Restricted Funds, Redux
First, someone commented anonymously and I unpublished the comment, which wasn’t offensive or inappropriate, along with the e-mail address, and didn’t get to write to explain that I don’t take anonymous comments anymore.
Regarding restricted funds, I’m doing an experiment that I’ll explain in a moment. But first, the backstory. I’ve been the Treasurer of the Board of Directors for several nonprofits, and when it comes time for the Treasurer’s Report, I must admit that no one cheers if we have restricted funds from private donors. Grants are often restricted, but the average donation usually isn’t. Depending on the size of the organization and whether it has separate, smaller organizations within it with their own 501(c)3 status, the money either goes in the general fund for the umbrella organization, or the account for the other 501(c)3. And if the donation is for a capital campaign, that often has its own separate account, sometimes even at another bank. In that case, restricted funds are as separate as they can possibly get.
Though it is true that your money intended for a particular reason–say, the printing of brochures–physically/virtually goes to the same location as money for, say, the larger-cages campaign, it is allocated to the line item in the budget that you earmarked it for. If the Treasurer had everyone’s checks at the board meeting, she could put them in little piles, one for each line item. Your check would have to go where you wanted it to go. And again, if you don’t trust an organization that asks for donations for a specific program and says said donations are going exclusively to that program, to put your funds to use for that specific program alone, you shouldn’t be doing business with them at all. An example would be HSUS’ Rural Area Veterinary Services, that I donated to a couple of days ago. Look at the verbiage on the donation page. It says: "Your donation will be used exclusively for this effort." I’m trusting that’s true.
Now, here’s the experiment. I’ve contacted several large organizations about opportunities to give exclusively to certain programs, and preferably without also funding general administrative expenses (you may as well ask for the best situation and see what happens). I want their policies, which by the way could be somewhere on their websites but I have missed them. Some of the sites are enormous.
My intention, as stated to them, is that there is a lot of infighting, name-calling, and tension between (and yes, here comes the lingo) new welfarists and abolitionists (and to a far lesser extent, welfarists) and I’d like to attempt to develop one small solution rather than be part of the problem or carp about it. Not everyone will like the solution, if it indeed is one. Some won’t give to any organization whose mission is in opposition to theirs, even if the money is going to something their beliefs are aligned with. Clearly, there’s nothing I can do about that.
However, some people just might give if they can do it exclusively. I’ve always recommended you act like you’re a $10 million private foundation rather than a smaller donor. You’ll never know what options you have until you ask about them. With that said, you probably can’t give a restricted donation of $50 to any large organization unless they have decided which programs you can give exclusively to. As Neva commented a couple of days ago, one small individual donor probably cannot alter the mission or priorities of a large national group.
I can’t close, though without suggesting possible ways you can alter the mission and priorities of a large national group.
- Get a huge amount of money, and tell them you’ll donate it if they . . . .
- Get a huge amount of donors together and pool your influence. This is like shareholder activism in the for-profit world.
- Get some board experience or advisory council experience and set out to join the board and change it from the inside. Now, one person with a known disagreement regarding an organization’s mission isn’t likely to be asked to serve on the board unless it is already going in a different direction and wants some new people to help it get there. But it is a legitimate way to change the course of an organization.
I’ll let you know when I hear back. This could be a complete non-starter, with the organizations thinking I’m bananas for even dipping my little toe in this treacherous pool. But I’m a donor. A consumer. An investor. And I want to find a way to do what I want to do, the way that I want to do it. I won’t know if it’s possible if I don’t try.
Actually I really don't trust HSUS and I wouldn't donate to them under any circumstances, so perhaps anything further I have to say is pointless, but here goes…
I'm under the impression that organizations draw up a budget plan and stick to it regardless of restricted donations unless they are so large that they cannot fit into the planned budget.
That doesn't mean they are breaking the law, not at all. What it means is they handle the restricted donation precisely as instructed, separate account and all in most cases. But then they put less money in from their general budget to even things out.
So say they planned to put $50,000 toward spay/neuter. Now if nobody restricted donations then they'd put in $50,000 from the general budget. If you and your friends manage to donate $10,000 in restricted donations for spay/neuter, then all of that goes just to spay/neuter, but then the organization only takes $40,000 out of the general budget to put toward spay neuter. So they still have precisely the same priorities and same budget as always, $50,000 toward spay/neuter no matter what.
Or as my husband says–they have six jars of jellybeans and you give them a jellybean and say "it has to go in the blue jar." So they just take a jellybean out of the blue jar first, and then put yours in. So the total amount of jellybeans doesn't change.
In addition, many people don't understand the process of restricting donations. Every single fundraising letter I get has tiny disclaimer print at the bottom saying that my donation might go to other programs than the one mentioned in the letter. In some ways this is good–early on with Peta how many people specifically wanted their donations to go toward promoting veganism. People who donate to rescues want it all to go for vet bills, but nobody wants to donate for buying copy paper of paying the phone bill.
However the fact remains that unless you donate more than the original budget for a program in the form of restricted donations it's unlikely to make any difference. Of course March of Dimes refused to track restricted donations or honor them and got in no trouble at all for it, so enforcement is pretty lax.
I find Neva's critique to be convincing. Unless you give a very large amount of money, or unless you give money to start a new program that wouldn't *otherwise* have been launched, your restricted donation will not make any appreciable difference. The controller, or chief accountant, or CFO, has a lot of leeway in allocating spending. You can shift funds around and still stay within the letter of the law. Does your abolitionist program need a new computer printer? Well, might the welfarists down the hall use the printer occasionally, perhaps? I think you get my drift.
In my experience, a program absolutely changes in capacity based on restricted donations. They're a mixed blessing because who, really, wants to give to admin. Everybody's all about the program, yet it can't run without the rest. I'm on the board of an organization whose capacity grows every year because of restricted donations. We might have to fundraise for the admin, which is under 9% so it's not that difficult, but we have to fundraise BECAUSE of the restricted funds. With that said, yes, less unrestricted money coming in would go to the program with more funds, particularly if there were no policy for contributions (like maybe in a capital campaign, where 60% of each donation goes to, say building, and 40% goes to maintenance).
As for not trusting an organization, that certainly does end the conversation.
I like to get personally involved in the organizations I give to, and amp up the giving after I have adequate evidence that I can trust them (and unless I'm on the board or have a personal relationship with maybe the ED, I probably won't know that for sure). I also take recommendations of where to give from people I trust.
The idea of giving restricted funds might not be a reasonable solution for smaller amounts. But I wanted to do my experiment and hear what some big organizations had to say just to demonstrate that it is as bad an idea as it sounds. Or not. Or maybe it's a bit of both, depending on the donor. I like to find solutions, and I'm happy to do it by trial and error! Thanks for your thoughts, valuable as always.
Dear Mrs Martin,
I agree with Neva’s critical comment on the concept of restricted funds in the context in hand.
As a practical matter, you cannot really control the use of your donation unless you are on the board of the organization which you are donating to. And since your money contributes to the organization’s financial resource, the only thing it can accomplish is to relieve the budget for the project you wish to support and, thereby, release more funds to the program you don’t want to support but which you are indirectly sponsoring, anyway. The concept of restricted funds makes sense only in the case of an organization which you are not opposed to in general, rather which you consider to be worthy of promotion and wish to encourage to engage in a certain area that is more important to you than others. From an abolitionist perspective, the HSUS is not worthy of being supported IN ANY AREA.
As a theoretical matter, since an organization’s non-abolitionist policy is inimical to the abolition of animal exploitation, its actions/campaigns/projects are not to be divided into those which are worth supporting and those which are not, simply because, as explained above, you cannot – monetarily or ideally – support the one without supporting the other. Therefore, the abolitionist stance on welfarist organizations is not to be involved with them in any way, and to have NOTHING to do with them. It’s not about being a “traitor“, and the word (new)welfarist is not an “insult“ but a term to describe the prevailing direction of what is mistakenly called an animal *rights* movement. You cannot change it by putting pressure on it as a sponsor.
Dear Mrs Martin, recently, you appealed for donations to Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary, matching up to $1000, to celebrate the birthday of Gary Francione. This was a fabulous idea and a highly commendable initiative. PPS is a committed and unequivocally abolitionist project and, therefore, not being supported by too many people. Every dollar that someone in favour of abolition can afford to donate (on and between Gary’s birthdays) but does not know to whom should be donated to PPS – not to whatever welfarist organization, the very least to one with 100 million dollars sitting in their bank account.
First, I guess I'd be Mrs. Loder, as that's my husband's name. Or Ms. Martin. Or Dr. Martin, although I don't usually go by that.
Next, if the most efficient, effective way to help the animals in rural America (and the people who are in dire need of education regarding animals) is by a restricted donation to Rural Vets, an HSUS program, I'm going to do it. And I'm not going to apologize for it. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a viable option if helping the animals in rural America is important to me.
Because there are no national programs I completely concur with, and I want to do the best I can, I must create a diversified portfolio of donations that includes restricted funds. Of course, PPS will be included.
Grey2K isn't even close to abolitionist, AND my money isn't deductible, BUT they're the best chance I've got to abolish greyhound racing in my lifetime (that is their goal), so I support them. Thanks for making me aware of the abolitionist stance on welfare organizations. You've solved my problem! I'm not an abolitionist. I'm just a person who doesn't think nonhuman animals are ours to use, and I'm going to continue to not use them to the extent it's possible in my life.
Again, I've been on boards where we've been forced to focus more on one component of a program because of restricted funds. I've seen their power, I've used their power, and I've been at the mercy of their power.
Perhaps the answer for most people is to focus on specific issues (e.g., seal hunt, dissection) and smaller organizations with budgets that don't include a bunch of things they're not aligned with and don't want to fund. But from what I have observed, there is no solution for abolitionists that meets all of their needs in a way that is effective and efficient. Otherwise, I wouldn't be writing about this.
The more dollars you have, the more votes you have and the more power you have. We all see that every day. I don't think the idea of restricted funds is going to be helpful to most people (and I could be wrong–the results aren't all in). But it will be helpful for some. And perhaps those people will be able to alter the focus of certain groups. Or start their own. (Is anyone planning to? That would be awesome!)
If abolitionists all only gave to abolitionist organizations, PPS would be fully funded, sustainable, and have increased capacity. But it's not. What is everyone giving to and how are those decisions being made? I have a host of issues that are priorities to me, and I'm going to find a way to provide direct service to them–with as little money going to general operating expenses as possible if I don't entirely agree with them. In a couple of cases, I'm happy to fund operating expenses.
In my 20s and early 30s, I didn't negotiate about anything. And I also didn't make a lot of progress, in my opinion, as a daughter, a sister, a writer, or a philanthropist. I lived in Manhattan's East Village and was straight edge and self-righteous. I went from there to Palm Beach, and a completely different life. And now I live in suburbia and I'm married to a Republican. But I'm making more progress educating people in my life about veganism and other issues important to me than ever before. And it all came from not judging, but providing the space for people to be who they are at that moment, meeting them there, then guiding them along with plenty of love and support.
I'm simply trying to negotiate with large organizations to meet some of my needs as a philanthropist. I do give to PCRM, but other than them, Alley Cat Allies and Grey2K, I'm not affiliated with a national organization. Maybe I never will be. But I can continue to explore options for helping animals in ways that are as aligned with my beliefs as they're likely to get.
"…perhaps those people will be able to alter the focus of certain groups. Or start their own. (Is anyone planning to? That would be awesome!)"
Yes. 😀
Eric,
I'd thank God if I weren't an atheist. Can we move this along a little faster? Maybe that'll make me an abolitionist again! Sign me up. What can I do?
As Gary Francione argued in Rain Without Thunder, the welfarist paradigm as such is immanently structurally unsound; as long as welfarism is the dominant paradigm in the animal movement, animal exploitation will be unamenable to meaningful reform. Thus in contrubuting financially to welfare organizations, we are helping sustain the viability of a paradigm (welfarism) that can lead only to more and exacerbated animal exploitation.
Somehow I posted my stupid comment twice!
I assume you're being sarcastic when you say you aren't an abolitionist. From my viewpoint taking the stand that animals aren't ours to use is abolitionist. Welfare is taking the position that it is ok to use animals under some circumstances. I've had quite a few heated debates with people from Peta over this, because they feel they promote a message that animals aren't ours to use, but when they give prizes for slaughter house design or declare minor reforms from burger king a victory, then I feel that sends a message that slaughter houses and burger king are acceptable.
Off topic, a bit.
I am not going to start my own group…
Recently I had a disagreement with someone at HSUS over their "How to pick a dog breeder" webpage/info sheet.
As follows
Neva: We need to be promoting adoption
HSUS: But sometimes we do everything to convince someone to adopt and they insist on going to a breeder so we tell them how to find a good one.
Neva: But you don't convince them, it's right on your website, they can bypass everything on adoption and go straight to how to find a breeder.
HSUS: We've been doing this more than 20 years and have tried EVERYTHING to convince people to adopt and they just won't.
Neva: You've tried everything? What about tv commercials to promote adoption?
HSUS: ?????
Neva: You could put tv commercials on and reach a huge audience.
HSUS: If you think commercials are a good idea maybe you should start your own non-profit to make them.
So, there it is. You don't like the way things are going, start your own group. If I'd known that everyone was going to give up on veganism I wouldn't have given until it hurt for so many years. I would have instead invested that money so I'd have it the inevitability that I would need to start my own group. Instead I mistakenly thought I was investing in a movement. How very wrong I was.
Although to be fair, HSUS wasn't on my donation list. But still there were times when I had nothing and I gave whatever I had to groups I believed would promote veganism. It also didn't take me long to learn that groups I supported for over a decade had nothing but contempt for me when I questioned why they'd suddenly changed direction. When I first realized this shift to new welfarism was happening I was honestly perplexed. I asked people I'd supported and looked up to for years to please explain to me why they were changing direction. What studies showed them this was how to go? What research did they do? I felt I got no answers but a general "shut up and please go away" response. So I did go away, I'm not going to give to those groups again.
But I think I'm starting to sound more bitter than I actually am. I still give, I'm just more careful about it. I don't give to organizations where the higher up employees make more than I do any more. Not that I think people need to take a vow of poverty, but why would I give to a group that's clearly better off than I am. And HSUS salaries are obscene. I don't give to groups that won't answer my questions as a donor. I don't give to groups where the leadership seems to be seriously out of touch. I don't give to groups that send out inaccurate or deceptive fundraising materials.
Also, I would not give to Alley Cat Allies. For many of the reasons listed above and additional personal reasons. To help feral cats I take the money that I would have given to ACA and spend it on actual vet bills to help cats where I live. Though if you read my blog then you know the pitfalls of that approach. But otherwise I guess I'd give money to ACA and they'd send me some brochures and none of the cats in my area would get any actual help. If you want to help feral cats donate to a local group in your area or actual sterilization clinic. That will actually help cats. Better than paying for an office make-over.
Neva,
Lots of thoughts, here.
I give only $100 to ACA. It's a tiny donation but it is a national group so I wanted to include it for the purpose of full disclosure. I give much more to a local no-kill and a group that helps feral cats. I'm actually not being sarcastic when I say I'm not an abolitionist. If someone is going to tell me that if I have anything to do with a welfare group in any way I'm not an abolitionist, then fine. I'm not going to waste my time arguing.
I don't have a need to have that label; I just want to educate people and make a difference for them and for nonhuman animals.
I deleted the double comment. Sorry I didn't catch it.
I completely agree about Peta and the way they present themselves. I find it very confusing but I do pay attention because of all the exposure they get and I want to be armed when someone talks about them so I can have an educated response.
I have a very different experience with nonprofits than you, and have found some to be very accommodating and open. And some–not.
I don't even consider HSUS to be new welfarist. To me, they appear to be welfarist. I don't see language that says abolition to me in any kind of meaningful way. Do they even compete for the same dollars as PETA, which at least thinks it's an animal rights organization?
I was surprised by the reaction to my teensy $300 donation to Rural Area Vets. Particularly because it's a volunteer organization and they have free clinics and help animals that would never, ever be helped otherwise. It seems like punishing the animals and the poverty-stricken people because of the HSUS relation, in this case.
Clearly, the restricted donation idea isn't for anyone who has written regarding this post. And that's fine. Maybe it'll compel some to give more to PPS, or to join Eric in his endeavor to start an abolitionist group. If it even acts as the catalyst to productive conversation, something positive has resulted.
Thanks.
Sorry, I didn't mean to slam your donation to rural vets. I agree that it's an important thing and you should feel good about all your efforts to help. My questions were more about how as a part of HSUS is the rural vet program being funded out of their larger budget and what that means in terms of the effect of restricted donations. Not because I don't want you to give to rural vets, but because I question the concept that we can support abolition within new welfarist groups via restricted donations.
My wish to help with wildlife rehab isn't even remotely animal rights, but I feel it's vital for many reasons. I suppose it reinforces the dignity and value of wild animals, but they only heal animals, there's no message involved. But I'm also not considering restricting any donations in that regard.
Like I said I probably sound more bitter than I really am, I'm having some kind of bitter day… I hate to call groups out by name or executives with those groups by name. I've found some of those people to be less than helpful and less than responsive, and as a result the organizations they head can be unresponsive to donor concerns. That said, I wouldn't condemn the hard working employees and even most managers at any of these groups. I come down hard on HSUS, yet I know that HSUS has a lot of hard working sincere and underpaid employees giving their all for animals. However, I don't think that it's wrong to sometimes question the overall direction and some pretty big budget decisions that just confuse the heck out of me.
Neva,
I absolutely understand that some people wouldn't fund rural vets because it's an HSUS program, and that restricted funds aren't for everyone. I'm sorry you're having a bad day. And I do share your frustration with large groups.
Frank,
I've read Professor Francione's books and consider him a mentor. He's the reason I'm convinced that incremental steps to reduce suffering don't lead to abolition. And he probably wouldn't fund the rural vet program because of HSUS (I don't speak for him, so I can only say "probably"). But I have my own mind and I do things for my own reasons. I've said, over and over, that the solution isn't perfect. But it can be worked with–for me.
Everyone,
This particular case isn't a matter of a handful of $100 million organizations competing for dollars to help poverty-stricken people and sick, starving dogs and cats, and then using donations to fly to Cannes for the film festival. This is direct service, by volunteers, at no cost to the people of the area. It has its own budget (mostly medical supplies and some transportation, as once everyone gets to the meeting site they are taken to the area they'll be working in by bus/van). It's not about animal rights. It's about filling a desperate need in an imperfect way.
Regarding Mrs. Martin, Ms. Martin, Mrs. Loder, or Dr. Martin…I prefer Dr. Mary.