If I get one more summary of a survey posing as “research,” I am going to scream just to hear something real!Many companies, not unlike Hartsook, are surveying their clients on everything from ethics to giving to employee trends. These can be mildly interesting at times, but not reliable.I just saw that AFP presented the results of a survey in which 400+ participants reported that they have an ethics question once a month.What? Who are these 400 institutions? What does an ethics question mean? How was the sampling selected? Tell me why this should matter to me, other than an unnamed group of nonprofits responded to a survey. If we are not going to be told of the methods, then we have to rely on the source. This was AFP. I want to rely on this source.If we’re conducting surveys for entertainment value, I would be more interested in knowing who these nonprofits are and why they responded to a survey in the first place. Now, that is interesting.Some of you who follow this blog know that I criticized the Fenton Group when they issued a headline that two thirds of donors surveyed said they were going to give the same or less in 2010. That means only 11 percent were giving less. So the real headline should have been that 89% of donors were going to give more or the same in 2010. But that’s not news. It doesn’t send a shockwave of fear and panic to fundraisers everywhere.To conduct a survey that tells us in these times that every fundraiser is confronted with ethics issues monthly is not enough. In particular, it is not enough for the AFP to issue the results.Paulette Maehara and I were quoted in the Inside Higher Ed online news dealing with Charlie Rangle. The article was about what the fundraiser should have done ethically as he sat there while Rangle solicited a corporation. I appreciate that the fundraisers should have raised an issue, but do we think the corporation didn’t know that Rangle wasn’t going to know of the gift to the center that bore his name? Let’s not be naive about these things. If we are going to name things after politicians then we should know that when we ask for money, we are going to be criticized. By the way, I have little to nothing in common with Rangel, but this is not a situation where the fundraiser should take the heat.Let’s return to my point. A survey about whether fundraisers are confronted with ethical issues hardly raises the bar. Let’s not spin our wheels. Let’s go somewhere!Hartsook Institutes has decided not to do original research but we do intend to comment on others’ work. There is some good research out there, but it is few and far between, and it takes time, thought and serious attention. But for the most part, my comment about limited surveys is, “so what?”
Photo credits: National WWI Museum
President and Trustee
The Sunderland Foundation
Recipient of the
2018 GROWING PHILANTHROPY AWARD FOR TRANSFORMATIONAL CAPITAL PHILANTHROPY
Kent Sunderland was presented with the prestigious Growing Philanthropy Award in Kansas City by Hartsook President and CEO
Matthew J. Beem during National WWI Museum and Memorial’s VIP event, Night at the Tower.
He was nominated by Matthew Naylor, Ph.D., President and CEO of the National WWI Museum and Memorial, and was selected unanimously by Hartsook Institutes and the International Board of Visitors Growing Philanthropy Committee.
Kent was Vice Chairman of Ash Grove Cement prior to its recent sale. As President of The Sunderland Foundation, he has played a significant role in advancing philanthropy with major gifts.
The Growing Philanthropy Award recognizes a distinguished group of individuals and organizations whose efforts increase philanthropy through research, innovation and challenging the status quo. For more information, contact [email protected].