A Discussion of Fund Raising Ethics . . .

 

          "Ethics  is something everyone else practices too little of."  This is a frequent response  to  the question   -  "what is ethics?"   That  there  is  considerable  truth  in  the statement is  not  the indictment it may seem to be.

 

          The great composer Beethoven is credited with stating, with reference to dynamic markings instructing musicians how a piece should be played:  "Those who understand them don't need them,  and those who don't understand them don't profit from them."   He then proceeded to use more  of them  than  almost any composer!  This "catch 22" is similar to many  people's  feelings  about ethics.   The Beethoven statement might be paraphrased to say - "Those who understand  ethics don't  need a code or standard, those who don't understand ethics will not benefit from a  code of ethics."  However, we still forge ahead in attempting to find a universal ethical standard  for fund raising professionals.

 

          There  can  be   no  universal  ethical  standard  if  taken in the  context  of  the  Beethoven paraphrase.  Before  any  code  or  standard  is  possible,  it  must  be  understood that there  is a  limitation  which  imposes itself upon the building of any standard.  The  broader  and  more diverse  the  group,  the more difficult becomes the task of establishing  any  useful  code.   For example,  within the field of religion there is little agreement regarding acceptable behavior.   One  faith proclaims  celibacy as the standard  while  another  encourages  polygamy!  The first  element, then,  to  be  considered in establishing a code of ethics is some form of  context-limitation  or boundary of definition.

 

          The next important characteristic of ethics is that ethics should not be considered an end goal or laudatory  achievement,  but  rather  a  threshold  step  in  the  right  direction, or a  minimum standard  for those in the group which is imposing the standard.  By definition,  ethics  belongs in a progressive ranking as follows (vertically descending):

 

·        Noble

·        Righteous

·        Virtuous

·        Moral = Ethical

·        Immoral

 

A code of ethics is a collectivist answer to an individual challenge.   Ethics is just over the line from immorality.  In this context ethics  might  be  called  structured morality   or   group  morality.      Because   of   this collectivism, any standard of ethics becomes more difficult to create  and  to enforce in direct proportion to the number of people to be served by the code.

 

Summary:  There are two salient points to consider when attempting to frame a code  of ethics:  

 

1.       There must be a clear definition regarding  the group to serve and 

          to  be  served  by  an   ethical  standard.   The  smaller  the  group,

          the more explicit may be the standard, and vice versa.

 

          2.       Ethical  behavior  should not be thought of as exemplary behavior

                   but merely  morally acceptable behavior.

 

          Professional  practices and policies  or  standards must be defined by  and  derived  from  a code of ethics,  and  encompass a  totally separate issue.   A  code  is  necessarily   very   broad-brush   and  all-encompassing,  while professional standards deal with specific issues under the code.   A  code must be deciphered or interpreted, while standards leave no room for interpretation.

 

          We  can  learn  much more than music from Beethoven.   When  his   ideas   on   "musical interpretation  codes"  are  applied  to our ethics, they challenge those  of  us  who  understand ethics to live above them, while encouraging and instructing those others about the art with  which we are blessed.                                  

 

          There are three aspects of a meaningful discussion of ethics:

 

          1.       Philosophies

          2.       Specific issues

          3.       Code development

 

PHILOSOPHIES

 

          There are several philosophical approaches which seem to have evolved in fund raising, which are behavioral  by definition, and which bear on ethics.  The three main fund raising  philosophies  which exist in  practice  are:  

 

          1.       Coercion 

          2.       Professional Solicitation

(hereinafter to  include  staff  and/or  consultants)

          3.       Voluntarism

   

          It  has been proven many times that all three philosophies can lead to "the bottom  line" in   fund raising.   However, if we consider that "bottom line" to be the only issue  -  the  end justifying the means - no morality is possible.  On the other hand, if the long-term good  of humankind, through philanthropy, is the prime issue, then the reason for a code of ethics begins  to dawn.   "Love of humankind" cannot be fostered through immorality.

 

          By  defining  philanthropy we can set  a  proper  goal  for  our  ethical  standard  to  serve.  WEBSTER  --  PHILANTHROPY:  "The active effort to promote human well being" (the  root of this word translates as "love of humankind").

 

At  least minimal consideration of all three fund raising philosophies is essential prior to any exploration of specific issues and/or the development of a code of ethics.

 

          COERCION:    This is usually an inadvertent philosophy.  It is seen at work in two  ways.      First,   and  most often,  it  is  manifest  in situations where the "sequential" approach  to  fund raising  is  allowed (sometimes encouraged) to go berserk.  The idea of starting at the  top  and working downward, and starting at the center and working outward is sound . . . when  exercised within   the   real   spirit  of  philanthropy.    How  then do people of seeming  good  will  end  up, figuratively, putting a gun to the head of their peers, subordinates, prospects and friends in  the name  of  philanthropy?   There  are at least two reasons why this  happens.   In  their  zeal  to succeed, they redouble their effort after losing sight of the goal . . . "love".  Further, they  are usually  business people whose success  (which  first  attracted  us  to  them) derives from  and dictates  a  "get   the  job  done"  attitude.   That this "drive" is allowed  to  be  perverted  into coercion  is  at least partly the fault of the fund raising executive whose job is not  to  "raise  money", but to train, motivate,  guide,  manage  and control volunteer activity in raising money.    The line between  coercion  and good  sequential  fund raising technique - indeed between immoral and ethical  behavior  -  can become  very thin.  A proper code of ethics should help us know on which side of the  line  we stand.      This point has been an ongoing discussion within professional societies for decades.

 

          A   second   form   of coercion is directed not at donors but at the fund raising professional.   It,  too,  is  often unintentional  and  is unknowingly fostered by seemingly well-intended people.   This  form  is seen  in board/administration adoption of unrealistic goals which then place the professional  in a  pressure   situation,  which  can  lead  to  ethical  compromises  dictated by the need  for  job security.  In one of the most egregious example, one might find a planned giving officer with  dollar production quotas within strict time deadlines!   Is philanthropy enhanced  by immoral behavior in the pursuit of support?   Of course not!

 

          PROFESSIONAL  SOLICITATION:  This is a subtle philosophy, fraught with claims  of success,  alleged logic, rationalizations of the "need" for professionals to solicit funds because the volunteers  won't  (or allegedly can't), and/or the "we don't have the time to train our volunteers properly" excuses.      

 

          While  it is the job of the fund raising executive to know successful  solicitation  techniques and  to be able to train volunteers in their use, it does not follow that because  the  professional has  a  better grasp of these techniques he or she should then do the soliciting.    While  certain short  term  success may well come of this, it is ultimately detrimental to that which  is the very heart and soul of philanthropic love .  .  .  voluntarism. 

 

The  idea that, because of a superior knowledge of successful techniques, a  professional  is more  prone  to  succeed,  is hard to defend if an organization holds to  the  tested  tenet  of  the sequential  approach (reaching from the top down, and the inside outward).  If the volunteer solicitor has already given at a sacrificial level,  there  is little doubt that they are best suited to ask their peers (usually not peers of the fund raising professional!):  "please  give, even  as I have given"  .  .  .  and to succeed -- which peer-impact would be  lessened  or totally absent with professional solicitation.  

 

          That professional solicitation is somehow more efficient is preposterous in the extreme.   A well-trained  and  motivated army of volunteer solicitors can reach many  more  donors,  each with  their  own giving story, and at almost no cost!  The volunteer will be motivated  by  love and   a  sense  of mission.   The  professional  solicitor  is  motivated  by personal  gain.   This personal  gain motivation has, in many cases, led to compromised ethics in pressing for   gifts which  are not in the best interest of the donor.  This condition has created  and will continue to build the often deserved tarnished image of the profession of fund raising.

 

          The rationalization that professionals somehow "need" to do the soliciting because volunteers won't or can't is nothing but an excuse for professional ineptitude.   There are very few situations where staff existed before volunteers.   Motivated volunteers have started most of the 501 (c) (3) organizations.   Professional solicitors usually lack direct access to people of  wealth and power – at least not the same access as volunteer-peers have.   Unchecked, the practice of professional solicitation would lead to the total collapse of philanthropy as we know it.    Volunteers provide the public trust and the credibility upon which our 501 (c) (3) status is based.    Even with  great volunteers providing access, gifts are difficult enough to obtain.

 

Professional  solicitation exists in most cases because the so-called "professionals" have  (at one  time  or  another) compromised on this issue  of voluntarism  .  .  .   usually due  to  "coercion".   When  volunteers fail to solicit, it is because the professional has failed:   failed to do their real job of training and motivating those  closest  to  the institution in the time-tested ways to success.

 

Planned  Giving  seems to be a discipline which has yet to fully explore  and/or  utilize  the power   of   voluntarism   directly  in  solicitation.   The idea that these kinds of  gifts  are  too complicated  for  volunteers  to understand, is rubbish.  Volunteers make  these  kinds  of gifts.   Do  they do so without understanding them? If so, then an ethical issue  of  monumental proportions  raises  its  head.  Why can't they be trained to assist  in  soliciting  planned  gifts?  Clearly, they can.  The subject of confidentiality also surfaces in this discussion.  Professionals and volunteers are people, equally prone or resistant to breaking a confidence.  Once again, it would   seem    that   the   professionals   have  been less than  professional in training and motivating volunteers.    One more planned giving ethical problem is frequently seen.   Some planned giving professionals overstate the technical complications of the field simply for the sake of  job security  .  .  .    (ethical?)

 

          The  "bottom line"  may well  be  achieved via either coercion or the use of professional solicitors.  However, it is  not possible  (regardless  of the power, rhetoric and/or  grand amounts raised by  some  organizations)  to serve the true spirit of philanthropy in the long-term through these means.   We  will reluctantly grant that it  is  possible  that  coercion  is generally  not  an   intentional  philosophy,  and  is  shunned  by  all   but  the  insensitive  and misinformed.   If professional solicitation is examined, even from the perspective  of  its own alleged strengths, voluntarism stands even taller than without such examination.

 

          Again,  it is the responsibility of the professional to be well trained and strong enough,   effective,  convincing,  and  uncompromising  enough to stand against unwise  administrative fiat  which  mandates these compromises.  It is also the job of the professional to see to it that there are volunteers  to  do the job and to keep them informed, motivated and trained.   Each  institution must be provided with an example of and leadership in establishing institutional ethics -- where better  than  from  the  fund raising  professional?  To  do  less  is clearly unprofessional by  any standard and, we believe, unethical.

    

          Another phenomenon which has contributed to confusion over this issue and could  crumble the foundations of philanthropy is the horde of people new to the field in recent years, and  the promised swarm to come.  Nonprofit executives have often chosen short-term expedience over long-term strength in hiring neophytes because they could be gotten "cheap".  There have often been sexist implications in this which is a further blight on the field.  In sheer numbers, the incompetence-tail is  clearly  wagging  the dog, and will only grow larger as a problem if  the  real  professionals don't  shoulder  their responsibility in setting clear standards, providing role  models,  offering training - giving back to the profession that which was given to them. 

 

          We  believe the "professional givers" (corporate and foundation officers) must also be  held accountable  to  a  large  extent.  After all, many fundraising professionals follow them like sheep!   Philanthropy would certainly be  strengthened  if  each  grant maker held us to a standard which would perhaps include at least the following:

 

          1.       Proposals  will only be eligible for consideration if proof is offered  that  100% of  board and staff have contributed financial gifts to this campaign, and at honestly  sacrificial levels.

 

          2.       Other than  for feasibility study purposes, meetings will not be granted for  staff or consulting fund raising executives who are not accompanied by volunteers.

 

          VOLUNTARISM:   This philosophy,   then,  becomes the focal point for our  framing  of  an  ethical standard  for  fund raising.  It is the only tested way to real and lasting success  in  serving philanthropy.  This is so because it is the only philosophy which demands  volunteer involvement  as  the  root of all efforts, and is not dominated by the  simplistic  and  degenerate notion  of financial success being the first and only goal.  Our goal, "loving mankind",  is  best   served   by  the  use  of loving  volunteers  .  .  . led,  trained and  motivated  by  competent professionals.

 

From  statutory  and/or  moral  standpoints, volunteers provide  checks  and  balances  and credibility  for  our  charitable causes.   The integrity of freely giving  one's  time,  talent  and money  for  a good cause balances heavily against being paid to work in behalf  of  that  cause (however well motivated and sincere).  Perhaps paid professionals could, would and should  be trusted  with the well being of our charities.    However, it is not  the  case.    Scandals  in  management   and  fund raising are not even news anymore . . . even with the considerable  checks and  balances  of  voluntarism  in place.    Is not this at the heart of  the  burgeoning  interest  in ethics?  Volunteer involvement is at the core of the concept of being exempt from taxation.   Is it ethical to warp or dilute this vital element?   Is it ethical to stand by while others do?

 

SPECIFIC ISSUES

 

          One  cannot,  in  this kind of forum, possibly explore or even list all of  the  many  diverse ethics issues which may plague the philanthropic community.  Indeed, it may be impossible  in any  context.   It  is for this reason that we have attempted to zero in on  the  broader  elements which   effect  ethics in the field.  In fact, it has been seen that almost  all  specific  issues surfacing  in the field (other than the obvious things which are illegal, etc.) end up  very  much like  the  eternal gun control argument, "Guns don't kill, people kill."  Paraphrasing  again,  it is often stated, "It isn't this or that which is wrong, it is the abuse of it." 

 

          The issue of "abuse" versus the basic practice in question has long been fogging the scene regarding appropriate means of compensation.  One can debate  the  issue endlessly,  but  in fact there is nothing inherently wrong with percentage  based  compensation, unless it is abused.  The contrary is more likely true.  One can make a  clear case for easily as much abuse on the flat-fee and pre-determined wage side of the issue.  People accepting  pay which is well above their ability is epidemic in  the fund raising profession.  It is an issue which is usually sidestepped in any discussion of  ethics.  This   underscores    our   belief   that  a  code   of   ethics  is  a   collectivist   answer   to   an individual  problem.   There  seems to be nothing wrong with accepting  compensation  that  is always higher, regardless of one's ability to reasonably earn that pay.  Clearly, the reverse has also  been  true in the case of institutions taking advantage of employees in the name  of  "good stewardship".  Does this not speak to professional competence being a major component of any ethical standard?  The truly competent professional is not abused nor does he/she abuse. 

 

          In summary, there are but two salient issues relating to any base-line ethical code: 

 

          1.       Voluntarism, and

          2.       Professional Competence. 

 

          We  further believe that Voluntarism alone survives because this one  essential  element clearly cannot be well served by incompetence.

 

          Since   we   cannot  list  or  explore  all  possible ethics sub-issues,  we challenge the reader to look at the issues which have surfaced in his or her own experience and to  see if the simple code suggested below will not provide them with an answer they  can  live with.

 

A CODE

 

Clearly,  a  "fine  line"  boundary for fund raising ethics is not  possible.  Rather,  what  is needed  is a base-line definition of what is right and what is wrong.   A  "code"  must  translate  a  very  broad standard which remains  for  each individual  to  "decipher".    Within  the  other  definition of a  code  as  "system  of  rules",  it becomes folly to consider any but the broadest possibilities, especially given the vast and growing number of  people  in  the  fund  raising  profession.      This  becomes  even  more  trenchant in  the absence  of  any universally  empowered  jurisdictional body to enforce a code.  It is our opinion that  any  code development for fund raising must begin and end with voluntarism and that it should have as  a basic premise something like the following:

 

"If something fosters Voluntarism,

it may be ethical. 

If it does not, it is not."

 

          Translated into "code" terms it might read:

 

          "The fund raising professional shall conduct all of his or her activities in  such  a manner as to safeguard and foster voluntarism and shall promote this within the organization(s) he or she serves".    

 

          We  would  further  like  to add, as a parting thought, an idea promulgated  by  one  of  the true sages of modern fund raising, the late and very dear Herbert Howard, CFRE, of Boston.   Herb said:

 

          "It   shall   be   unethical  for  anyone to  knowingly  practice  the  fund  raising  profession incompetently".

 

          Philanthropy   as   we   know  it  --  voluntarism and giving  --  is   an   uniquely   American phenomenon.     It  was  born  of need when the Pilgrims first  embraced  our  shores.   Because service  and  giving are their own best rewards, it has over the centuries woven itself  into  the fabric  of  our  nation  so tightly and to such an extent that it cannot  be  separated  out.   It  is, arguably, the one element which sets our country apart from all other civilizations ever to have lived  on  this planet.  Philanthropy is at the very heart of our liberty.  It is this that  mandates thoughtful reflection on, and an ultimately high ethical standard to be set for, this endeavor of love.   The  responsibility  is an individual one, the resolution of which will determine  each  person's right to be called "professional".