Last week I received a sternly worded private Facebook message from a woman proclaiming that she never supports any charity aside from her church because she simply does not trust them. According to this lady, “the entire sector is corrupt and everyone involved (especially those earning a salary) should be ashamed of themselves”.
At first I was naturally taken aback by the aggressive and denigrating tone of her missive. But I quickly realized that her motivation was the anger she and millions of Canadians are feelings towards the misdeeds committed by the WE Charity and the Trudeau governments that have competed with the coronavirus for headlines in recent weeks.
The dubious awarding of a $19.5 Million federal government contract to WE Charity to administer the $900 Million Canada Student Service Grant program – a paid volunteer placement initiative that incentivizes people under 30 to engage in COVID-related community activities – generated widespread conflict of interest allegations stemming from the organization’s strong ties with the Trudeau family. An illuminated red flag are the numerous “reimbursements” and “honourariums” members of the family received for speaking gigs and other “ambassadorial services” they performed for the charity.
Understandably taxpayers are increasingly enraged by the feigned innocence and absence of contrition demonstrated by the Prime Minister. Simply cancelling the contract with WE Charity and attempting to move forward like nothing ever happened is like closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped. Such hallow tactics accomplish nothing but infuriate citizens and prove that Justin Trudeau never learns from his wrongdoings.
For non-profit and charity leaders, this scandal is extremely demoralizing because it destroys years of painstaking work to elevate the general public’s trust in their sector. Measuring a charity’s worth had triumphantly shifted from scrutinizing every line item of their administration budgets to monitoring their programs’ impact on the well-being of their communities.
My personal hero and charity rights champion, Dan Pallotta, dedicated much of the past decade to debunking the ‘overhead myth’ – the notion that charitable performance is determined by how little donor dollars are spent on operating costs and how much is allocated directly to programming – and redefining what critical factors we should all consider when deciding which causes to support.
Accomplishing real change like reducing poverty, purifying our environment, heightening physical and mental wellness are ends to which we must aspire. Tracking variables such as unemployment rates, water PH levels and the active case counts for chronic illness is how we should measure the effectiveness of the organizations striving to achieve these results.
By no means does this diminish the importance of monitoring how and to whom charitable proceeds are spent. Absolutely we must be vigilant against wasteful or exorbitant spending of donor (and taxpayer) dollars on frivolous things including outlandish speakers’ fees and Super Bowl-quality celebrations that fail to help charities progress towards reaching their mission. In much of his literature and speaking events, Mr. Pallotta also stresses the importance of responsible and transparent usage of charitable proceeds.
Donors need to see their generosity creating change – not being wasted. The actions of the international development organization founded by Craig and Marc Kielburger in 1995 and the anecdotal tidbits of the group’s underwhelming impact from former volunteers are examples of the former.
I wish not to dwell on the particulars of the scandal nor demonize the individuals involved. Rather my intention is to express my disappointment in the reckless and misguided choices made by several of the participants on both sides. The arbitrary nature and lack of due diligence by the Liberals in selecting WE for this contract are the types of acts normally committed by despotic regimes. Making matters even more sinister are the displays of remorselessness by Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet when questioned or interviewed about this fiasco.
While political parties and governments in general are accustomed and equipped to deal with such adversity, charities are not nearly as resilient. People are equally unhappy with the poor discretion and disingenuous behaviour exhibited by the WE Charity representatives as they are with the feds’ shady tactics. The consequential fallout from this ordeal is far more devastating for the Kielburgers and their team.
Great charities optimize all available resources including money, people and in-kind support in their pursuit to make the world better for everyone. Beyond the above-mentioned examples, plenty of evidence has surfaced recently of the meagre returns on investment of WE Charity’s donors and sponsors. For example, students volunteering in school-building projects in developing countries are commonly assigned tasks which should be performed by qualified tradespeople. Significant time is squandered as regular construction staff frequently undo the work of the students which prolongs the project. Although the purpose of the excursion is youth engagement and leadership development, the students hinder rather than help. No change is created.
Former volunteers have also come forward with alleged incidences of racism and abuse that were never addressed by the board or senior staff. Clearly WE has not made the best use of its resources throughout its history and restoring public affinity for its mission will take years. Far more tragic is the residual damage inflicted on the charitable sector as a whole from this high profile debacle.
The Pandemic forced charities and non-profits to cancel fundraising events and postpone campaigns which wiped out critical revenue streams and threatens their very existence. To mitigate this many organizations wisely have stepped up stewardship practices by communicating with their donors more frequently and building stronger relations with them. All these efforts to safeguard their donors’ affinity for their causes and trust in their ability to do their work is underseige for these organizations by the negative sentiment towards charities in general emanating from the WE Charity scandal.
Even for larger and financially stable non-profits like hospital foundations and universities, the threat of substantial donor attrition and overall public approval of their work is very present. Board and senior staff within these institutions must undertake vigorous plans to reaffirm with donors how their investments are making their communities healthier, happier and more vibrant for everyone. Hopefully leaders of these bellweather organizations realize the importance of devising upgraded donor stewardship strategies that may serve as models for smaller grassroots charities to emulate since the future of the sector depends on it.
Recognizing, understanding and empathizing with the cynical feelings that donors are now experiencing having witnessed the WE Charity ordeal is a vital first step for charities striving to win back and solidify their support. They must let their donors know that it is perfectly acceptable and actually healthy to possess this mindset because it shows they have passion for the cause. Building on this acknowledgement, board and staff must also reinforce with donors that none of the progress towards achieving their organization’s missions would not have occurred without their gifts. Most imperatively, these exchanges – whether they are virtual conversations, telephone calls, emails or text messages – must all be organic and bilateral conversations.
By far the most non-negotiable tactic that charities must employ during these exercises is taking a customer-service approach and listen to their donors. Among their objectives as they pay close attention to their supporters, charities must:
· get to know their donors better personally and professionally;
· know why or what inspired their donors to give initially;
· learn what keeps them onside and why do they continue to support the organization;
· understand what fears their donors have for the organization’s future;
· discover the evolving interests and philanthrophic aspirations, and;
· ensure each donor departs any conversation with a stronger sense of attachment to the cause.
As guardians of their organizations’ mission and vision, board members must especially play a role in galvanizing their support base. The culture of the organization and the unity of purpose towards fulfilling its mission starts at the top. Each board member has a sacred duty to embrace this rule and do all they can to foster a giving culture and advance team chemistry so that it proliferates throughout their charity’s rank-and-file. Failure to do so would result in greater volumes of apathy seeping into every level of the organization which would guarantee the demise of the charity.
This is hardly a novel priority for those in the charitable sector. Yet the need for improving stewardship practices is now amplified to new heights by the increasingly toxic social, political and economic climate that currently exists. Attracting, retaining and upgrading donors, volunteers, sponsors, community partners successfully in the “new normal” depends on how well each are kept abreast of the impact of their investments of time, talent and treasure. Sadly this means starting from scratch to debunk the overhead myth for a huge portion of the charitable sector.
Tedious does not do justice to describing the process that board, staff and volunteers have to undertake as they re-educate their donors why impact outweighs expenditures. Yet their lobby now competes with new and acute levels of deep-seated disdain and suspicion toward charities among the donor public. Eyes will be fixed squarely on operating line items including salaries and occupancy from this point forward, meaning copious amounts of sweat equity are needed to shift donors’ attention to the short-term and long-term fruits of those expenses.
In short, organizations must embark on unprecedented journeys to converse with their donors at all levels and keep the dialogue going in between all “calls to action” such as donation requests, volunteer assignments. If every measure is taken to help donors behave and feel like stakeholders as opposed to ATMs, charities can eventually help them rediscover the passion and commitment they once possessed for the cause.
Recovering from the WE Charity scandal is likely to be more of a marathon than a sprint for most organizations. On the plus side, Canadians are a forgiving bunch who do not hold grudges. The errors of the Federal Government and the Kielburgers did not destroy our charitable sector, it impeded it. In time the unwavering compassion of our citizens will intersect with the robustness of our non-profit industry and the united focus will be on creating real transformative change that strengthens the vitality of our communities. We will get through this.
Who knows? Perhaps I will receive an updated post from that same lady gleefully proclaiming that her faith has been restored in our charitable sector to the point where she is actively searching for new causes to support.
Stay well,
Mike
