My post on Tuesday — Your Views On The Trick or Tweak Debate — has generated some spirited discussion of the ‘overhead aversion’ issue. While passions are inflamed, I thought I might pour some more fuel on the fire … which is what you should expect from The Agitator.

So here are two attempts to keep the pot stirred.

First, I want to emphasize that I don’t support — and didn’t recommend — that nonprofits go out and deceive prospective donors about their true overhead needs.

But I do believe that concerns about ‘overhead’ (which is really shorthand from the donor for ‘waste’ or ‘non-essential’ spending) — fueled historically by both charity ratings agencies and, lest we forget, outright fraudulent practices amongst ‘bad apple’ fundraisers and nonprofits — are very real in the heads or guts of many donors.

And these concerns must be addressed by fundraisers. If some nonprofits can honestly and transparently deflect their ‘overhead’ needs away from (especially) small givers, then great.

So here’s how I commented further on my original post …

What a great conversation!

If I can defend my honor just a bit.

I haven’t endorsed ‘deceive the buggers’.

I endorse full honesty and transparency.

But clearly there are a multitude of donors — and I’m particularly referencing the small donors direct marketers are commonly seeking — with a resistance to giving because they worry that their gift just might not make a difference. And yes, clearly some of them would rather see their $25 go to buying food for the kid than paying the pension of the fundraiser.

Maybe that’s myopic on their part, but it’s the reality of their perception, and we shouldn’t crap on them for having it. And, I might add, it’s a perception fueled regularly by reports of fraud and deceit in the charity sector.

If we want to exclude all potential donors who have this perception on the basis that they — being so short-sighted — don’t ‘deserve’ to be donors, then we might as well assume our donor universe will drop by, what, 50%? More?

So if — on a totally honest basis — a nonprofit can disarm that small donor concern by pointing to a genuine alternative way they have of funding ‘overhead’, I say more power to them. In my post, I called those nonprofits ‘lucky’, as I believe they are few and far between.

Adrian Salmon gave two examples of credible claims — Charity:Watch (which is not a ‘pass-through’ organization … they buy/own drilling rigs for god sake) and Comic Relief.

In fact, I align myself with all of Adrian’s comments. To ignore this concern about potential ‘waste’ (on ‘overhead’) and wanting to make a difference with a small gift would, in my view, be the opposite of taking a donor-centric approach. It certainly ignores human nature.

Some honest organizations have taken that concern head-on, responded to it (as opposed to denying it exists or denouncing donors for having it), and presented donors with an approach that alleviates their concerns in a truthful manner.

I wish all nonprofits had that opportunity. 99% never will.

Happy to hear more discussion on ‘overhead aversion’ and how to address it.

Now, on to a second fascinating ‘deception’.

Here I’m referring to the recent article in The Nonprofit Quarterly titled: Group Uses Fictitious Children to Boost Fundraising: Poverty Porn?

Another title begging to be read!

This case involves St Joseph’s Indian School raising tons of money using stories about made-up impoverished or abused children.

The issue here — at least as presented in the article — is not that the problems St Joseph’s seeks to address are fabricated, or that St Joseph’s doesn’t in fact spend its money to alleviate the problem.

The issue is that their fundraising materials portray what I’d call ‘composite’ children, implying that they are real individuals. Compelling story telling, but belonging in the fiction rather than non-fiction department.

Donors respond strongly to the stories. Because in fact the real children behind the fictional children are in desperate need.

Commenting on one of the fundraising letters, Kory Christianson, the School’s director of development, replied that the letter detailed “a true story of the very real and challenging situations that far too many children face not only in the Native American community, but in families found in every sphere of society.”

So, the stories are “true”, the children depicted are made-up.

You’ve no doubt seen a similar disclaimer after many a feature film. Did you feel cheated? Deceived?

Is this a deceptive, reprehensible practice — poverty porn?

Is St Joseph’s less than virtuous — mortal sin?

Is this just lazy fundraising — venial sin?

Or, as NPQ asked in its article: Do the ends justify the means?

This time, you comment first!

Tom