1. In August in Atlanta, televangelist Thomas Weeks was arrested for allegedly beating up and threatening to kill his estranged wife, televangelist Juanita Bynum, in a hotel parking lot before a bellman rescued her. (Weeks blamed Satan for the incident.) [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8-27-07]
2. Pastor Walter Steen pleaded guilty in Detroit in August to tax fraud and was sentenced to 15 months in prison. He had started the God Will Provide Tax Service in 2005, but prosecutors said 1,573 out of the 1,578 returns he prepared for clients claimed tax refunds. [Detroit News, 8-2-07]
3. Led by California, more than one dozen states are preparing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for its dismal record on regulating greenhouse gas emissions. N.Y. Governor Eliot Spitzer has called for states to “step into a void created by a failure of federal action” and denial of the “scientific evidence” about global warming. States are hoping to remove EPA obstacles that limit the states’ ability to regulate emissions standards. (NY Times)
Showing posts with label world vision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world vision. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
What in the world?
1. Man Acquitted of Feeding Homeless People
Orlando: 22-year-old Eric Montanez was acquitted of charges brought against him for feeding the homeless through the volunteer organization Food Not Bombs (FNB). The city said he violated a city ordinance that bans feeding a large group of people.
The law, passed in 2006, requires a permit for feeding 25 or more people in downtown parks. Police sent in undercover officers to count the number of times he gave someone stew, and even took some of it in a vial as evidence after moving in on him.
Other cities have or are trying to pass similar laws as a way to drive out the homeless, but many are blasting the move, calling it inhumane. Taking soup lines to parks gives it more exposure to a thoughtless city, said FNB co-founder Keith McHenry.
2. The Tata Group, a Mumbai, India, company that handles customer-service calls for several U.S. firms, has outsourced some of its work to a firm in Ohio (according to an August Fortune magazine report), on behalf of a client that insists on operators knowledgeable about American geography. [CNN, 8-3-07]
3. A charity foundation's former accountant accused of embezzling heart disease research funds to pay a dominatrix to beat him pleaded guilty Tuesday to grand larceny and admitted he stole more than $US237,000 ($A336,576).
Abraham Alexander, 45, a native of India, admitted taking the money from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation by using company credit cards and writing cheques to himself.
At least $US11,000 went to pay Through the Looking Glass, an online company run by a Columbus, Ohio-based dominatrix, and other charges included flights between New York and Ohio and car rentals, according to District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's office.
2.
Orlando: 22-year-old Eric Montanez was acquitted of charges brought against him for feeding the homeless through the volunteer organization Food Not Bombs (FNB). The city said he violated a city ordinance that bans feeding a large group of people.
The law, passed in 2006, requires a permit for feeding 25 or more people in downtown parks. Police sent in undercover officers to count the number of times he gave someone stew, and even took some of it in a vial as evidence after moving in on him.
Other cities have or are trying to pass similar laws as a way to drive out the homeless, but many are blasting the move, calling it inhumane. Taking soup lines to parks gives it more exposure to a thoughtless city, said FNB co-founder Keith McHenry.
2. The Tata Group, a Mumbai, India, company that handles customer-service calls for several U.S. firms, has outsourced some of its work to a firm in Ohio (according to an August Fortune magazine report), on behalf of a client that insists on operators knowledgeable about American geography. [CNN, 8-3-07]
3. A charity foundation's former accountant accused of embezzling heart disease research funds to pay a dominatrix to beat him pleaded guilty Tuesday to grand larceny and admitted he stole more than $US237,000 ($A336,576).
Abraham Alexander, 45, a native of India, admitted taking the money from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation by using company credit cards and writing cheques to himself.
At least $US11,000 went to pay Through the Looking Glass, an online company run by a Columbus, Ohio-based dominatrix, and other charges included flights between New York and Ohio and car rentals, according to District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's office.
2.
Monday, July 16, 2007
From Don't Tell the Donor
My comments are imbedded italics
Canadian newspaper targets charities for alleged "commission" based fundraising
Almost seven months after The Toronto Star took credit for shutting down MADD Canada's fundraising program, the "investigative" newspaper is claiming responsibility for the fact that Sick Kids Foundation and World Vision Canada "have admitted to using a discredited fundraising technique and are moving swiftly to clean up their act."
Both charities have long told the public and the federal regulator that only flat fees were paid to fundraisers who knocked on doors. The Star investigated and found commissions or "success payments" have been paid for years.
Sick Kids and World Vision now say they were duped by a fundraising company that promised it would never pay commissions.( if these two mega charities are claiming ignorance or that they weren't doing their due diligence then this is even more serious)The reporter uses the term "commission" as a rhetorical device to outrage donors. The truth is - there is a difference between a flat fee and a percentage commission. In this case, we're talking about $180 per new monthly donor.
Both charities were using a large, British-based international company called Fundraising Initiatives Inc., which has a client list (past and present) of about 50 Canadian charities. It's not known how many are also paying commissions. ( we should know and CRA should investigate)
Top executives at Sick Kids and World Vision are blaming FII, saying the contract signed with the fundraiser states that doorknockers are only to be paid either a flat fee for each "presentation" at a home (in Sick Kids' case), or either hourly wages or per presentation (World Vision).
The Star found out that after FII signs its contract with a charity, it then hires subcontractors to knock on doors and pays them only for a successful donor sign-up. A source with intimate knowledge of the FII-subcontractor set-up confirmed this.
If either charity is breaking even on its fundraising costs within 12 months - they are doing better than most. Show me a direct marketing donor acquisition program that is breaking even in less than 12 months (let alone sooner) and I'll show you a fundraiser that deserves a raise.( Most reputable charities have recognized the futility and risks of door knocking direct marketing and abandoned it altogether)
In fact, I believe the fundraisers at both Sick Kids Foundation and World Vision Canada would be extremely smart to negotiate a contract that fixes a set acquisition cost. Many fundraisers struggle with unpredictable direct mail, special events, or corporate partnership deals. A set commission per donor is a hedge against the risk
Now, I understand that both of these charities say that they agree with Imagine Canada's ethical fundraising code and that AFP also has a similar ban.
Sick Kids has signed Imagine Canada's ethical fundraising code, which bans commission fundraising. World Vision agrees with Imagine Canada's anti-commission fundraising stand but has not yet signed the code. The Association of Fundraising Professionals also has a code against commission fundraising. Sick Kids and World Vision agree with this code, and FII is a member of the fundraising association.
However, I don't think it's splitting hairs to say that if the intent is to protect donors, then I would rather support a group that has managed to contain its fundraising acquisition risk, rather than give to a group that may avoid "commissions," but pays twice as much to acquire a new donor. What do you think?
I think that the ends can not justify the means.
My comments are imbedded italics
Canadian newspaper targets charities for alleged "commission" based fundraising
Almost seven months after The Toronto Star took credit for shutting down MADD Canada's fundraising program, the "investigative" newspaper is claiming responsibility for the fact that Sick Kids Foundation and World Vision Canada "have admitted to using a discredited fundraising technique and are moving swiftly to clean up their act."
Both charities have long told the public and the federal regulator that only flat fees were paid to fundraisers who knocked on doors. The Star investigated and found commissions or "success payments" have been paid for years.
Sick Kids and World Vision now say they were duped by a fundraising company that promised it would never pay commissions.( if these two mega charities are claiming ignorance or that they weren't doing their due diligence then this is even more serious)The reporter uses the term "commission" as a rhetorical device to outrage donors. The truth is - there is a difference between a flat fee and a percentage commission. In this case, we're talking about $180 per new monthly donor.
Both charities were using a large, British-based international company called Fundraising Initiatives Inc., which has a client list (past and present) of about 50 Canadian charities. It's not known how many are also paying commissions. ( we should know and CRA should investigate)
Top executives at Sick Kids and World Vision are blaming FII, saying the contract signed with the fundraiser states that doorknockers are only to be paid either a flat fee for each "presentation" at a home (in Sick Kids' case), or either hourly wages or per presentation (World Vision).
The Star found out that after FII signs its contract with a charity, it then hires subcontractors to knock on doors and pays them only for a successful donor sign-up. A source with intimate knowledge of the FII-subcontractor set-up confirmed this.
If either charity is breaking even on its fundraising costs within 12 months - they are doing better than most. Show me a direct marketing donor acquisition program that is breaking even in less than 12 months (let alone sooner) and I'll show you a fundraiser that deserves a raise.( Most reputable charities have recognized the futility and risks of door knocking direct marketing and abandoned it altogether)
In fact, I believe the fundraisers at both Sick Kids Foundation and World Vision Canada would be extremely smart to negotiate a contract that fixes a set acquisition cost. Many fundraisers struggle with unpredictable direct mail, special events, or corporate partnership deals. A set commission per donor is a hedge against the risk
Now, I understand that both of these charities say that they agree with Imagine Canada's ethical fundraising code and that AFP also has a similar ban.
Sick Kids has signed Imagine Canada's ethical fundraising code, which bans commission fundraising. World Vision agrees with Imagine Canada's anti-commission fundraising stand but has not yet signed the code. The Association of Fundraising Professionals also has a code against commission fundraising. Sick Kids and World Vision agree with this code, and FII is a member of the fundraising association.
However, I don't think it's splitting hairs to say that if the intent is to protect donors, then I would rather support a group that has managed to contain its fundraising acquisition risk, rather than give to a group that may avoid "commissions," but pays twice as much to acquire a new donor. What do you think?
I think that the ends can not justify the means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
