There Are Many Ways to Recycle Goods

To the Editor:

In their article “Growth in Donated-Goods Programs Worries Some Long-Time Recipients,” Stephen G. Greene and Grant Williams apparently take a dim view of any charity that raises money by selling recyclables to a profit-making company with established retail channels.

The article implies that only those charities that maintain their own storefronts and distribution channels are returning a fair share of money to charitable work and casts doubt on every charity that doesn’t raise money according to the model the authors endorse.

The Big Brother/Big Sister Foundation of Boston was created in 1996 to augment existing fund-raising efforts of the Big Brother and Big Sister Associations. The foundation collects donations of recyclable clothing and household items and sells them to Savers Thrift Department Store. Since its inception, the foundation has raised more than $350,000 for Big Brother and Big Sister.

Why was it formed? Simply because, despite our success in finding mentors for children, we still have more than 1,000 children on waiting lists just in greater Boston alone. It is disturbing to read in your publication that our efforts to raise money to help these children are somehow suspect.

Every charity that raises money by collecting and selling recyclables has a cost of doing business. Some choose to go it alone with an expensive, vertically integrated model in which they own and control every aspect of the business, from collection through distribution and sale. That model requires you to buy or rent storefronts, pay for utilities, marketing, staffing, etc. All of these costs reduce the amount of money returned to charitable endeavors.

Other charities, like the Big Brother/Big Sister Foundation, keep the low-cost part of the op eration — collection — in-house but outsource the expensive part — distribution and sales — by selling through existing retail channels. Charities like ours have rejected the vertically integrated business model precisely because it is too expensive. We chose our model because it allows us to return more money to charitable endeavors, not less.

Some people see it as unfortunate that more and more charities are competing to raise money in support of a wide variety of causes. Certainly, it is a cause of concern when government cuts funding of social-services programs and that causes a sharp rise in demand for private charitable services. But the fact that charities are becoming more creative in their fund raising and service delivery should be cause for celebration.

Sure, there will be more competition for charitable dollars. But this is not a zero-sum game. Today, the United States enjoys the strongest economy in a generation. And yet many Americans still give surprisingly little to charity. They represent a vast, untapped market from which we will find our future contributors, volunteers, and mentors.

Yes, charities will continue to compete. But we don’t have to do it by questioning each other’s motives. There are plenty of worthy causes, and lots of untapped territory for fund raising. We should be focusing our energy on that.

Jerry Martinson
President
The Big Brother/Big Sister Foundation
Quincy, Mass