When nonprofits forge partnerships with corporations, they sometimes come in for criticism for the real or imagined misdeeds of those partners. As in this recent editorial in the Christian Science Monitor: How a charity can hurt its cause. It's about the United Way's Pennies for Change, which allows people to donate one cent for each credit card transaction they make with card issuers that are in the program.
A penny here, a penny there, and pretty soon you're in real money. But according to the editorial, it's much more sinister than that:
... it could also undermine the United Way's longstanding commitment to supporting financial literacy for consumers. And it might buy the credit-card companies some desperately needed whitewashing at a time when Congress is looking hard at the industry.
Really, now. I'm no fan of the credit card industry, but if nonprofits can build partnerships only with morally pure, politically correct companies, they're going to find the list of eligible partners pretty short. Not all of the credit card companies are equally predatory, and very few of them actually break the law. I'll guess that the credit card companies that join the United Way program are generally the better corporate citizens, while the real bad actors are not interested.
You don't want to end up yoked with Enron-type corporate partners, but it doesn't do anyone good to be paranoid about corporate motives
I do have a quibble with Pennies for Change: It's the small-amount, low-impact, low-involvement nature of it. Donors who choose to give one penny per transaction to a broad and undefined cause just aren't diving into the world of good deeds.
Fundraising is so much better when it works to connect with donors at the heart and head level, motivating them to give to something they understand and care about. That kind of involvement is worth so much more than just money; it doesn't just fund projects -- it transforms donors, makes society stronger, and it raises more money.
Don't get me wrong -- anything that honestly raises money for good causes is worthwhile in my book. If United Way raises more money to do more good things through this program, more power to them.
I wish they'd create programs that collect supporters, not just pennies. But it's not fair to browbeat them for having corporate partners.
Technorati Tags: United Way, philanthropy
I don't like very much this kind of partnership,not for the for profit partner itself but I don't think that they are really gainfull.
As you told, "more power" to this kind of operations if they collect real money for not for profit but if they don't "create" donors (as I mean: aware, involved and concerned) I don't think that could be usefull for our sector.
Posted by: Daniele | 21 January 2008 at 09:07
As was previously mentioned, giving a fraction of a transaction is both mindless and heartless for the purchaser. It could be considered residual income, since once it's in place, not much effort needs to be done to maintain the program.
But, there are grocery stores that give a percentage of transactions to charities, too, and the percentages are much better than $.01 per transaction!
Would a nonprofit want to waste time constantly promoting this venture if they only receive a tiny portion of the amount? Wouldn't it be more effective to focus time and energy on more lucrative fundraisers (auction, gala dinner, sponsored walk) than spend energy on this promotion? Would this program interfere with other fundraising? Just imagine... "I've already given my credit card donations this year, so I don't need to buy a $100 raffle ticket for a car or a $65 gala dinner ticket."-- Joe Q. Public
Posted by: Danielle Hamilton | 19 January 2008 at 17:21
Yeah, it's a nice little PR win for the credit card company, and the United Way will make a little scratch off of it, but without tapping into people's passion, it's kind of like tossing your spare change into the leave-a-penny dish at the local convenience store.
Posted by: Tom Durso | 17 January 2008 at 14:42