LA Philanthropy Watch

Yesterday LA Philanthropy Watch linked to a Charity Navigator post (”Tips, Tips And More Tips For Funding Haiti Earthquake Relief Efforts”) that included – among a number of sensible suggestions – this injunction: “Designate Your Investment – Generally, it is best to trust your chosen charity to spend your donation as it sees fit. But with disaster related giving, you should specify that you want your donation only used to respond to this particular crisis.”

Felix Salmon offers thoughtful dissent from this advice, suggesting that it is best – even with disaster related giving – to trust your chosen charity.  He notes that because of logistical “bottlenecks and obstacles involved in getting aid to Haitians who need it,” effective charities, which responsibly earmark donated funds, may not be able to spend funds earmarked for Haiti for many years.

He links to this message on the Doctors Without Borders website:

“We are incredibly grateful for the generous support from our donors for the emergency in Haiti.
MSF has been working in Haiti for 19 years, most recently operating three emergency hospitals in Port-au-Prince, and is mobilizing a large emergency response to this disaster. Our immediate response in the first hours following the disaster in Haiti was only possible because of private unrestricted donations from around the world received before the earthquake struck. We are currently reinforcing our teams on the ground in order to respond to the immediate medical needs and to assess the humanitarian needs that MSF will be addressing in the months ahead.
We are now asking our donors to give to our Emergency Relief Fund. These types of funds ensure that our medical teams can react to the Haiti emergency and humanitarian crises all over the world, particularly neglected crises that remain outside the media spotlight. Your gift via this website will be earmarked for our Emergency Relief Fund.”

Salmon continues: “The last time there was a disaster on this scale was the Asian tsunami, five years ago. And for all its best efforts, the Red Cross has still only spent 83% of its $3.21 billion tsunami budget — which means that it has over half a billion dollars left to spend. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s money which could be spent in Haiti, if it weren’t for the fact that it was earmarked.”

So, disregard the unfortunate headline on Salmon’s post (”Don’t give money to Haiti”), but take his advice:

• Do give to a trustworthy charity because of the tragedy in Haiti and because you want to help.
• Continue to give afterwords because other less-publicized disasters are equally tragic.
• But do not earmark your gift for the current disaster in Haiti.

Finally, for anyone who has read this far, you might wish to click on Salmon’s post to review the red flags about Yele, which lead him to conclude,  “Yele is not the soundest of charitable institutions.”

(Image of national and official flag of Haiti via Wikimedia Commons.)

Would you like to help? KPCC 89.3 FM has a number of links on Haiti Earthquake Relief.

Charity Navigator’s blog has several posts on giving wisely:

• Do your homework first – to avoid scams and telemarketers, find established charities, and evaluate email and social media appeals.
• Beware of scam charities – “… unfortunately, crisis situations … bring out the worst in some people.”  – and -
• Are text donations safe? Again: do your homework.

Finally, a couple of stories on humanitarian relief efforts coming out of Los Angeles:

“Search-and-rescue teams from Fairfax County, Va., and Los Angeles County, Calif., made up of members of Fire Fighters (IAFF) locals 2068 and 1014, are already in Haiti to aid in the rescue efforts. Other teams are likely to follow.” – from the AFL-CIO Now blog.

“March Air Reserve Base became a hub for Southern California’s Haiti earthquake relief effort when a team of approximately 75 U.S. Agency for International Development personnel reported to the base Jan. 13, for transportation to Port-au-Prince, Haiti.“  – from the official website of the U.S. Air Force.

A report from Molly on Rocketboom: Daily Internet Culture.

Over ten years ago Victor Dorff, clutching a thick stack of mail, observed that there were more solicitations for charitable organizations than anything else.  Reflecting on the wastefulness of direct mail (see my previous post), and all the trees felled to keep the mail coming, he thought, “There has be a better way to do this.”

Lisa Sonne, Victor’s wife and co-founder of Charity Checks, recalls their question, “Why don’t we have a universal charitable giving certificate?”  An idea was born: Charity Checks.

Essentially a Charity Check is a gift certificate – which can be redeemed at any of the roughly 1 million nonprofit organizations in the U.S.

Back in the day – the late ’90s – it was not unheard of to receive, in lieu of a gift (on a birthday, at Christmas, or on another special occasion), a card that said something to the effect: A gift has been given in your name to the Surfrider Foundation.  (You can still do this, of course.)  And that was (and is) a wonderful way to support the environment and to involve a friend or family member in giving. But, what if the recipient of the gift doesn’t share the giver’s passion for Surfrider Foundation?  What if s/he happens to have a commitment to another philanthropic cause?

When Charity Checks giving certificates are given as gifts, recipients can give to any nonprofit – 501(c)(3) – of their choice.  Not just the giver’s favorite group, not just organizations from a select list, but any nonprofit organization in the country.  Just complete the ‘Pay to the Order Of’ line on the Charity Checks giving certificate and send it to the charity of your choice.  The charity can deposit the giving certificate (as they would any other donation check) and put the funds to use right away.  It’s that simple.

Since Charity Checks is a nonprofit organization, purchases of their charitable giving certificates are tax-deductible.  Some people purchase the giving certificates for themselves because they don’t wish to receive solicitations by mail during the year.  They send the giving certificates anonymously to the charities of their choice, get their tax deduction through Charity Checks, and shrink the stack of mail solicitations they receive.

Some people like to give now, but decide later.  “Some people like to make donations this year by December 31 and get the tax receipt, but then choose their charities next year when they have more time.  Or use their drawer full of Charity Checks for gifts in the New Year – birthdays, graduations, and special occasions as they occur,” said Ms. Sonne.  “We call it ‘pre-paid philanthropy.’  One tax receipt, multiple options.”

Here’s the most astonishing feature of Charity Checks: there are no administrative fees.  They simply ask donors to cover mailing costs.  (PayPal charges a credit card fee for transactions completed online, but Charity Checks doesn’t take a cut for reimbursement like some groups or add additional processing fees.)  When you purchase a Charity Checks giving certificate for $25 or $100 or whatever you wish, every cent of the check goes to the nonprofit of your choice.

How do Mr. Dorff and Ms. Sonne manage this?  It’s a labor of love inspired by a spirit of charity. The expenses they incur are recovered whenever a supporter makes a contribution to Charity Checks.

The  Dorff/Sonne family has also developed charitable literacy programs at schools in the region.  A sponsor purchases giving certificates for students, who learn about the world of nonprofits, do research on charities, and chose an organization to support.

Finally, a quick story – a ‘6 degrees of separation’ tale (or perhaps 2 degrees in this instance) – about how the idea for universal giving certificates transformed into an actual nonprofit organization.  A family friend, a landscape architect who worked for Scott Cook (co-founder of Intuit), offered to deliver a package of materials to him.  After reviewing the materials, Mr. Cook decided that he’d like to try out the idea.  In what was essentially a pilot program, he purchased 42 giving certificates for senior executives at Intuit.  He made the gifts and his executives selected their charities.  Everything worked without a hitch and Charity Checks was on its way.

I learned about Charity Checks when Lisa Sonne posted a comment on “A Look at Charitable Giving As a Tough Year Comes to an End.”   A follow-up phone call led to an engaging conversation and her story about the inspiration for and history of Charity Checks.

As we race toward the New Year, there is still time in the current tax year to make charitable contributions via Charity Checks.

Charity Navigator had a recent post about a donor who collected all the charitable solicitations he received by mail in one year (from December 1, 2008 through November 30, 2009): The total – from just 14 nonprofits – was 181 pieces of mail.  Each charity wrote him at least 8 times during the year; one organization sent him 24 appeals.

The post doesn’t advise us how often the donor responded with a check or credit card gift.

Here’s a link to a 4-minute video from Charitable Navigator on five steps you can take to limit the number of solicitations you receive.

’Tis  the season for charitable giving – from Thanksgiving through the end of the year – for many Americans.  The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Prospecting blog reported last month on a poll [PDF] commissioned by the American Red Cross, which revealed that nearly one in four Americans (23%) said their salaries or work hours had decreased because of the economy in 2009.  Fourteen percent were laid off from a job and 41% lost money in the stock market.

It was a tough year, but 89% of Americans plan to donate to charity this holiday season.  Two thirds (67%) say that because of the economy, it is more important to give something to charity this year and 59% said donating to charity helps you get into the spirit of the season.   Americans are more likely to cut back on travel (44%), holiday decorations (40%), parties (31%), and holiday gifts to friends and family (29%) this year, than to economize on charitable giving (only 20%).

Eighty percent of respondents agreed that involving children in giving to charity helps them understand what the holidays are all about.

The American Red Cross survey also reported that 52% of Americans planned to make a gift by check, while only 16% planned to make a gift online at the charity’s website.  Convio, a fund raising software company, commissioned a survey suggesting that while far more people send checks than donate online, the charity’s website influenced charitable giving.  Overall, according the Convio poll (via Prospecting), the organization’s website had the single greatest influence on their charitable giving – regardless of how they made their gift – 44%. This was followed by “word of mouth” – 40%. Convio’s analysts estimated that $4 billion will be donated online during the holidays.

The November 30 Christian Science Monitor suggested that charitable giving, which declined in 2008, could decline even more in 2009.  (Link via Philanthropy Today.)

“If history is any guide, easy times for charities won’t return soon. Looking at individual giving after the Depression and the deep 1973-75 recession, a study by GivingUSA concluded that inflation-adjusted giving by households and individuals won’t reach their 2007 level until at least 2012, if the recession ended in June.”

Finally, another poll reported on by Philanthropy Today, this one commissioned by World Vision (a Seattle-based nonprofit), revealed that although overall charitable giving may decline this year, 79% of Americans say they plan to increase their charitable giving when the economy improves.

“The following provocative video, ‘Saving Philanthropy,’ makes the case for charities to measure their outcomes and for foundations to fund such analysis.” – from Charity Navigator, Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Yes, it’s provocative.  That part worked.  Check it out for yourself.  I was going to excerpt a number of quotes, but this is a blog post, so I’ll focus just on the sequence in the first 44 seconds of the clip.

“In 2008 philanthropic giving is the U.S. totaled $300 billion. …And listen to this: From 1995 to 2005 the number of foundations in the U.S. increased by 77%.”

With that setup, we get to the point – with a sharp thrust:

“With so many resources directed at solving our social issues, why do they seem to be getting worse, instead of better?”

I know this is a movie trailer, not a reasoned discussion from a philosophical treatise.  And maybe it will sell tickets.  But isn’t this especially grating?

That brief quote brings to mind another quotation, which appeared in this blog on July 22, 2009 – this one critical, not of philanthropy, but of government:

“The hundreds of billions of dollars that the government transfers every year to alleviate social problems have not solved the problem of poverty; government does not do it well, and often the act of subsidizing poverty has the unfortunate effect of exacerbating rather than ameliorating it.”

This is a subterfuge!  Yes, the government has transferred “hundreds of billions of dollars” to “alleviate social problems,” but the objection that these dollars “have not solved the problem of poverty” is disingenuous.  Social Security and Medicare – landmark social legislation from decades past, have pulled generations of senior citizens out of poverty.  Millions of Americans are better off than they would be otherwise, even though poverty still exists.

The same can be said of philanthropy.  To the question, “…why do [social issues] seem to be getting worse, instead of better?” my reply is: In what world?  Cranks of every generation bemoan the rapid and inexorable slide of social mores and morality because of the dissolution of the younger generation.  (Alternatively, younger generations often lift up the mantle of idealism and enlightenment to castigate their elders.)  The campaign for sound and effective “social investing” has a point – but its proponents often come across a bit like cranks.

It is slanderous to pretend, and cannot be supported unless one picks and chooses unrepresentative issues, that “things are getting worse….”  It is even more insupportable to contend that things are getting worse because of our efforts to make them better.  Yes, hundreds of billions of dollars of philanthropy (and government) funding have not eliminated poverty or banished all social problems.  But, sometimes, that isn’t the point.

There’s a parable, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

But sometimes a man is hungry.  And when we give to the local food bank, we don’t expect to solve the problem of poverty.  We expect to help feed a hungry person or a family.

And it’s somewhat perverse to think of that when we make a gift, the beneficial outcome is a “return on the investment.”

Click here for the video.

On December 1, LA Philanthropy Watch linked to a story in the Houston Chronicle about charity toy drives that distribute gifts to needy children at Christmas.  The paper reported that some Houston charities were checking immigration status before registering children to receive presents.

On December 2, I updated the post with a report that the charities (which included the Houston Salvation Army) denied that they were discriminating against children, explaining that they required identification (including Social Security numbers) just to avoid fraud.

Now KABC is reporting that after protests outside a Salvation Army store in Los Angeles, the Salvation Army has announced that it will no longer use Social Security numbers when registering children for toy drives.  Click here for a video report on KABC (via Think Progress).

(The Ejército de Salvación sign is displayed at a Salvation Army facility on Hollywood Boulevard.)

“They don’t claim to know who’s naughty or nice, but some Houston charities are asking whether children are in the country legally before giving them toys.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that some charities are asking for children’s birth certificates or Social Security numbers before registering them to receive presents collected in toy drives by firefighters, police officers, churches, schools and other groups.   Houston charities were split on this issue.

“When you distribute toys to 10,000 to 12,000 kids, it’s impossible to background (check) every child,” the article quotes the Houston police officer who oversees the Blue Santa program – which does not consider immigration status; instead, it collects names from police officers, schools, and churches.

Making a list, checking it twice …

Most of the groups required registration for children to receive gifts – from a Houston ministry (with 686 kids registered) to the Salvation Army (with 30,000 children signed up).  Registration, even for groups that didn’t require proof that at least one parent was a U.S. citizen, required a child’s identification (such as a birth certificate or photo id.); some groups required proof of income as well.

Some charities relied on recommendations from other groups or lists from other sources – such as children of families that receive food stamps or Medicaid.

In some instances, all children in a family were deemed eligible to receive gifts if they had at least one sibling who was a citizen.

H/t: Yglesias.

(Photo of toys at a FEMA field office, headed for Houston in 2008 after Hurricane Ike struck the South Texas Gulf Coast, from Wikimedia.)

Update 1 – December 2: In a follow up story in today’s Houston Chronicle, two charities deny an earlier report that they use immigration status to determine whether or not children receive Christmas gifts, saying “their intentions have been misunderstood.”  They now explain that they require identification (birth certificates, Social Security numbers,  or documents indicating immigration status) only to deter fraud.  As noted below, some groups require registrants to provide proof of income as well.

“We have to be good stewards,” a spokesman for the Salvation Army explained.

Editor’s Note: I posted this story yesterday without commentary because I thought the irony spoke for itself.  Today I’ll offer a comment: the logistical challenges of making a list of 30,000 needy youngsters and distributing Christmas presents to each of them are formidable.  I find it easy to accept this appeal to good stewardship, which is consistent with the best of intentions and a genuine spirit of giving.

Thanks to Philanthropy Today for alerting me to the follow up story.

Update 2 – December 4: See this post, which reports that following protests in Los Angeles, the Salvation Army will no longer ask for Social Security numbers when registering children for toy drives.