Recognizing the Best of the Worst in Fund Raising and Philanthropy

This is the time of year when awards are given for best movies, best books, best plays, best dressed, and, for all I know, best cab drivers in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Chapters of the National Society of Fund Raising Executives all over the country have already conferred their “best of the year” awards to many deserving folks in philanthropy, but no one has yet given out awards for the worst practices in philanthropy.

So, I’ve taken it upon myself to create such an award. Since there already are the Oscars, let’s call these the Irvings.

And now, without further ado, fanfare, drum roll, sealed envelopes, or the talents of Billy Crystal, I present the first annual Irving Awards to those deserving few who have achieved great distinction by eroding the best practices — and often the very essence — of philanthropy.

Worst euphemism: The award goes to the phrase “strategic philanthropy.” Time and again, the corporate policy that goes by that name has shown absolutely no connection to philanthropy. It’s really all about that other great euphemism, “bottom line”: that is, corporate profits, or, What’s in it for us? Close runners-up include “institutional advancement” and “telemarketing.”

Worst use of sound in pursuit of unsuspecting donors: The winners are the folks who make your phone ring right in the middle of dinner to pitch a cause you’ve never heard of. In their zeal to save money for their “charity,” the dinner interrupters say they don’t want to waste postage by sending a brochure about the cause but will be happy to provide the address where you can send a check. A few are so helpful that they will even take your pledge and credit-card number.

Worst fund-raising fad: The award goes to the ubiquitous, incessant, any-charity-can-use-it program that allows you to “donate” your used car (or truck, or tractor, or anything that rolls). In exchange, you get rid of the clunker, and the I.R.S. will give you a handsome tax deduction for your “philanthropic” act. But why do I have the uneasy feeling that what looks like a duck and sounds like a duck must be a duck, with a possible I.R.S. audit in its bill?

Worst special event/environmental disaster: The award goes to the Swedish non-profit group whose rubber ducks, during a charity duck race, were swallowed by predator fish. The fish died and were washed ashore. With luck, maybe the idea will die, too.

Best effort to malign fund raising: A tie between the Democratic and Republican Parties. The continuous attention the press paid to their dubious fund-raising schemes unfairly brought discredit to an entire profession of legitimate non-profit professional fund raisers. The politicians also planted doubt in the minds of many donors to worthwhile programs who may now decide not to give because they think all fund raisers must be scoundrels.

Worst fund-raising tactic: Sending unordered products and premiums in the hope that people will send back a contribution to pay for the stuff. Some groups will also send follow-up reminders that payments for the products haven’t yet been received. The psychological guilt trips they lay upon folks must work often enough, because charities keep doing it. After all, who can resist a personalized sheet of return-address stickers featuring pictures of rain bows and little pink bunnies, even if the organizations do misspell your name? Throwing them away is stealing, right?

Best use of makeup to mask a hidden business motive: The award goes to the companies that say they will contribute 3 cents (or whatever) to a charity if you buy their product. But of course they don’t tell you that they wouldn’t even dream about giving 3 cents (or whatever) to a charity if you didn’t buy their product.

Worst editing: The reporters, editors, and publishers of newspapers and magazines across the country who are quick to report any fund-raising scandal but who don’t have the time, energy, or space to cover the millions of good deeds that are performed, unnoticed, every day of every year by a mostly underpaid, dedicated group of professionals. Such selective coverage provides all the more reason to applaud the good deeds — and to challenge questionable practices that detract from the field.

Irving Warner, author of The Art of Fund Raising and a fund-raising consultant in Los Angeles, is a regular contributor to these pages. His e-mail address is irwarner@ earthlink.net.