The Fundraising Ethics Gap
As a kid I vividly remember Grandma Craver shaking her head, and sometimes her fist, at the radio as it blared forth the ravings of an on-air evangelist whom she particularly despised.
She would turn away from the radio and sternly warn me, “Roger, just you remember. Everyone who talks about heaven ain’t going there.”
And so this morning memories of Grandma Craver came flooding back when I received notice of a new white paper on fundraising ethics just released by Rogare, the fundraising think tank of the University of Plymouth Hartsook Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy.
As I clicked to download the paper I mentally paraphrased Grandma Craver’s admonition: “Every fundraiser who talks about ethics ain’t necessarily ethical.”
Not because fundraisers are crooks, or morally flawed, but because as a profession we don’t have a very workable set of ethical standards capable of guiding us on what we should or shouldn’t do; and certainly not on why we should engage in certain practices and avoid others.
Ian MacQuillan, the director of Rogare, has produced this paper that will prove frustrating, illustrative and inspiring — all at once — titled: Rights Stuff: Fundraising’s Ethics Gap and a New Theory of Fundraising Ethics v1.1. I recommend you download it and read it carefully when you have some quiet moments for contemplation.
Triggered in part by the mess that UK fundraisers and UK regulators, spurred on by a hyperbolic media, have gotten themselves into, Rights Stuff outlines the state of codified fundraising ethics around the world today and argues persuasively that it’s incomplete and inadequate.
It also proposes a process for moving forward, toward closing the “ethics gap” and providing fundraisers, donors, beneficiaries, regulators, the media and the public with a more workable set of standards.
Currently, “fundraising ethics” is a hodge-podge of trade association codes of conduct, donor bills of rights, and practice guides (thou shall do this; thou shall not do that).
Ian and his panel of advisors at Rogare argue (I think persuasively) that the reforms fundraisers and regulators are attempting to put in place in the UK are more likely than not to fail and, in fact, may lead to repeating past mistakes.
I’m sure many will quickly dismiss the issue of “fundraising ethics” as something best relegated to lofty seminar rooms or to a quick chat or rant somewhere around the fifth pint at some conference bar. Don’t be so dismissive.
We ignore the serious attention and development of universal ethical standards at our own peril. Restoring the trust of the public, our donors, our beneficiaries, the politicians and regulators depends on our getting serious, thoughtful and practical. Reducing skepticism, criticism and outright hostility will come only from proving that a coherent set of professional ethics underpins those activities that currently attract so much criticism.
Today, most of the ethical codes of practice prioritize the fundraisers’ duty to their donors and to maintaining public trust. None, according to this study, “explicitly refers to any duty that fundraisers may have to their beneficiaries and service users.”
And herein is the central principle or tenet of what Rogare calls a “new normative theory of fundraising ethics: the need to bring the beneficiary into the ethical decision-making process”.
Rogare calls it “Rights Balancing Fundraising Ethics” because “it balances the duty of fundraisers to solicit support on behalf of their beneficiaries, with the right of the donor not to be subject to undue pressure to donate.”
I can’t do the complexity of fundraising ethics issues (and the significant pros and cons used to argue for different approaches) justice in this short post.
Let me simply urge every Agitator reader concerned with ethics to take the time to work your way through this thoughtful paper.
No matter what philosophical pole you’re coming from and no matter how firm you are in your beliefs, you’ll find something here to challenge your current mindset.
Big on donorcentrism? Find out what ethical issues surround putting donors first. Focused on public trust? See what ethical dilemmas that causes? And the same with focus on Relationship Management and Service of Philanthropy.
And how much pressure on donors is unethical? What about instilling donor guilt? Or urging a donor to abandon another cause in favor of yours? Is your highest duty to the donor, to the beneficiary, or to your organization?
I can guarantee that if you read this paper carefully and thoughtfully you’ll understand why we fundraisers have a lot of work to do before we can call ourselves truly ethical.
Roger
P.S. One of the ethical questions we all deal with is just how aggressively we should approach donors. Related to this is the high frequency of solicitations in direct response — ‘the more appeals the merrier’ approach.
On Wednesday, September 21st at noon Eastern The Agitator will host the second in the three-part series of webinars on the use of behavioral science in fundraising. In this session, Increasing the Number of Your Donors’ Gifts Per Year without carpet bombing them, DonorVoice principal Josh Whichard brings his 15 years of nonprofit direct marketing experience to bear on how to create an effective multi-gift program. A program that fits mid-way between single gift asks and requests for monthly giving.
Registration is free to Agitator readers. You can sign up here.
8 responses to “The Fundraising Ethics Gap”
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
Roger,
Thank you for your post today “The Fundraising Ethics Gap”,more needs to be said about Ethics in our profession,I see too many inflated fundraising numbers reported and trustees that don’t question those numbers,donor gifts that were spent by a new administration improperly until the donor raised the issue with the CEO,fundraisers that told their administration they were going down the wrong path and were told to”mind their own business.” Look forward to reading the “Rights Stuff.”
Ethics in fundraising? What a quaint concept. In a year when we’ve been exposed to the Clinton Foundation’s access peddling machinations, the Trump Foundation’s sham self-serving philanthropy and then this morning I receive an email from NonProfit Pro promoting a seminar with WWP’s disgraced former “leader” Steve Nardizzi with the pitch “Hey you may not like him but he raised a bunch of money.” Groan. Sounds like this conversation is long overdue. I will read the report. Thanks for bringing this to our attention and once again using your voice and platform to shine a light in the dark places.
It’s been energizing and an honor to be part of the team working with Ian on this effort. This paper is just the beginning of a larger effort to challenge our sector’s current model (or, rather, lack thereof) for ethical practice. There is much work to be done yet, but I am encouraged that the dialogue has begun! Thanks for helping foster further conversation, Roger–this matters to all of us engaged in the profession.
Whatever happened to just plain ol’ knowing “right” from “wrong”? Have we grown so trumpified that we can no longer tell the difference? Either it’s the truth or it’s a lie. It happened or it didn’t happen. Gray area will only get one in trouble. It’s like quicksand: once you’re in it, it can be pretty hard to dig yourself out.
Roger, thank you for devoting a post to the vitally important topic of fundraising ethics. One of the problems with ethics as it relates to the nonprofit sector is that people believe they are inherently ethical and, therefore, do not need to discuss the subject. What ethical people need to understand is that learning about ethics, adhering to ethical codes, using decision-making models, and striving to be more ethical helps ethical people be more the type of people they aspire to be.
By the way, after decades of teaching under-attended ethics seminars, I finally figured out how to engage folks in a discussion of ethics. The secret is to never mention the word “ethics.” Is that unethical? I might be in the gray-area. In any case, my audiences and readership are much larger now.
For anyone interested in reading my ethics article which was referenced several times in the Rogare report, here’s a link for a FREE download: http://mlinnovations.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Ethical_Decision_Making_Article.28164930.pdf
We do seem to have lost our way. Thank you Ian, Roger, Michael and others for this call to arms!
You’ve pretty much reduced 4,000 years of moral philosophy to a simple exhortation to ‘do the right thing’, Lester Zaiontz, whereas for all of that time philosophers have been wrestling with the question of ‘what is the right thing?’ and what is the difference between right and wrong.
Whether you like it or not, life is full of ethical grey/gray areas. Is it always wrong to lie, as you seem to suggest? Would you therefore not lie to someone you know had convictions for burglary about whether your neighbours were on vacation?
Ethical theories are intended to help us think through how to make better decisions in doing the right thing, and this is what our work at Rogare with the help of people such as Heather McGinness is trying to do, particulary to ensure that we do the right thing by our beneficiaries as well as our donors.
We need ethical theories to help us make better decisions every day in our lives, precisely because knowing ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ is often such a morally grey area. Fundraising is really no different. Why would it be?
Hi Rod,
With all due respect regarding Steve Nardizzi, did you read the Doug White report?
I stand by the fact that it takes money to raise money especially when you are a new organization. And that there are huge problems with Charity Navigator’s ratings system and the overhead myth, etc.
And while we were not so crass in the promotion for the P2P Conference on Oct 5, it is true that Nardizzi is an expert at social media and 3rd party events and a lot of people would benefit from his practical experience.
So yes, you may not like him, but he still offers valuable information for those trying to up their P2P game.
Please feel free to contact me if you’d like to discuss further. I’m always open to talking about pretty much anything and willing to hear and learn from other’s insights.
Kind regards,
Pia Payne
Associate Publisher
NonProfit PRO