Page 2 of 4
"We get paid, and then the rest of the money goes to Planned Parenthood,"said Davis.
"I don't know. That's a good question," replied Elle Segal, a canvasser in a blue ACLU shirt, who is also a director in GCI's San Francisco office. She said she would ask someone.
Throughout the city, canvassers affirmed that all of the money would be given to and remain with the organizations emblazoned across their shirts — in this case, the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Planned Parenthood (only the ACLU responded to interview requests).
Every morning before hitting the streets, the canvassers attend a briefing where they go over the information in their scripts, or "raps." Located in One Hallidie Plaza near Union Square, the entrance to GCI's suite promotes summer jobs: "Equality for All," "End Poverty," "Protect Civil Liberties." Inside, the canvassers' uniforms — a technicolor collage of different charity T-shirts — adorn one wall. On a recent summer day, the office was vacant except for canvasser and director Segal; Michael Moeder, the San Francisco regional director; and Lindsay Harkins, the national recruitment director. Harkins and Moeder said they did not know how many employees worked in the San Francisco office. They both said that 100 percent of the money would go to the charities, but would not elaborate on how. That was a question for the national office, said Harkins.
Further up the chain of command, GCI Vice President Wes Jones declined to speak on the phone, and also turned down our requests to attend a morning training session and interview other GCI executives. In an e-mail, he wrote, "In fact, we turn over 100 percent of the money raised on the streets and at the door to the organizations we are representing. In turn, the organizations pay GCI a fee for the services we're providing, which are inclusive of, but not limited to, signing on donors."
Jones failed to explain why canvassers, directors, and a member of the national team could not articulate this information — that the charities pay GCI in return, leaving them with little, if any, of the money (at least in the short-term).
"You seem to place no value on the visibility, public education, and grassroots campaigning work that groups are hiring us to provide, in addition to building the membership base and raising money, when they hire us to canvass," Jones said.
He also did not respond to a question about why GCI employees in California claimed "100 percent" of money raised went to charities, when, in Massachusetts, GCI reported the opposite. Question 11 on the Massachusetts Attorney General's Form 10A asks commercial fundraisers the following: "If prospective contributors ask how much of their contributions will go to the charitable organization, what will they be told?" GCI often responded, "We estimate that after expenses roughly 0% of the average donor's contributions will go to the charity." These forms were signed by GCI and the respective charities. Question 10 asked for the "approximate percentage of gross receipts that the charitable organization will receive or retain." Again, 0 percent.
Gerri Engel, deputy director of development for the ACLU, said she had not conferred with GCI about the appropriate answer, should someone ask what amount of donations her organization receives. "You know it [100 percent] isn't [accurate]. You have the forms," she said.
"You can look at it a lot of different ways," she added. "So, is it a misrepresentation? Not really. Because all that money is coming back to the charity." But she said she would prefer the canvassers say something different. "I think there's a better answer — but it's a long answer, and one that a lot of people might not understand."
Steve Yaver, the director of member services and development operations for the Sierra Club, contracted with GCI in 2009. He said because canvassers don't represent the same charity every day, they could get mixed up if they needed to know financial information for multiple organizations. Was he comfortable with canvassers' "100 percent" response? "I wouldn't be terribly pleased," he said. "Quite frankly, if you told donors [the fundraising costs], they're not going to be terribly thrilled to hear that, so you've got a very straightforward, simple answer that's accurate as well. Any explanation that is truthful is what I'm looking for."
Representatives of all the charities SF Weekly spoke with said the high costs to hire GCI are worth it, even if explaining these costs could derail a solicitation. The dismal figures reported to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office don't paint an accurate picture, they said, because GCI's work is crucial to the charity's longevity. Unlike volunteers, who can only dedicate so much of their time, paid canvassers sign up new members and increase awareness full time. Charities pay GCI for donors who will contribute for years, said Cindy Hellmann, the marketing and fundraising director for Oxfam America, a nonprofit that specializes in international relief.
The Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, the American Institute of Philanthropy, the Association of Professional Fundraisers, and several nonprofit attorneys all said that the "100 percent" response is at odds with what they consider to be honest fundraising.
Laurie Styron, an analyst for the American Institute of Philanthropy, said it's purely a semantics game. "Regardless of whether it's legal or illegal, it's highly unethical." She said donors don't care who takes legal possession of the funds and when it happens. "What donors want to know is, 'If I hand you $100, how much of it is really going to go to gay rights, or be against gay rights, or help the dolphins?'"
The experts said telling donors "100 percent" qualifies as an "omission of material fact," because the charity won't keep 100 percent of the money. Tony Martignetti, an attorney who runs the nonprofit consulting firm Martignetti Planned Giving Advisors in New York and hosts the Nonprofit Radio show, cited the part of California law that he believes most conflicts with GCI's answer: Commercial fundraisers are prohibited from "representing directly or by implication that a charitable organization will receive an amount greater than the actual net proceeds reasonably estimated to be retained by the charity for its use."
