Lackluster Fund Raising? Charity Muffs May Be the Reason

To the Editor:

With charities reporting lackluster fund raising and blaming it on a tough economy, I thought I’d add my 2 cents’ worth about what I experienced when I was doing my estate planning.

About two years ago, I decided it was time I drew up a will. I had been a steady contributor to several different charities, three of which appear in The Chronicle‘s Philanthropy 400. Most of them had from time to time encouraged me to “remember us in your will” and to contact them before I did so for proper wording of my bequest and additional information. I contacted them, and four sent me booklets, glossy brochures, and details about how I could be recognized once I let them know I had actually included them in my estate. One even included a sample letter that I could follow to let it know it was included.

I included these four in my will and notified them as they requested, and then the misery began. One of them, which I had contributed to monthly and which had included the sample letter as to how to notify them, stopped sending me monthly reminders or any other correspondence. Maybe it misunderstood my notification and thought I was already dead. After writing the group a couple of times over several months, the charity finally “brought me back to life” in its computer system and resumed regular mailings. No acknowledgment was received that I had remembered them in my will until many more months had passed, when I got a letter from the director of the charity, who said he had “just found out” that I had named the group in my will. My “recognition”? He included a bookmark in his thank-you letter.

Charity No. 2 apparently realized I was still alive, but that I had apparently cloned myself. I started getting triplicate mailings of everything. It at least was prompt in acknowledging my bequest, but then this one, having various categories of contributors depending on the amount of yearly donations, moved me “down a notch” in terms of my contributor status — even though I was still contributing the same amount as before and had now included the group in my will.

Charity No. 3 was the worst. When I let the group know that I had included it in my will, the charity indicated that it already “knew” that. This knowledge, the group claimed, was based on “several conversations” I had had with its development person. The only conversations I had had with the group were ones it had initiated to thank me for my contributions. Those calls came from volunteers, and they read straight from the script. No mention by those callers (and certainly not by me) was made about my estate plans.

Charity No. 4 did exactly what it had said it would do. It thanked me promptly, included me in a special society of donors, and has kept me abreast of special events open to those who have included the charity in their estate plans.

The bottom line of all this? Charities need to be sure that they keep their word to their donors. If they don’t have the staff or resources to keep their promises, they shouldn’t make them.

I have given to these charities and put them in my will because of the good they do, not in expectation of any praise or recognition while I’m still in the “land of the living.” However, since the charities themselves were the ones that told me to let them know that I remembered them, they should have kept their promise, and done so in a timely fashion. I admit that it has made me wonder as to the efficiency of their internal operations, but again, for the undoubted good they do, I’m keeping most of them in my will. However, there is no excuse for a charity to lie, and the one that insisted it had “phantom” phone calls with me has already been removed from my will.

So all you charities out there, big and small, examine yourselves before you automatically blame the economy or some other outside “bogeyman.” Perhaps your own ineptness in dealing with some of your regular contributors is the cause.

Patrick Kleaver
St. Louis