The Song Remains the Same

Been away a few days. Quick hits for those who still don't think any reforms are necessary in the non-profit world.

The Associated Press reports that one-fourth of all charities in California that contracted with for-profit fundraisers received less than 15% of the money the fundraisers collected on their behalf and utilizing the charities' names.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has the tale of a local sheriff's deputy who has stolen money from a charity, for which he was the custodian. The charity fund was set up to help another deputy's daughter, who has a rare disease and huge medical bills. Ahh, the brotherhood.

A Utica, New York paper has the story of a troubled woman who has been showing up at people's houses on rainy and snowy nights supposedly collecting money for a diabetes charity. Shockingly, she appears to have been keeping the money for her own use. A reminder, folks, that if a seemingly homeless woman shows up on your door in inclement weather after dark soliciting cash for a charity, you might want to give her money, but don't expect it to end up in the charity's coffers.

All Headline News has the scoop on American Idol's Clay Aiken and his new charity. According to the story, Mr. Aiken's group is spending about 1/3 of the money they raise on grants and charitable activities. The rest is going to travel, "professional services", and salaries.

And most importantly, of course, it appears that Dennis Rodman has been given two traffic tickets and been accused of stealing $20 worth of gas and a hat, all while participating in a charity car race.

All right, the last one's a reach. I don't expect the Senate Finance Committee to propose reforms that prohibit Dennis Rodman from participating in charity events. But it might be a good idea.

Let's Get Ready to Rumble?

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that non-profit advocacy groups on both sides of the aisle were prepared to spend $100 million in the confirmation battle over the new Supreme Court nominee.

Today, with the nomination of John Roberts, a jurist with reportedly impeccable qualifications and character (and a crazy dancing son), the Post is reporting that he will be easily confirmed by the Senate. A constitutional law expert I know said that "Roberts is a slam dunk, unless they have pictures of him with a goat."

In light of this, any chance the non-profit groups will keep their powder dry, and not solicit funding for the fight, and not spend the money they do have on hand in what will be a fruitless exercise (on both sides)? Any chance the various advocacy groups could sit down, agree not to spit venom, and instead donate their money to providing scholarships for outstanding college students, of all ideologies, who want to attend law school, but lack the funding to attend Harvard, like John Roberts did?

Nah, I didn't think so. I look forward to a monthlong partisan battle that alternately bores and tears apart the country, the nominee, and the constitution. That'll be fun. And a good use of charitable funds.

Do you agree? Or dare to dissent?

Supermodels and Leukemia

The British tabloid The Sun is reporting that a Romanian leukemia charity and supermodel Cindy Crawford are in a contentious negotiation regarding how much she will be compensated for appearing at a fundraising event for the charity in the Eastern European country.

I have so many problems with this it makes my head hurt.

First of all, Ms. Crawford, it's "charity." Donate your time, your expenses, your name, your appearance. If you believe in the cause, do it for free. Otherwise, stay home.

To the charity, I say "knock it off." If your cause is worthwhile and your actions effective, quit trying to recruit supermodels to advance your charitable works. Show people why you need the money, what you will do with it, and how you will measure results. Your donors are smarter than you think. What exactly is Ms. Crawford's connection to leukemia, let alone Romania?

To the donors who are still lured to a cause by a celebrity endorsement, I say "grow up." If there are children in Romania who have leukemia and are having their quality of life improved as a result of this charity's actions, isn't that enough for you? Why do you need the costly importation of a beautiful woman to convince you to write a check? Is the cause just or not? Is the organization effective or not? These are the relevant questions--not whether Cindy Crawford will show up for a photo op with a sick kid.

We have to get past our reliance on celebrity opinion over expert facts. Just because someone is famous doesn't make them smart. I used to think this was a problem we only had in this country. The Romanian example shows it's a worldwide dilemma.

You May Be a Non-Profit Too!

The Associated Press is reporting that a judge in Florida has ruled that the Holy Land Experience is a church, and therefore exempt from paying income and property taxes. Furthermore, as not only a non-profit, but a church, they are exempt from having to file any documentation at all with the government.

And what is the Holy Land Experience, you might ask?

These are the facts:

It is a theme park in Orlando, Florida. It charges a $35 admission fee. It has costumed biblical characters roaming the park, taking pictures with children. It has a souvenir shop. It was designed by the same group that created Universal Studio's Islands of Adventure. It is paid for by an organization whose main goal is to convert Jews to Christianity. And, now, it is classified as a "church."

And as a registered non-profit, the hot dogs you buy in the concession stands are exempt from the state's 6% sales tax.

Who Invited Him?

I am in Washington, DC, speaking at the American Marketing Association's conference. The theme of the conference is the "Business of Trust." A ton of non-profit communications and development directors have come here to learn more about what they can to do to earn and keep the trust of their donors.

They're talking a lot about brand equity, and cultures of trust, and constituency focus, and cause branding, and a bunch of other consulting terms I' m not particularly familiar with.

When it got to be my turn, I suggested that charities should stop selling donor names to other charities and that they need to quit hiring fundraisers to make phone calls on their behalf, allowing the charities to keep pennies on the dollar. They looked at me like I was speaking in tongues. You could feel the uncomfortable chill sweep through the room, despite the fact that it is about 130 degrees here in the nation's capital.

Leave it to me to bite that hand that is feeding me. But someone needs to speak up for donors. We can talk about relationship marketing until the cows come home (or we could just say we did and be better off), but if we're not willing to back up a few steps and take a few common sense steps to show donors we respect them and value them, the rest is pointless.

I'm off to annoy some more people. Remember, I do it for you.

My Morning

I was scheduled to appear on The Today Show this morning to debate Pat Robertson of all people about the efficacy of Live 8, our continued reliance upon celebrities (instead of experts) to guide us ethically and philanthropically, and my suggestions for what we should do now, as individuals and as a country, if we really want to help Africans.

If getting ready to debate Pat Robertson wasn't surreal enough already, I was actually sitting next to Bob Woodward in the Green Room (not really green). Of course, due to the terrorist attacks in London this morning, I was eventually bumped from the show.

I have no great insights into this terrorist thing (or maybe I wouldn't have been bumped) but I was struck by the timing and the location of the attacks within London. These were not attacks against the Monarchy. They didn't try to kill Tony Blair. Parliament was of course spared. Unlike the 9/11 attacks in this country, the great symbols of capitalism, imperialism, and government were bypassed.

These killers attacked working-class Londoners, on their way to work, on buses and subways. Just regular folks, trying to make a living, to support their families, for an honest day's work. I'll never understand how a woman with kids taking a bus to her secretarial job is a threat to anyone's way of life.

My thoughts and prayers are with all in London right now.

London Calling

In the annual "payola, pork barrel, who can I pay off, and with what?" extravaganza affectionately known as the awarding of the Olympic bids, London apparently has swiped the 2012 games from the front-runner Paris. New York apparently had no chance (which was apparent to everyone but New Yorkers) due to the fact that a) New Yorkers voted against actually having the games here, and b) there was no stadium to actually house the thing. Not to mention that there may have been some security concerns. And oh yeah, Hillary didn't have enough money in her pockets to pay off enough of the electorate.

So, from a non-profit perspective, what happens to NYC2012, the "charity" created to help bring the games to New York City?

This group raised nearly $30 million (why?), spent $27 million(on what?), and now appears to have at least a few million bucks left over. So what becomes of this? Theoretically, it should be given out to other New York non-profits, but if I was running a food bank in the city, I wouldn't count on seeing my share. I suspect that any monies left over will be allocated to the insiders connected to buying the bid.

While Executive Director Jay Krigel only earned about $35K last year to run this organization, according to their 990, "Krigel Communications" was paid over a quarter of a million bucks in the same year for "consulting." All perfectly legal of course.

Ahh, the quaint world of non-profits, where millions of dollars can be raised, tax free, for the procurement of an Olympics (they weren't actually going to stage the Olympics--the $30 million was just to "get" the Olympics), spent however the organizers please, and then divvied up at the end for the pleasure of those who collected it. The Olympic spirit is alive and well.

Was I Wrong?

It appears so. From the media reports I read (I was camping, not watching), fund-raising was kept to a minimum at the Live 8 concerts. And apparently a great time was had by all. My apologies to the organizers for doubting your intentions.

But why didn't they raise money? The "raising awareness" angle is cute, but do we really think that these concerts are going to change George Bush's mind on whether to ante up more money for African poverty? He may help or he might not. But I find it hard to believe that seeing Will Smith rap in Philly is going to be the final shove he needs to change his policies.

I know that the real and lasting way to make change here is to change the world's consciousness and priorities, but I still can't believe they didn't take the chance to raise a quick $100 million (which they could have done in a day). Could have fed a lot of people on that money.

But they were playing for the big hit, by playing all the big hits. And I was wrong. Let's hope we look back on Live 8 in 20 years as a rousing success, one that changed a continent forever.