It Ain’t Easy Being Green

For the seventh month in a row, the good folks at The NonProfit Times have published one of my columns on their web-exclusive editorial section. This month I focused on the struggle faced by fundraisers who are trying to raise money in the most environmentally responsible way possible.

Despite the fact that I send out millions of pieces of direct mail every year – I don’t consider myself part of the junk mail industry. However, it doesn’t take “a fundraiser” to understand that sloppy attempts at sweeping reforms to “green-up” direct mail could very well be devastating for nonprofits that rely on it for lifesaving funds.

It’s hard for anyone to defend the staggering environmental damage from direct mail. I recently saw one Web site estimate that the average American receives 41 pounds of solicitation mail every year. That’s a lot of trees…and water… and oil… and toxic environmental by-products.

And for the kids who think direct mail is bad now… 20 years ago mail production was horrid.

You can read the rest of my post on the NPT website.

Group challenges ethics of police telemarketing campaign

A new organization called 2 CENTS is publicly challenging the fundraising practices of the Sarasota-based International Union of Police Associations (’IUPA’) and their for-profit telemarketing contractor.

The group claims that "IUPA raised $4.8 million in public donations last year, but spent $4.3 million of those donations in the fundraising process, including $1.9 million in fees to a for-profit telemarketing company called LAS, LLC."

According a press release on Marketwatch, 2 CENTS recently "voiced support for a resolution that will be introduced at the national convention of the IUPA on August 6-9 in Orlando, Florida. The Resolution on Ethical Fundraising will request that IUPA comply with the standards set forth by the Association of Professional Fundraisers."

Last month, 2 CENTS sent out another press release where they complained about telemarketers at IUPA having criminal records. At the time, the group said they were "highlighting poor telemarketing practices that deceive the public" and that they believed that the telemarketing industry requires greater scrutiny, especially since telemarketers handle sensitive consumer information such as credit card numbers.

They went on to say "2 CENTS believes law enforcement organizations should have higher standards for fundraising. Allowing people who engage in such behavior to solicit donations is irresponsible."

I'm interested to see how IUPA responds next week to the increasingly loud drum of protest 2 CENTS is banging.

You can protect a lot of liberties for $335 million

Tonight in New York City, the caped crusaders over at the ACLU announced the public phase of the largest fundraising campaign on behalf of civil rights and liberties in American history. According to the group's press release:

"The $335 million "Leading Freedom Forward: The ACLU Campaign for the Future" is an unprecedented effort to build the organization's infrastructure by increasing funding to key state affiliates nationwide, dramatically enhancing advocacy capabilities and securing the ACLU's financial future for generations to come."

The group already has raised more than 2/3 of the money:

"The campaign has already raised more than $258 million - over $102 million in cash and pledges and $156 million in planned gifts - highlighted by 21 contributions of $1 million or more from the ACLU's staunchest supporters and several of the world's most noted philanthropists. These include two gifts of$12 million, one from George Soros, through his Open Society Institute, and one from the Sandler Foundation. Other leadership contributors include the Leon Levy Foundation, which donated $5 million, and Delaney and her husband,Wayne Jordan, who donated $4 million."

Personally, I've always thought capital campaigns got to cheat by waiting until they've almost raised all the money before announcing the actual number of the goal. How many annual fund directors are allowed to get 2/3 of the way through their fundraising drive before acknowledging the actual number goal.

What impresses me (and I'm sure other donors) about this press release is the bold commitment outlined in regards to how the money will be spent to achieve growth goals.

"A major goal of the campaign is to substantially increase the ACLU's presence and effectiveness from coast to coast by significantly increasing the programmatic and institutional capacity of its affiliates, particularly instates where civil liberties violations are most egregious and opportunities for change most promising. These states include Florida, Texas, New Mexico,Montana, Mississippi, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee.

Moreover, smaller affiliates located mainly in the South and in the country's heartland will be bolstered by increased resources that will enable them to hire full-time attorneys, launch new advocacy programs, and expand communications and public education initiatives."

While the ACLU was making this fundraising promise to donors in New York City, the organization was also hosting a huge membership conference for donors in Washington, DC.

Pretty impressive.

American Charities Raise $33-Million for Asian Disasters

The Chronicle of Philanthropy released the first real fundraising numbers I've seen to date on the pair of recent natural disasters in China and Burma.

"American relief groups have raised at least $32-million for victims of the China earthquake and the Myanmar cyclone. The groups say about $16-million has been donated to each cause."

Hat tip to Caroline Preston for pulling together the great research in pulling together a long list of foundations who have made big grants and the charities that have been in a position to put the good will to work where it's needed.

Fundraising body releases code of practice for "chuggers"

The Institute of Fundraising (IoF) is the professional body that represents 4500 individual fundraisers and 250 organizational members in the UK.

The IoF just released a new draft code of practice on face-to-face fundraising, a practice known to some as "chugging" because it can be perceived as charity mugging on the street.

For the first time, the code includes rules on the practice of prospecting - where fundraisers take down potential donors' details but not initially their money.

"Previously, only those who took money or were active in getting people to sign up for direct debits were required to follow the IoF code. During the initial F2F conversation, fundraisers are now required to "acknowledge the possibility of a subsequent financial commitment request".

Mick Aldridge, Chief Executive of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, said that the body had seen a desire from local authorities who claimed that prospecting "looks like fundraising" and therefore needed to be included under regulatory guidelines."

Now that the draft is released, the IoF will begin a 12 week public consultation period until August 8th. If you want to give your input, go here.

Will the ticking credit card time bomb impact donations?

For the past few years fundraisers have been aggressively pushing donors to give by credit card instead of by check... especially when it comes to the increase in online fundraising and/or monthly giving programs.

But there is a growing sense of dread that a pending tsunami of credit card defaults is creating a ticking time bomb in this country... and I am going to go out on a limb (just like I did early last December when I warned about the looming recession) and predict that fundraisers will need to grapple with serious concerns about donors who are charging their donations.

Do we have any ethical concerns about donors putting a $100 donation that they can't afford on a credit card where it will eventually cost them $130 in interest? Do fundraisers benefit by getting donors to give more when they use a credit card than they would if they had to use cash?
I read some alarming statistics last week:

"According to Equifax, a credit card analysis firm, people have been buying more with their credit cards but paying down less. As a result average balances jumped nearly 9% in 2007 and delinquency rates recently hit a 4-year high of 4.5%.

Also, the reliance on credit cards is preventing some of the markets salutary forces from working. With credit always an option, domestic demand remains strong despite rising prices. Absent the option of putting more costly gasoline on their credit cards, Americans might have actually been forced to cut back on their consumption, taking some of the upward pressure off gas prices.

It should be painfully obvious that expanded consumer credit is not evidence of improvement, but simply, deterioration. Unfortunately, when it comes to understanding the economy, there is little common sense on display. By going even deeper into debt just to make ends meet, American consumers are digging themselves, and our entire economy, into an even greater economic hole and laying the foundation for the next major credit debacle."

I'm sure people have been warning about credit card debt since the first person used their Diner's Club card to buy a dinner for friends that he/she couldn't afford... but with the reality of the housing implosion hitting home now - many people think a credit card default crisis is closer than we think.

So, what should we do? Continue to ask donors to put their gift on credit cards... but only if they promise to be responsible and pay off the card balance every month?

I'm going to talk about this more in the next couple weeks... but in the meantime, I think nonprofit fundraisers should start to truly understand the real cost of processing donations on credit cards. Start by reading this article about how the organizations that handle Internet contributions and related services for the presidential campaigns have already collected more than $11 million in fees!

Benchmarking With A Warped Stick

For the fourth month in a row, The NonProfit Times once again published a column by yours truly. This month the topic is an analysis of recent fundraising benchmark studies. Here's an excerpt:

"Anytime your fundraising program experiences large increases or decreases, it’s helpful to understand if the change is being driven by broader external factors or by specific issues to your audience and mission. Benchmarking studies can help identify trends in key indicators and give fundraisers the context we need in order to understand our own performance better and plan for the future.

Unfortunately, not all benchmarking studies are created equal. Some studies are nothing more than lazy half-assed analysis from vendors hawking thinly veiled sales pitches. Other well-meaning benchmarks often use questionable methodology. A flawed approach can produce misleading conclusions.

It’s therefore critical for fundraisers to share their feedback and reactions to what the benchmark studies are showing. This article compares the methodology of three of the most cited (and debated) benchmarking studies making their way around the blogosphere today."

Go here to read the full article.

Where will you donate your $600 tax rebate check?

Okay folks, it's time for an interactive post that requires feedback from loyal readers of Don't Tell the Donor. A good friend forwarded me an article by Stephanie Strom at the New York Times who wrote about the opportunities for charities who plan to ask supporters to donate their $600 rebate check.

I'm asking readers to post a comment with the best fundraising pitch they've seen from nonprofits. If you can include a link, that's great... if it's an email you received, please include the charity's name and copy and paste some of the text.

The Times article spends too much time quoting the fundraising consultant Robert Sharpe and only three weak examples are cited from:

* The VFW National Home for Children
* Arkansas Sheriffs’ Youth Ranches
* Peace Action

...but I know this audience can compile a good list of which organizations are on the creative cutting edge by offering donors an easy way to donate their rebate.

Fundraising plan to use erotic calendars backfires

I read a funny story today about these seven middle-aged Spanish moms who posed for a tongue-in-cheek erotic calendar as fundraiser for their children's tiny, rural school. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and now they are saddled with debt and 5,000 unwanted copies.

One of the photos shows the mothers with discreetly placed Christmas tinsel as their only garb. Other goofy poses include a shotgun-toting mom wearing only a fox pelt, and another covering her body with a red umbrella.

Goofy? That's one way to put it.

I've got no problem with middle-aged moms poising for goofy calendars. I actually think it's kinda funny. But I do have a problem with half ass "fundraising" ideas that focus too much on the goofy stuff and not enough on the necessary planning and budgeting stuff. The AP article goes on to say:

The calendars came out in November and at first were a big hit. But the plan fizzled. The women acknowledge being amateurs in publishing and advertising, and they missed the Christmas shopping rush. Now, sales of the $8 calendar have dried up and they owe a printer nearly $16,000.

Unfortunately, these moms are now up against an insurmountable enemy... a ticking clock. A lot of amateur fundraising plans fail to account for "time" in their hastily arraigned plans. And for every day that passes their problem gets bigger.

My own takeaway from the Slate 60 list

The annual Slate 60 list of the largest charitable contributions of the year is out today.

Their "takeaway" from is list is that:

Two hoteliers known for providing comfort to the well-to-do are leaving a different legacy: aid to the less fortunate... The late Leona Helmsley bequeathed $4 billion to the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, and Barron Hilton donated $1.2 billion to the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, started by his father.

Unfortunately, I have a different "takeaway." For me, it stands out that the two biggest gifts were given almost involuntarily... when one donor died and the other may have needed to find a tax shelter after making a multi-billion dollar capital gain tax this year.

Sure, both gifts are very big... and generous... and I'm sure the world will be a better place because of these donations. I'm not going to knock planned gifts of personal estates. I'm also impressed that our government continues to offer generous charity donation deductions.

However, size isn't what always touches this fundraiser. I'm more impressed with the gifts given voluntarily during one's life. Gifts that respond to an organizations specific needs without asking for anything in return. Is that too naive?

NP Times names World's Best Fundraisers

Six years ago a friend gave me a t-shirt that says "#1 Fundraiser in the World."

I wear it to work sometimes underneath my clothes. I've found that, not only does it give me secret powers, it has also been a self-enforcing prophecy. I've had some of my greatness fundraising successes while wearing that t-shirt... after all, that don't give out shirts like that to just anyone.

So, you can imagine my shock when the NonProfit Times released their list of the World's Best Fundraisers today. They didn't mention the fact that I was already awarded this title (by way of my t-shirt) over six years ago.

Despite this oversight, I think the list (and the rational) is very solid:

Younger Than 40 - Sarah Tanner
Younger Than 40 - Brian Cowart
Online - Greenpeace International
Living Legend - Larry Jones
Cause Marketing - Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Direct Mail - Susan Loth
International - FINCA
Trendsetter - Jewish National Fund

Now that I know this t-shirt isn't an exclusive award... I might as well start selling "World's #1 Fundraiser" t-shirts and mugs in the Don't Tell the Donor online store.

Important findings from the COPPS study on SYBUNT trends

If you are a fundraiser that uses DonorPerfect or Raiser's Edge as your fundraising software database, you know the power of the SYBUNT report which can help target donors who give "Some Years But Unfortunately Not This" (year).

Most successful fundraisers know that inconsistent donors have a significantly lower lifetime value than donors who give annually. As a result, it is important to segment Annual Fund mailings to ensure too many resources aren't spent on these "occasional donors" at the expense of not soliciting committed donors enough.

It's just as important to understand the broader trends of individual donor giving and the body of research available to help fundraisers understand the big picture.

The NonProfit Times published an excellent review last week of an ongoing study conducted by the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study (COPPS) at Indiana University.

The COPPS survey talks to 8,000 families about their nonprofit giving. According to this report, "while the total percentage of households that gave was similar in all three years (67 to 69 percent), it was not always the same households - in fact, it appears that a third of U.S. households appear to shift between donating and not donating.

COPPS researchers found that 56 percent of households gave donations in each of the three years. Another three in 10 households (29 percent) contributed to charity in some but not all years studied. Just under 15 percent did not contribute at all in any of the years studied.

COPPS is conducted every two years (beginning in 2001) in conjunction with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a landmark recurring survey by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research initiated in 1968.

It's a shame the survey results aren't made public in a more timely manner, but if you would like to read a recent report from January 2008 on the key findings from the survey conducted in 2005 (which covers giving in 2004) you can go here.

A special thanks to the NonProfit Times for publishing this critical link (which all fundraisers should bookmark) to the Center on Philanthropy for quick reference to a dozen major donor research studies.

The big business of college football

Yesterday, I found myself watching some boring college football Bowl games... so I tried to pass the time by arguing with friends about the largess of NCAA coaches. If you want to impress your friends with some facts and figures, here is some quick research I pulled together from other sources.

The USA Today reported last month that "the number of million-dollar coaches has soared from five in 1999 to 50 today."

The truth is that the games on New Years Day are only part of college football's larger $400 million bowl industry. Fox Business reports that each of the BCS bowl games pays out $17 million to the conferences represented. The conferences, based on their own rules, divide the payout among all of the teams in the conference. If an additional team from a conference is lucky enough to make a BCS bowl, the conference receives an extra $4.5 million.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a great article last week outlining the huge bonuses given to coaches for winning their bowl game. The biggest bonus seems to await Les Miles if LSU can win next week's National Championship game. Others earn the right to renegotiate contracts if their team hits overall goals.

Alumni boosters at Hawaii ran a campaign to raise $114,000 for the team’s head coach, June S. Jones III when they grew worried he might leave the university when his contract expires in six months.

According to Forbes magazine, Ohio State has the biggest athletic department budget in the U.S. at a whopping $104.7 million for the year ending June 30, 2006. Texas was second at $97.8 million.

Then again, we are living in the age where 31 universities are seeking to raise at least a billion dollars.

In December, Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee tapped Peter Weiler to head up all of OSU’s fund-raising efforts, including a possible $2.5 billion capital campaign. Weiler will begin his new job in early 2008 as senior vice president for university development and president of the Ohio State University Foundation.

Just hours after OSU's announcement, the University of Georgia named longtime administrator Tom Landrum the permanent senior vice president for external affairs, the administrator in charge of fundraising, public affairs and alumni relations.

With Landrum in the vice president's office this year, fundraisers shot past their five-year fundraising goal to collect $500 million for the Archways to Excellence campaign. The campaign is set to conclude June 30, but already has collected $580 million, according to Landrum.

As vice president, Landrum will make $252,000 a year, the 13th highest salary among UGA administrators and faculty, according to university spokesman Tom Jackson.

Did public radio put pledge drive before breaking news?

On December 27th, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated as she left a rally for the Pakistan Peoples Party. The Opposition leader's death is a major news story since many observers predict it could spell uncertainty for Pakistan's future.

While almost all news outlets gave the story breaking news coverage, the public radio station WNYC in New York decided to to go ahead with a one-day fundraiser that day.

FishbowlNY, the media news and gossip blog, clipped a couple angry listener comments from WNYC's message board and ran a story with the title, "WNYC Listeners Fume Over Fundraising That Interrupts Bhutto Coverage."

One comment from a listener named Evan Robinson puts it this way:

I too am shocked and dismayed at WNYC's continuing the pledge drive during this tragic and important event. The WNYC I used to know was the one that suspended a pledge drive when Leonard Bernstein passed away. The management at that time recognized the importance of the event to the culture, the city and the world, and saw fit to honor an important figure rather than beg for money. Laura Walker owes all of WNYC's listeners an apology for such a crass demonstration.

Even if Evan's comments are a bit over the top, the reaction does highlight the difficult decision all fundraisers face when major news events or natural disasters interrupt our campaign plans.

Charity uses efficiency rating to solicit funds

Meghan Goss, blog editor at the Humane Society of the United States, emailed me last week with this note:

I thought you might be interested in today’s blog entry from Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. He writes about animal protection’s role in philanthropy and discusses the options available to donors for evaluating charities.

The blog points out HSUS's four-star rating from Charity Navigator as well as explaining how they pride themselves on being effective advocates and demonstrating a return on donors' investments.

AFP asks Congress to ban percentage-based fundraising

The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) has a Code of Ethics that specifically bans the practice of percentage-based fundraising. They consider the practice unethical and have developed a position paper outlining why it hurts the industry.

Last week, the AFP went even further by calling on Congress to ban the practice.

On Thursday, Dec. 13, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing that examined the fundraising and spending habits of charities that serve veterans.

“If you examine the charities that have extremely high fundraising costs, including several of the groups highlighted during the hearing, you’ll almost always find that these organizations pay their fundraising firms on a percentage basis,” says Paulette V. Maehara, CFRE, CAE, president and CEO. “The one single reform proposal that would make the most difference in stopping fraud and strengthening public trust in the charitable sector would be for Congress to ban percentage-based fundraising.”

The AFP maintains that percentage based fundraising is unethical because:

* charitable mission becomes secondary to personal gain
* donor trust can be unalterably damaged
* there is incentive for self-dealing to prevail over donors' best interests
* the very philanthropic values on which the voluntary sector is based are undermined.

Even if you agree, do you think asking Congress to ban the practice is the right thing to do?

Did the credit crisis kill Santa Claus?

Back in August when the sub prime housing bubble sparked a sell-off in the stock market, the New York Sun wrote an article asking if year-end fundraising would get caught in the downdraft.

"The credit crisis and the stock market turmoil are having a preliminary impact on the nonprofit sector and concern is growing that fund-raising could be hurt if the downturn continues to gain steam."

Yet before fundraisers could blink, the market rallied and stocks hit multi-year highs in the early fall and everything seemed fine again.

And then November happened. Investors began to see that the impacts of the housing "bubble" were beginning to spread and infect consumer spending. Huge financial institutions began to write off billions of dollars in bad debt. As a result, the stock market appears poised for another precipitous decline - one that could threaten to wipe out most of the gains from 2007 in the Dow and the S&P index.

If stocks suffer, year-end bonuses will suffer, and therefore, year-end giving will also suffer.

I know some fundraisers who dug out that newspaper article from August and are already preparing their excuses in case they don't hit their year end numbers. I've joked before about creating a major donor fundraiser anxiety index and selling it to the guys on Wall Street who would use it as a leading market indicator of consumer confidence.

Fundraisers don't need Morgan Stanley to tell them that the country will enter a recession in 2008... the smart development directors see it happening already.

Two more articles on Monday finally confirmed for me that Santa Claus might be having trouble making his adjustable rate jumbo mortgage and therefore won't be bringing many year-end presents.

First, MasterCard announced that sales of women’s clothing, a traditional pillar of the holiday shopping season, are unusually bleak so far this year. "From high-end dresses to bargain coats, spending on women’s apparel dropped nearly 6 percent during the first half of the Christmas season, compared with the same period last year."

The second ominous sign came from Tracie McMillan who published an article on MSNBC this morning profiling the fundraising worries at the National Wildlife Federation where fears of a donor drain have made it difficult to replace departing benefactors.

Bill Levis, the author of a new pilot survey by the Urban Institute that documents the trend. Levis’ survey shows that most nonprofits post an average gain of just 10 percent each year: they lose 52 percent of their donations, which is then offset by a 62 percent gain in new or upgraded donations. In short, says Levis, nonprofits are losing almost as much as they’re gaining, pouring a river of money into a nearly open drain.

You could make an argument that different nonprofits have different fundraising structures. Some cash strapped organizations are dependant on aggressive short term revenue targets at the expense of growing a more sustainable long term donor value... but that misses the point.

If the economy is about to hit a recession, nonprofit fundraisers will be among the first to know it.

UPDATE: I can't imagine what it must be like to live in Manhattan and be surrounded by this shit all the time - but a Wall Street blog is reporting that Morgan Stanley and Bear Sterns are "much lower" than last years.

What if Google made a play at Guidestar

For years, Guidestar has been the accepted source for information on nonprofits. Sure, they make it a little difficult to get a .pdf of 990s from several years back... but if you (or your organization) has a login, it is has always been the "leading source of information."

In fact, recently they even launched a way to donate directly to your favorite nonprofit.

One reader emailed me over the weekend to say that she was searching for information on the American Red Cross and she was surprised to find this page on the Google Finance website. The profile contains a summary, top news stories, top staff listing, a simplified balance sheet, and a list of similar organizations.

I did a quick search and found several dozen other nonprofits... and I must admit... I never knew these pages existed.

Meanwhile, I saw Trent Stamp linked to an article by Ben Gose at the Chronicle of Philanthropy which reports:

Mark W. Everson, the former president of the American Red Cross, did not improperly use the charity’s money while having an affair with the head of a Red Cross chapter in Mississippi, the Red Cross has announced.

The review of Mr. Everson’s spending focused on travel costs and expense reports, according to Carrie Martin, a Red Cross spokeswoman. It was conducted by the charity’s office of investigations, compliance and ethics, under the direction of the general counsel.

“This was just a matter of due diligence,” Ms Martin said. “We started looking into this as soon as we heard the news. It’s a question that is immediately raised in any kind of situation like this, and the Red Cross has a responsibility to determine that there was no misuse of donor dollars.”

Interesting to note that the Chronicle dedicated not to publish Paige Roberts name.

The difference between philanthropy and fundraising

Most nonprofit development offices are divided so that the responsibility of working with low dollar donors is separated from the staff who cultivate corporation, foundations, and major donors.

I know some nonprofits that rely on big gifts from a small group of philanthropists in order to keep their doors open, however I personally feel better when an organization has hundreds (maybe thousands) of individual members who give provide many nonprofits with their mandate to exist.

Sure, one donor could write a $100,000 check and provide more operating assistance than 2,000 donors who give $50 each through direct mail. However, low dollar donors provide an important endorsement that the nonprofit's work matters. On the other side, all too often it can seem as if major donors are more interested in using their gift to avoid taxes on their wealth or to advance their own social status.

A long time reader sent me two links to the New York Times yesterday that reminded me of my personal fundraising bias:

Stephanie Strom writes about an I.R.S. investigation of the Maddox Foundation of Hernando, Miss. who agreed to transfer millions of dollars in assets to the Dan and Margaret Maddox Charitable Trust in Nashville, TN.

Tennessee went to court in an effort to bring the foundation’s assets back to the state after its directors moved it to Mississippi without seeking court approval. It argued that Dan Maddox, who left more than $100 million when he and his wife died in a freakish boating accident in 1998, had little connection to Mississippi and had intended that the bulk of the money be used for charities in Tennessee.

After the move, the foundation began paying Robin G. Costa, its president and the executor of Mr. Maddox’s estate, handsomely and covering a variety of her travel expenses. The foundation bought a minor league hockey team and an Arena Football League team, contending that the purchases were charitable in nature because they encouraged local economic development.

Charles Isherwood writes a piece about the graffiti of the philanthropic class after visiting the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington and finding names on everything. He observes:

But once upon a time a discreet collective plaque or a name in the program seemed to suffice. We live now in a different age. Celebrity has become a luxury product like any other, and the wealthy can purchase a tasteful morsel of the respectable kind through charitable largess.
I'm sure some bloggers like Phil at the GiftHub or Sean at Tactical Philanthropy could offer different opinions of this difference between fundraising and philanthropy. I'm also curious what others think.

(Photo credit to Stephanie Kuykendal for The New York Times.)

Will Red Cross scandal impact fundraising?

Stephanie Strom at the New York Times adds more to the Red Cross story. She reports that Suzy C. DeFrancis, chief public affairs officer for the Red Cross, was told that there had been no threat of a lawsuit. The article also writes:

Since he joined the Red Cross at the end of May, Mr. Everson had traveled around the country, visiting chapters and blood services operations and courting donors. He set ambitious fund-raising targets and, in a conversation about eight weeks ago, said he was concerned about declining donations.

There is also a quote from Trent Stamp at Charity Navigator who said, “This will affect fund-raising, organizational morale and public trust in this organization, which is already dangerously low."