Read This! Then Shower!
The Center for Investigative Reporting has just released a series of reports including The 50 Worst Charities and The Failure of Regulation that should both sicken your soul and make your blood boil.
A year-long study by a team of investigative reporters from the Center, The Tampa Bay Times and CNN not only names names, it details the 10-year failure of state and federal regulation and enforcement that pretty much assures that the scumbags will continue to operate with impunity.
First the Worst.
In picking the The 50 Worst Charities the investigative team focused mainly on nonprofits that employ high-pressure telemarketing boiler room operations. What the report calls “this parasitic segment of the nonprofit industry”.
Topping the list of “Worst” are groups with names similar to well-established and reputable charities.
For example, The Kids Wish Network, a clear knockoff of the highly legit Make-a-Wish Foundation, tops the “Worst” list — $127.8 million raised, with $109.8 going to the boiler room solicitors, leaving 2.5% of the money to go directly to the central mission of the charity. Also leaching off Make a Wish Foundation is Worst #3, Children’s Wish Foundation International, where solicitors received $63.6 million of the $96.8 million contributed, with 10.8% of the money going to the charitable purpose. And, in clear attempts to mimic The American Cancer Society and other reputable cancer organizations, Worst #2 is Cancer Fund of America and Worst #4, the American Breast Cancer Foundation.
As we’ve noted in previous posts, there’s a real danger in automatically condemning charities and their third party vendors and consultants with the overly simplistic and arbitrarily applied ‘cost of fundraising’ percentages. But, in the case of The Worst 50 the reporters have by and large avoided that trap.
Best of all the reporters share their analysis and information sources online with databases and links to a treasure trove of data and ratings. In this section of their herculean work you can even download a list of the solicitors employed by the Worst 50.
And, just to make certain you have a real feel for the lengths to which investigative reporters Kendall Taggart and Kris Hundley have gone to shine a light in this dark corner of our trade, read the section of their reporting titled Dirty secrets of the worst charities.
After that, I guarantee you’ll want a long, hot shower.
Roger
P.S. Coming tomorrow, “How Do They Get Away With It?”
5 responses to “Read This! Then Shower!”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
As fundraisers the idea of self-regulation sounds best. But that leaves the field open to the unscrupulous. On the list of agencies are some well-known names in the field. The knee-jerk reaction of industry trade groups is typically to circle the wagons.
There are laws on the books that should protect the public if they are enforced. Deceptive advertising in any form is (or should be) illegal. About eight years ago one of the perpetrators of these “scams”, a big sweeps mailer who made the current list, defended the practice by saying that it appeared the government needed to protect people that weren’t “good readers”.
And these practices are typically defended under the guise of free speech.
One has to wonder whether we would be further ahead solving the some of the world’s ills (cancer, diabetes, etc) if the billions spent duping the public were put to the use for which the public intended.
Not only do we need to guard against unscrupulous “nonprofit” executives and solicitors, we also may need to take our governing boards to task, for their failure to maintain accountability. All too often, it seems, we see scandals about charities going broke, firing their executives, or doing something or other that ends up giving the whole sector a bad rep, when in fact much of the responsibility lies in the hands of those purporting to govern. Where is the board’s willingness to scrutinize results, demand transparency, and face the brutal facts?
Let’s be frank, this is quasi-criminal and immoral behavior. Stealing from the unsophisticated to line the pockets of the rogue telemarketers, mailers and the law firms that represent them and keep them “legal.” All the while, detracting from the legitimate charities by using “copycat” branding and “hard-sell” tactics.
The FTC could and should go after them?
Roger, thanks for continuing to shine a light in this dark corner.
I was once asked why I had never considered starting a children’s cancer charity, then selling it all the services needed at top dollar. There are lots of reasons, I said, not least of which is the distinct possibility that Hell is a real place. Larry May
Larry May – I like you even more than I did before I read this! Thank you – and thanks Roger. It definitely is challenging to look at ourselves and our vendors without getting defensive. But, having been on both sides – it’s the animal, disease, person, environment that ultimately suffers – and I didn’t get into the nonprofit world to further suffering. I got involved to be a small part of fixing it. I think most of us feel that way.
Here’s to the good guys winning out for once! Jo