State Reports Are Misleading

To the Editor:

I was pleased to read the letter from Kate Blanchard and Zina Poletz of the Minnesota Charities Review Council, commenting on the “shallow” charity evaluations in Smart Money magazine (Letters to the Editor, January 11). Ironically, the same issue of The Chronicle reported on two other shallow evaluations, made by state charity regulators in the states of New York and Washington (“Commercial Solicitors Keep Most of Donations, 2 State Studies Find”).

For years, these two states, as well as others, have reported that commercial telephone solicitors “keep” most of the funds raised for their charity clients.

For years, I wrote to complain that while the reports are undoubtedly accurate, they are seriously misleading for several reasons. They do not distinguish between tests and rollout campaigns; do not report on legitimate expenses of the solicitors (such as purchased tickets that are sent to “contributors,” who believe they are buying tickets, not making donations); and do not indicate the purpose of the campaign, which can have a dramatic effect on both the amount of funds raised and the cost of raising them.

And for years, the responses I received might have been written by the same person, regardless of the state involved: “The report is accurate.”

I stopped writing the letters because the responses ignored my comments. But I write this one to ask that The Chronicle cease publishing what are little more than press releases from attorneys general who are planning to run for governor and show how tough they are by attacking “inefficient” charities.

Lee M. Cassidy
Executive Director
DMA Nonprofit Federation
Washington