Back in 1995 the Chronicle of Philanthropy published a major study of direct mail donors, which either discovered or confirmed that most low-level charitable donors & quite a few high-level donors, though they don't admit it, don't really give a damn about getting results, because they do little or nothing to follow up on fundraising claims. What motivates most donors, the research discovered, was primarily the feel-good they got from contributing to a cause, and secondarily, getting thanked. This, to me, was rather discouraging, since I was already seven years into what became 25 years of annually reviewing, abstracting, & verifying the IRS Form 990 claims made by more than 150 major animal charities per year, in hopes at least some donors really would care about getting bang for their bucks. Soon afterward, after the 1995 No-Kill Conference in Phoenix, I visited Best Friends for the first time & mentioned the findings published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy to Michael Mountain, then the president of the organization. He said something like, "You mean we could just raise money & not actually do anything but send out thank-you notes, & people would still send money?" Michael at the time seemed to think that was outrageous. He was replaced as president in 2005, though, & from an ethical perspective Best Friends seems to have been going downhill ever since.
That just may be the most disheartening thing I've ever heard. Totally agree with you that when Michael Mountain and Bonney Brown left Best Friends the organization transitioned into Best Fiends...
Given that this practice falls under GAAP rules and that thousands of non-profits do the same thing every year, your essay comes across as maybe picking on Best Friends a bit. I realize this is your space to write about given your expertise, but I’ve personally encountered these practices in many national high profile charitable organizations with household names.
Should the rule be changed? Perhaps. But Best Friends is certainly not more egregious than hundreds—perhaps thousands—of other NPs.
Dee, I would be curious what national organizations you are referring to. Our team investigated the most prominent national organizations and none of them practice this kind of double booking at this enormous scale. Can you share what you have found?
After reviewing your essay again more carefully, forgive my comment for being too vague. I do know that the IRS has a serious, several-year backlog on 990 reporting. My comment wasn’t specific to your specific transgressions by Best Friends—it was more targeted at transparency around percentages of donated dollars that actually are applied to helping those that they purport to help. There are wide variances in how much a charitable organization applies to front line—and how much is eaten up in operational expenses.
If I understand your comment, that was/is the point of my article. If I appear to be "picking" on BF its because they have made themselves very pickable. Despite the IRS' backlog on 990s any reputable organization is posting their most current 990s for all to see. When inspecting and comparing 990s to each orgs Annual Reports discrepancies, if any, can emerge. This is the case with BF, it's pretty difficult to ignore nine digit discrepancies...
Thank you Ed for providing this kind of financial visibility about Best Friends. Most people find annual reports and financial statements too overwhelming to dig into, but these tools are what demonstrate how a nonprofit is spending their valuable resources and whether they are truly supporting their mission. You bring up important questions! It's hard not to believe that they aren't "double documenting" to make their program costs look strong and their administrative costs look decent or even low.
Thank you, Christine, for sharing your thoughts and concerns. It's crucial that we continue asking tough questions to ensure transparency and accountability in animal welfare. Your dedication to rescue work and advocacy is inspiring. Supporting local rescues is indeed vital, and together, we can push for positive change across all levels of animal care. Let's keep the conversation going and work towards a system where every contribution truly makes a difference.
Don’t steal from the animals please
I'm sure they have a reasonable explanation for spending over half a million dollars a day on advertising. I can't wait to hear it.
Back in 1995 the Chronicle of Philanthropy published a major study of direct mail donors, which either discovered or confirmed that most low-level charitable donors & quite a few high-level donors, though they don't admit it, don't really give a damn about getting results, because they do little or nothing to follow up on fundraising claims. What motivates most donors, the research discovered, was primarily the feel-good they got from contributing to a cause, and secondarily, getting thanked. This, to me, was rather discouraging, since I was already seven years into what became 25 years of annually reviewing, abstracting, & verifying the IRS Form 990 claims made by more than 150 major animal charities per year, in hopes at least some donors really would care about getting bang for their bucks. Soon afterward, after the 1995 No-Kill Conference in Phoenix, I visited Best Friends for the first time & mentioned the findings published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy to Michael Mountain, then the president of the organization. He said something like, "You mean we could just raise money & not actually do anything but send out thank-you notes, & people would still send money?" Michael at the time seemed to think that was outrageous. He was replaced as president in 2005, though, & from an ethical perspective Best Friends seems to have been going downhill ever since.
That just may be the most disheartening thing I've ever heard. Totally agree with you that when Michael Mountain and Bonney Brown left Best Friends the organization transitioned into Best Fiends...
Given that this practice falls under GAAP rules and that thousands of non-profits do the same thing every year, your essay comes across as maybe picking on Best Friends a bit. I realize this is your space to write about given your expertise, but I’ve personally encountered these practices in many national high profile charitable organizations with household names.
Should the rule be changed? Perhaps. But Best Friends is certainly not more egregious than hundreds—perhaps thousands—of other NPs.
Dee, I would be curious what national organizations you are referring to. Our team investigated the most prominent national organizations and none of them practice this kind of double booking at this enormous scale. Can you share what you have found?
After reviewing your essay again more carefully, forgive my comment for being too vague. I do know that the IRS has a serious, several-year backlog on 990 reporting. My comment wasn’t specific to your specific transgressions by Best Friends—it was more targeted at transparency around percentages of donated dollars that actually are applied to helping those that they purport to help. There are wide variances in how much a charitable organization applies to front line—and how much is eaten up in operational expenses.
If I understand your comment, that was/is the point of my article. If I appear to be "picking" on BF its because they have made themselves very pickable. Despite the IRS' backlog on 990s any reputable organization is posting their most current 990s for all to see. When inspecting and comparing 990s to each orgs Annual Reports discrepancies, if any, can emerge. This is the case with BF, it's pretty difficult to ignore nine digit discrepancies...
Thank you Ed for providing this kind of financial visibility about Best Friends. Most people find annual reports and financial statements too overwhelming to dig into, but these tools are what demonstrate how a nonprofit is spending their valuable resources and whether they are truly supporting their mission. You bring up important questions! It's hard not to believe that they aren't "double documenting" to make their program costs look strong and their administrative costs look decent or even low.
Yes, that is how it appears. I look forward to hearing their explanation.
Thank you, Christine, for sharing your thoughts and concerns. It's crucial that we continue asking tough questions to ensure transparency and accountability in animal welfare. Your dedication to rescue work and advocacy is inspiring. Supporting local rescues is indeed vital, and together, we can push for positive change across all levels of animal care. Let's keep the conversation going and work towards a system where every contribution truly makes a difference.