Thoughts On Draining The Swamp – Part 1

July 9, 2013      Admin

When it comes to cleaning up fundraising corruption and just bad stuff in our sector it’s clear that the regulators don’t have the resources and some of our trade associations have been too quiet, while others just don’t have the balls.

So what should we as individuals or organizations do, if anything?

Frankly, the bad actors have a pretty open field when it comes to ripping off the donors. Seemingly few or no consequences.

Sure, ‘steal’ a couple of million and get hit with a $5,000 fine. ‘Steal’ a few more and maybe $10,000. Hardly the stuff of deterrence.

In this post and one next week, we suggest two complementary approaches: first, public pressure fueled by shining the light on miscreants and conducting guerrilla warfare; and second, pressing our own sector and its leading voices and associations to take action.

We welcome you comments and additions. Why? Because if we’re gonna clear the swamp it’s up to us. Period.

So, today we begin with public pressure.

Shame

As Common Cause founder John Gardner used to say: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let’s shame and ostracize the abusers.

The Athenians kicked the ‘unwanted’ out of their city for ten years. If they showed their faces in the city during that period, they could be put to death. Now, The Agitator is not quite that extreme; we don’t endorse capital punishment or even cutting off thumbs.

But we’re sure that creative minds in our sector can come up with modern day equivalents. Here are some ‘starter’ ideas:

  • Start a Facebook page — The Fundraising Hall of Shame — fueled by all of us ‘whistleblowers’ in the sector, that displays who these characters are and who they are working with – the ‘fundraisers’, their lawyers and accountants, their ‘clients’. What are the perks they give and get? What are their individual rip-off stories and tactics? Let’s make them as visible as we can.
  • Then, let’s bar them from honest fundraising conferences and events – persona non grata. Unwanted. Ostracized. Don’t take their registrations. Don’t invite their speakers. Don’t welcome their booths. Don’t participate in events they sponsor.
  • And let’s call upon the media who serve our sector – like the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Fundraising Success and Non-Profit Times – to publicize their misdeeds as well and to reject their PR and advertising.

In short, let’s make them so unwanted that no respectable player in the field of fundraising – whatever your role, client or vendor – will have anything to do with them.

And let’s not forget the miscreant nonprofits themselves. After all they’re willingly or ignorantly serving as magnets of misrepresentation in attracting donor dollars.

Sound harsh?

How many millions do you want to see ripped off each year … with no consequences?

Ripped off from trusting donors, who have virtually no means of defense. And ripped off from legitimate charities and causes … because the donation pot has been siphoned and reputations of legitimate charities have been hijacked.

This is what we see as guerrilla warfare. Taking matters into our own hands to protect our profession, the charities and causes we serve, and the donors to whom we owe our highest responsibility.

We ask you … What is your appetite for taking the battle to these sleaze balls?

Roger and Tom

P.S. Next week: Taking them on ‘officially’ through our trade groups and regulators.

6 responses to “Thoughts On Draining The Swamp – Part 1”

  1. Kim Walker says:
    July 9, 2013 at 8:43 am

    A first simple step – how about no longer renting or exchanging lists with them? I found one on my list plan, and it has been removed from all future mailings.

  2. Kim Silva says:
    July 9, 2013 at 11:12 am

    My husband really likes the ostracize idea…he always says that about other criminals, too. HA!

    I totally agree that we have to stand our ground and protect our profession and our organizations…even when that means it is against the wrong-doings of our own organizations. I’ve known too many fundraisers who have lost their jobs over standing their ground for their donors, so I buy them cocktails and assure them that they did the right thing. How do we protect our organizations and our jobs?

  3. Katrina VanHuss says:
    July 9, 2013 at 11:30 am

    I like it. I once had to fire a client organization which had the mission of protecting kids from online predators. There was lots of child pornography stuff intertwined too. The problem – they had zero accomplishments after having raised significant funding, and they had a whole lot of child pornography in digital storage. It was a law enforcement agency so the storage of child pornography made sense – they called it “crime scene evidence” – but it just reeked of something bad. Their hearts were in the right place, but their methods and effectiveness were bad. They didn’t ultimately help any kids from what I could see. Had to walk away.

  4. Cindy Courtier says:
    July 9, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    I applaud and support your goals.

    However, in looking at the list of Professional Solicitors used by these “Worst Charities”, I note a company called Creative Direct Response with an 11% cost of fundraising. Most organizations I know would kill for that kind of return.

    I’m assuming CDR is here because they have worked with the two charities mentioned, but I also note that it was only for one year.

    While the charities should be on the list, I’m questioning if this particular supplier should also be included.

  5. Heather says:
    July 9, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    I think these are good ideas, and I’m all for protecting our industry by self-policing. I didn’t understand AFP’s tangential response to the 50 Worst Charities list, which was essentially, “we wish the media would stop drawing so much attention to administrative costs.”

    While the charities on this list are clearly bad eggs, where do we draw the line? When is the percent of revenue spent on mission delivery just too low? I think that question may be what stops some fundraisers from publicly shaming sleazy nonprofits (for others, it’s just apathy). Is using professional solicitors ever okay? Is it acceptable if an organization pays a flat fee rather than a commission on donations brought in? NPR did a story on professional solicitors last year, and the defense these companies presented was that they acquire new donors for nonprofits. “Charity X may not be getting any of these donations we secured,” the companies argued, “but now it has 1,000 new donors who will donate annually for years to come.” Is there any validity to that argument? Does anyone know of a nonprofit that uses professional solicitors for new donor acquisition and that also does a great job of delivering on its mission?

    I ask all this out of genuine curiousity and thoughtfulness. I have never worked for a nonprofit that hires outside solicitors, and I really have no desire to. I certainly do not want to let corrupt charities rip off generous donors. Perhaps shaming the obvious offenders is where we need to start. But I think some fundraisers, and especially our industry groups, are afraid of judging others out of fear they will be judged themselves. Of course, the public is going to judge our effectiveness no matter what, so that’s not really a logical fear — unless your nonprofit has something to hide.

  6. Mary Cahalane says:
    July 9, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Let’s do it! I think those are great ideas. Heather, you raise good questions. Do organizations like AFP have guidelines on fundraising firms and how they’re paid?

    I suspect there are enough truly egregious organizations and firms out there that we wouldn’t have to worry too much about where to draw the line.

    They’re poisoning the atmosphere for everyone – let’s call them out!

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

    Behavioral Science Q & A

    The Agitator Tool Box

    Ideas, applications, tools, processes, and case studies of break-through solutions in fundraising, including: