If I had a nickel for every time I was asked if I’d work for a percentage of funds raised, I’d be a rich man. But fundraisers that have been in the field far longer than my measly 10 years have long been against this practice.
The idea appeals to the entrepreneur in me. There’s a great deal of common sense in getting paid for your performance. When I start a business, I’m only paid on what works.
But since 1964, the AFP consistently says it’s an unethical way to do fundraising. I’ve tried to explain it as a fear that I’ll take advantage of a little old lady, getting her to give more than she should, so that I can pay my mortage.
Not all fundraisers join AFP or agree that this is an ethical problem. But how many more stories of tele-fundraisers that keep 70% – 80% of the donations they take in for fraternal police organizations and other charities do we need to hear before we agree there are abuses?
Now, according to the blog Don’t Tell the Donor, the AFP is trying to get this percentage injunction banned by Congress. According to the post:
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.
What do you think? Should Congress ban this practice?
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how charities can in good conscience sign these 80% deals!
I am fine with it as an AFP policy. I think it is a good idea to discourage the practice.
However I don’t think it is in any fundraisers best interest(or Charity for that matter) to ask for government to start to regulate fundraisers.
In fact the only institution that would benefit from government regulating fundraisers would be AFP itself.
I don’t think AFP has bad intentions with promoting this as public policy but I fear they will get a bad result.
-Chaz
I’m not so sure that Congress should step in and render illegal what one professional group calls unethical. That said, I think the call for legislation is a smart move by AFP, since fundraisers on the up-and-up are at risk of getting slimed thanks to the shady practices of the bad guys.
Good question! I wonder if the companies that do the sales are misleading when they make the proposal.
I have also heard well-meaning people make comments like “some donations are better than no donations.” So perhaps that is the kind of misguided thinking that leads them to sign up for the programs.
Maybe a percentage limit should be in the law rather than an out and out ban. Then that would outlaw these kind of extremes, where companies are taking advantage of both the charity and the public.
I am in agreement with you – NO COMMISSIONS! Just the other day a friend who is negotiating a job with a nonprofit and whose responsibilities include fundraising was asking about this.
It’s okay and even expected that someone’s supervisor has dollar goals for you and can use results to assess performance, but it’s definitely a Bozo nono to pay for performance or give a cut of the bacon.
Thanks everyone! These comments got hung up in my blog system somehow.
Chaz: I’m not in favor of government regulation either!
Tom & Sandra: I like the idea of weeding out the extremes. But that begs the question…what’s extreme?
Tom & Chaz: I hadn’t thought of how odd it could be to have one group setting laws for all fundraisers. But special interest groups seems to be how the US gov’t works, doesn’t it?
Howard: Interesting point. Dollar goals need to be assessed but in a way that isn’t commissioned based.
Thanks for playing you guys!
HI ALL, SOME VERY INTERESTING COMMENTS I’m just about to start a fundraiser for a hospital association of volunteers I’m asking for 20% of what I collect,out of this I pay my marketing people and tv ads and en up with 8% take in for me. Am I asking too much?