. The mission was suddenly no longer on this actor’s heart anymore.
“The magic is to keep signing more new people faster than those who drop out, and for the organization to do all they can to avoid people cancelling.”
That magic’s starting to sound like Pyramid Power.
Alas, a (partial) explanation as to why CCM is overtaking everything.
“But He said: Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest, I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into My barn.” Matthew 13;29,30
Seemingly nuanced by Yahshua, but exact. Children are being aided.
Yahshua will judge the motive when He returns. Only He is qualified to do so in this vital matter of care for Children around the world.
I do want to challenge one of your statements here that I know, at least for Compassion here in Australia, is untrue. The article says that when people sign up to sponsor a child it may take up to a year for the child to receive any funding. That is not how it works and is definitely not a true statement. As soon as a child is registered in the program, even before they are sponsored, they will receive the benefits and funding of that program through another of Compassions pooled funds (Where Most Needed and Unsponsored Children’s funds). Once they are sponsored those resources from the funds mentioned can then be used elsewhere. But the child receives funding and benefits straight away. Not in a year, that’s not how it is structured
John, you are absolutely right.
My guess is the author here is referring to the amount that goes to the artist can sometimes equal or exceed the “sponsorship” figure for a year. In Compassion’s model, the kids are already in programs.
I am a Compassion sponsor for 30 years and have visited many of their projects around the world. I’ve asked a LOT of tough questions… and wholeheartedly back what they are doing.
Other outfits are MUCH sketchier, I’m afraid. Bands have been getting $400-$500 per sponsor, reportedly, on their tours for “Children International,” and I feel like they are banking on brand confusion. Children International isn’t even a Christian organization, but happy to use CCM acts to raise money from what I suspect are unwitting fans.
There’s a lot that needs to change, clearly. And I wish artists would up-front disclose the arrangements. But I do hope people know Compassion is the real deal.
It probably wasn’t intentional, but John Rivens subtly misrepresented what the article says, which is that it may take up to a year for any of the individual donors’ funds to directly reach the child they signed up to help, not “for the child to receive any funding.”
If the administration of an event costs $500 per new sponsorship, and if the donor’s monthly payment is $40, the organization is still $460 in the red after the first payment and won’t be in the black until the thirteenth payment a year later. If the child receives funding in the meantime, that funding has to be transferred from somewhere else within the organization.
As the director of a grassroots non-profit serving orphaned and vulnerable kids, this scene is nearly incomprehensible. We work with local leaders in Cambodia, Thailand and India and raise less than 3 million dollars a year, serving more than 800 kids and providing 150 university scholarships.
I could go on for hours talking about my philosophical problems with the industrial-scale, individual-child-sponsorship model, but it would likely come across as sour grapes.
Without a doubt, these gigantic organizations do some good work and have a positive effect on some kids’ lives. But I have seen the impact on the ground, and I can also assure you that the level of administrative overhead to provide services for the most vulnerable is MUCH lower in smaller organizations led not by American CEOs, but by empowered local leaders.
The level of waste, luxury, pride and greed exemplified by some of these corporate-modeled ministries is scandalous, and if it was fully understood, no Christian would endorse their practices. In what some of us bit players refer to as OrphanCorp, one can find fiscal and interpersonal abuse that would make the most craven Hollywood production company blush.
I don’t know the solution. But I know that millions upon millions of dollars are wasted supporting high profile charities that operate in essence like a fundraising machine with a charitable initiative as bait. In its worth forms, it’s the ultimate in a tail-wagging-dog approach to ministry and mission.
I wish that churches and christian musicians could break free from this toxic cycle of inefficiency and outright graft. But I fear that the die has already been cast.
Can you share the administrative costs percentage of your non-profit in comparison
I support greater transparency for all nonprofits. If an organization is asking the public to trust it with donations, that trust should be backed by clear, accessible financial reporting.
Every nonprofit should make it easy for donors to see how much money came in, where it came from, and how every dollar was spent—including executive compensation, fundraising costs, administrative expenses, and the amount that directly supports the mission. Transparency doesn’t weaken legitimate nonprofits; it strengthens public confidence and helps distinguish organizations that are good stewards from those that are not.
Accountability and transparency are not attacks on nonprofits—they are the foundation of public trust.
Transparency matters because these percentages become enormous amounts of money over time. According to the article, **18%–25% of each donated dollar** may go toward fundraising and administrative costs rather than child-development programs. That means for every **$1 million donated, approximately $180,000–$250,000** does not go directly to programs serving children. At **$10 million**, that’s **$1.8–$2.5 million**. Over decades, those numbers become hundreds of millions of dollars.
The article also describes years in which a sponsorship broker retained a majority of funds raised before they remained with the charity, illustrating why donors deserve greater transparency about how these partnerships are structured.
Just as important, if child sponsorship programs have been operating for decades and billions of dollars have been invested worldwide, we should also be asking a reasonable question: **What measurable, long-term outcomes have been achieved in the communities receiving this sustained investment?** Donors should be able to see not only financial statements but also objective results—such as improvements in education, health, nutrition, economic stability, and whether communities become more self-sufficient over time.
Every nonprofit should publicly disclose every dollar received, every dollar spent, and the measurable impact those investments produce. Accountability isn’t about discouraging generosity—it’s about ensuring generosity achieves the greatest possible good for the children and families it is intended to serve.
I sponsor a child through Compassion. It is my deep hope that people don’t cease to sponsor a child after being made aware of this problematic business model. As a first step, I think anyone getting kickbacks for promoting a non-profit should declare their interest up front.
Bingo.
Compassion is legit. Can confirm.
But yes, artists should be disclosing the relationship. They should have been doing this all along. I used to think they were just excited to help the poor. Some might still be. But just disclose it.
It seems to me that Compassion itself should have been disclosing the relationship.
A few years ago, I was trying to give to a child in Central America through Compassion. I couldn’t figure out why I would send letters and receive nothing in return only to then get a response from the supposed child later, which was totally irrelevant – as if formed typed. the questions of just getting to know his family and sending pictures of my kids and family were never addressed. I did some research and found the estimate was maybe 50 cents to a dollar was going to the child but the other $34 a month was going to Compassion. I called compassion and it didn’t exactly spell it all out but they did say there’s administrative costs, and at that moment I dropped my sponsorship, not even sure if the child was real.
Compassion’s overhead is exorbitant: please see MinistryWatch Top 1000, given poor marks and CEO/leadership salaries overshadow actual assistance that gets to our sponsored child. Leadership is insulated and can’t be contacted directly. We’re done after this child ages out of eligibility. Please be cautious. TRR earns excellent ratings in MinistryWatch, in case you are interested. Thank you
A must read book for anyone who is shocked at this article: The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity by Michael Maren (Author)…it is available on Amazon.com. In this book Maren reflects on 20+ years of working in the field…he knows the road is paved with good intentions. I have 20+ years experience in Christian missionary and evangelism–both as a field missionary and as a mission administrator. The amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that I have seen would be beyond most people’s imagination.