Liberal Media Hates Address Labels Too

How do we stop charities from spending all of our money not on helping others but on sending us a bunch of address labels? We tell them to knock it off, and we get more newspapers like The New York Times to write articles like this one, denouncing the predatory and wasteful practice. Sandra Miniutti of our staff provides some expert advice.

They're Still Dying in Sudan

A couple hundred non-profit groups are planning a big rally this Sunday on the Mall in Washington, D.C to call for intervention to end the violence in Sudan's Darfur region.

If you're inclined to do more than "rally" and want to write a check to try to stop the unfathomable genocide, here's Charity Navigator's advice on how to find a reputable group working in the region.

They're Baaaaaack...

Like Freddy Krueger rising from the dead, the Independent Sector is back again, with a supplement to their Report to Congress on Strengthening Transparency, Governance, and Accountability for Charities. I suspect that I'll be the only one willing to criticize their efforts (again) as this panel consists of the most influential and important people in all of the non-profit sector.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy called me for comment. I plagiarize myself herein, as this is what I told them.

"It’s a beautifully written document, utilizing the work of the smartest, most-connected, and highest-respected people in the sector. It’s just too bad it doesn’t say anything. They brag that 90 funders supported the work of 5000 different participants to the process, and that they created 15 distinct committees, and yet, individual donors are no safer or better informed than they were before this panel started their work 18 months ago. In typical ivy towered-fashion, the panel dedicated 11 pages of a 40 page report to acknowledging their work groups, professional advisory committees, and funders for the report.

It actually saddens me they had the mandate and money to bring together those with the power to institute real reforms, and not only did they not actually propose serious remedies, but they decided to focus on eclectic insider issues like the “Prudent Investor Standard” and “Nonprofit Conversions” and ignored the more run-of-the mill, but insidious and fabric-destroying issues--like non-profit hospitals that don’t do charity work, excessive CEO compensation, charities that never lose their non-profit status despite spending every penny they raise on administrative and fundraising costs, and the unregulated and predatory practice of selling donor names and addresses. These are the issues donors are talking about. And yet, this panel, given another turn at-bat after their depressing stall tactics last year, comes back focusing on whether donated property should be taxed when sold.

It’s amazing that they could look at the area of charitable solicitations, with its plethora of well-documented scandals and abuses, and come up with nothing more relevant than the idea that the sector should lobby state officials to update the Model Charitable Solicitations Act so it addresses internet fundraising. I’m sure the scammers and the unregulated telemarketers are quaking at the prospect of an unenforceable and non-regulatory advisory act being revised to include language addressing the web.

It confirms my belief that charities can not regulate themselves and simply will not, no matter the threat from Congress. In the end, the release of this report will have no impact on the day-to-day interactions between donors and charities."

Stop the Music

We keep hearing that giving to charity is up. And it is, at least in Dick Cheney's house. But it's important to remember that the giving fluctuates wildly depending on the types of charities. We know that giving to those living in poverty is down. And now in Charity Navigator's home state, we see that giving to the arts is down. Some people had hoped that our new Governor, a liberal and a huge philanthropist, would take steps to stop the trend, but it appears he has ideas to the contrary. He actually plans to cut the funding further.

I Know Famous People

I see today that FOX News television host Tony Snow has taken the job as President Bush's Press Secretary. I can think of no rational reason for this, but I wish him well. I appeared on his show a couple of times and found Snow to be gracious, polite, humble, and extremely well-prepared. After doing this TV talking head thing for the last few years, please believe me when I say that possessing these attributes makes Mr. Snow the exception, not the norm.

Help a Charity, Hate a Charity

A new poll shows that older Americans are more likely to give money to charity than their younger peers. They're also more likely to volunteer. This makes sense, of course.

The new poll, however, also shows that the older folks are far more likely to think that charitable groups are dishonest. This should be very distressing news for people who work with non-profits. Those that give the most and spend the most time around actual charities are more likely to think the groups are bogus.

Familiarity breeds contempt? Not a good sign.

Bi-Partisan Support of Charity Fraud

I've mocked Republican politicians Frist, Santorum, and DeLay for funneling public funds to their non-profits. Those on the right side of the aisle will undoubtedly be happy to hear that Democrats are capable of this kind of nonsense too.

Same Time, Next Year

And we now have confirmation that despite many hearings, many press conferences, and many threats, ALL proposed federal charitable reforms have been abandoned. Remember this next time your elected officials point their fingers and promise to fix the sector. Sound and fury signifying...nothing.

It's a Different First Amendment in Michigan

Two stories from today's papers. Draw your own conclusions. I'm done messing with God, or my government.

1. A non-profit group called American Atheists and a Detroit man are suing the City of Detroit for giving $690,000 in city dollars to two churches.

   The money was given to the churches to allow them to “spruce up” in time for the Super Bowl, which was held in Detroit this year.

   Citing the First Amendment as well as the article of the Michigan Constitution that prohibits the state from giving money to religious societies, the groups lawsuit states that “such direct subsidies of religious organizations from taxpayer-derived funds violate the plaintiffs’ rights to be free of taxation for the support of religious organizations.”

2. On his way out the door, James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said that despite his departure, President Bush will continue to steer federal dollars for social services to religious organizations.
   

Not the Greatest Legacy

Jim Towey should have been one of the most important people in all of philanthropy. But he wasn't. He was in the unique position of being resented by people on the right and on the left, and his Office of Faith-Based and Community Inititatives just didn't get much done. In the end, President Bush thanked him for "holding 23 conferences during his 4-year tenure."

Towey leaves the White House to take over as President of Saint Vincent College.

Does She Speak For You?

I have never met Irene Elmer, but she cc'ed me on the following letter. I print it here in its entirety. I have not blacked out the name of the organization, as I'm probably supposed to do legally, because I didn't write the letter, and because I find the treatment of Ms. Elmer, by this particular organization, to be shameful. I'm sure, however, that this is not the only organization to treat its donors like this. And it will only change when more donors write letters like this one, and more importantly, withhold their checks from charities that act like this.

April 9, 2006

Wayne Pacelle
President and CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Pacelle:

In September 2005 I sent the Humane Society $100. Since then, I have received ten requests for more money. I have responded to each of these requests by asking you to remove my name from your database. You have not done so; I am still receiving requests for more money.

Some of these requests have been accompanied by gifts. I have returned the gifts. I have returned the T shirt. I have returned the calendar. I have returned what I believe may have been a keychain. In each case, I have asked your organization to remove my name from your database. You have not done so. I am still receiving requests for more money. Some of these requests have made reference to the gifts, apparently unaware that I have asked you to stop sending them.

May I suggest that this is not good public relations on your part?

The HSUS does valuable work. However, many other organizations also do valuable work. These organizations ask for donations once or twice a year. I give my money to these organizations. I do not give money to organizations that ask for donations ten times in eight months. I do not give money to organizations that ignore my repeated requests to stop asking for money.

I will not contribute to your organization again. Please make a note of it.

Thank you.

Irene Elmer
Berkeley, California

A Few Nuggets to Start Your Week

• Looking for the "Website of the Day?" Here it is. What, you were expecting this?
• The New York City United Way took in a bit over $100 million last year, most of it through mandatory payroll deductions. At least some of it went to pay their CEO's dry cleaning bills. Of course, that's understandable given that he only made $500K a year.
  
• What's the saying about beggars can't be choosers? Guess it doesn't apply to the good folks of Indonesia who were ravaged by the tsunami. They're telling Oxfam to take their promises and go home.

Best...Headline...Ever

I have no comment. You just have to see the headline.

Red Cross to Partner with God

The Red Cross continues to lay out their plans for revising the way they do things, in response to some Congressional pressures, and in time for the rapidly-approaching hurricane season. As a donor's advocate, I applaud most of their new efforts to be more responsive to the communities they seek to aid, and more respectful of the donors they seek to solicit.

Buried in their plan, as if it is an absolute no-brainer unworthy of discussion, is this little tidbit:

The American Red Cross also plans to work more closely with other charities, like local churches, providing them with financial assistance.

Understand exactly what this means: If you give money to the Red Cross, a secular organization, they reserve the right to give it to a religious entity at a later date, if they see fit.

Now, don't get me wrong on this---I recognize and celebrate the fact that much of the great social welfare work in this country is done by churches. If I were looking for groups that knew the needs of a particular community, I would probably start with well-connected churches.

But not every donor feels the same way. It is undeniable that one of the reasons for the Red Cross's unparalleled success in crisis situations is that some donors, who don't have the time to research their recipient, want only to reward relief agencies that don't operate under a religious mandate of any sort. It's just a fact of life. Some donors don't want their monies to go to groups that are religious. This affects the Salvation Army all the time, as they unabashedly acknowledge that they are a Christian organization and that their good works are shaped by their love of God. This philosophy undeniably attracts some donors, but it repels others, often to the benefit of the Red Cross.

I can only hope that the Red Cross will be painfully transparent in their fundraising materials. You simply cannot have it both ways. Currently, all monies that are collected are spent by the Red Cross, and the Red Cross only, in the way they best see fit. While in times of crisis, this may handcuff them in their abilities to best meet a particular community's needs, it's easy for prospective donors to understand. No one is ever misled. But if they adopt this new policy, and plan on, when appropriate, sharing their funds with other groups, including churches, they darn well better acknowledge that in their solicitations. Anything else would be disingenuous.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Officials in St. Bernard Parish in New Orleans, one of the areas most savaged by Hurricane Katrina, are looking for someone to help them rebuild and guide their resurrection. And so of course, they've turned to...wait for it...here it comes...could it be...yes...of course...fired FEMA head Mike Brown.

Wouldn't that have been your first choice too?

But why stop there? Maybe they can get Barry Bonds to do their PR work. Neil Entwistle could do marriage counseling. And this guy could watch the kids.

Heckuva job, St. Bernard Parish.

Worse Than Charitable Fraud

I blogged last week about Ed Buckham, who as Tom DeLay's chief of staff, somehow received more than one-third of the money DeLay's "charity" raised over a five-year period. I think I was understandably outraged to find that one of our most influential legislators was using a non-profit to funnel money to a political insider. It was my opinion as a professional charity evaluator that Mr. Buckham is probably not the kind of guy with which I'd like to associate, given that I'm relatively fond of ethics and those that allow them to guide their daily actions.

But now comes irrefutable evidence that Mr. Buckham is beyond redemption. Not only is he using his insider status to rip off the charitable system, but Mr. Buckham uses his power to cheat at fantasy baseball!

According to the New Republic, "Buckham had become DeLay’s chief of staff…. His win-at-all-costs attitude played out in strange ways around the office. He ran a fantasy baseball league that he always seemed to win, even if it meant browbeating young staffers into trading their best players to him."

I might have been able to forgive the charitable fraud. I mean, I see that every day. But this? Mr. Buckham, have you no shame?

Your Charity Leader is Underpaid

Charitable donors are understandably concerned with how much the leader of their favorite charity earns. As advocates for donors, we're sympathetic to this belief, but regular visitors of our site will remember that we found in our 2005 CEO Compensation Study that most leaders of large national non-profits were paid quite modestly, given the size and scope of their daily jobs. Still, many donors become alarmed anytime they see a six-figure salary and don't want to donate to groups that compensate their presidents at that level.

I understand, but I wonder how many of these same people follow the same philosophy and refuse to buy a product from a particular company, when it's possible that the leader of that corporation is earning not a six-figure salary, but a nine-figure one.

Words Fail Us All

They're no strangers to death at the United States Military Academy at West Point, but this is almost unfathomably tragic. I live 5 minutes from the campus, and she was the talk of the town three weeks ago when she took her young team into the NCAA tournament for the very first time in school history. At the time, you could tell that she was simply too big for the room, and that Army would never be able to keep her when one of the big schools came to woo her. Three short weeks later, she's gone, at the heinously absurd age of 28.

Rest in peace, Maggie Dixon.

To keep this blog always about non-profits, I'm sure you could make a donation here (where she worked), here (what she did), or here (that cause that killed her), in her name.

Can you spare a few hundred bucks?

I've seen this in action and it's creepy. I understand that I'm not safe from professional fundraisers in the privacy of my own home, but you'd think I could escape to the streets of Manhattan without being besieged. I'm thinking Mayor Bloomberg is going to need to do something about this "panhandling for credit cards" problem.

Seriously, if you see these people, you have an obligation not only to run from them, but to call the charity they are working for (and taking a huge cut from) and tell them this kind of harassment is not something you support.

House Passes Serious Non-Profit Reform!

Of course, all they did was make sure that George Soros can't contribute a bazillion dollars to anti-Republican groups like MoveOn.org. You didn't really think they were going to do something about the real problems, did you?

Charities in Name Only

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's proposed legislation that would require "charity" hospitals in Illinois to actually do charity work (read here and here for my previous thoughts on this) has shockingly been "postponed."

The official reason listed was that the bill was "too complex" to be considered this year. (Will next year's representatives be inherently smarter and more able to comprehend complicated legislation? Is 2006 a down year for intellectual state reps?) As a former legislative staffer, I'm pretty confident in saying that "too complex" is political doublespeak for "the hospital lobbyists haven't had enough time to convince the AG why passing this law will lead to them finding a way to kill her political career."

More Than Just Resume Filler

I mentioned last week that companies that engage in effective philanthropy see longterm benefits to their bottom line. Here's an article showing young people that volunteering is a great way to eventually get a great paying job.