As nonprofit groups harness the powers of technology to learn more about prospective donors, some donors and charity experts wonder if nonprofit institutions are crossing an ethical line, says The Wall Street Journal.
Using increasingly sophisticated technology, the newspaper explains how charities can survey a person’s salary history and social-networking connections, use satellite images to scope out the size of someone’s house and property, and get an e-mail alert when a person’s stock holdings double.
While nonprofit leaders say donor analysis helps them focus their time and resources on those who are most likely to give, some experts, as well as some fund raisers, worry that donors will find the increasing depth of their background research to be too intrusive. Says Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, “It creeps a lot of people out.”
7 Responses to Charity Research Tools Raise New Ethical Questions
rozlanders - May 17, 2010 at 2:38 pm
We need to be creeped out. As a fundraiser, I prefer to limit myself to what the propsect wishes to tell me. Thanks.
waterloo - May 17, 2010 at 3:19 pm
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) contains explicit protections to shield patients from the kind of practices attributed in the article to the San Diego hospital system. If the practice is actually being carried out as described, shame on them.NickS
rlweiner - May 18, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I was creeped out as well, but by the alarmist tone of the article. It neglects to mention that research services like Blackbaud Analytics and WealthEngine only have access to public data. The reporter who sounded so shocked about prospect research probably uses the same data sources. Nor did the article mention that prospect researchers operate under a set of ethical guidelines (http://www.aprahome.org/ProfessionalStandards/StatementofEthics/tabid/74/Default.aspx) and the Donor Bill of Rights (http://www.aprahome.org/ProfessionalStandards/DonorBillofRights/tabid/309/Default.aspx), or that fundraisers work under a set of ethical standards (http://www.afpnet.org/Ethics/content.cfm?ItemNumber=3093&navItemNumber=536), or that HIPAA (http://www.ahp.org/Resource/advocacy/us/HIPAA/Analysis/Pages/default.aspx) prohibits disclosing personal health information to fundraisers or anyone else.
pkeller5950 - May 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm
A person in the field of prospect research would wonder how a fundraiser would even know to approach a potential constituent without some publicly available data on that individual. How did the constituent become a part of your prospect pipeline, or list of potential donors, without the assistance of someone who saves you a great deal of time and effort finding them in the first place? Or, do you just walk the streets 24/7 asking for donations? I know I avoid persons who ask for money on street corners. They really irritate me.
aspireresearchgroup - May 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm
There was a time when people felt “creepy” about asking someone for a major gift. Some people still feel that way. But we know that fundraising has become a profession with ethical guidelines – nothing creepy about it. Prospect researchers operate under those same ethical guidelines and other ethical guidelines tailored to research. Donors continue to demonstrate their trust by making more and bigger gifts. So, the next time you are at the supermarket and coupons print out targeted to your purchases, consider how comfortable it is for a donor to receive a solicitation targeted to his/her interests, giving ability, and preferred mode of giving. Respectful, focused fundraising is in!
fmischler - May 19, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Seems disingenuous at best that a business newspaper that so strongly touts business freedoms, market forces, etc. and certainly the banking industry who very business model depends on collecting data on people, not just customers. What does this reporter think the FICO score is based upon? What data does the insurance industry rely upon? Indeed, these organizations gain access to our health care private data, not simply real estate owned, SEC reports, and mentions in charitable giving reports. Seems they are trying to be a news maker and opinion molder rather than just a news source . . . .
mwlane - May 21, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Sensationalism sells. That’s the only explanation I can come up with, for such a disappointing and ill-informed article. “Spying” was a ridiculous and misleading word choice. There’s nothing secretive or hostile about anything prospect researchers do. In actual fact, charity research tools raise no new ethical questions, whatsoever. Webster says “creepy” means “producing a nervous shivery apprehension.” Apprehension, in this case, comes from not knowing what these tools do, or what easily-accessible public information already exists. In the old days, we looked at phone books, and news clippings, containing information that the prospects themselves didn’t tells us. That information got used, without hesitation. The goal is to match up a desire to help with an existing need. I don’t find anything about the pursuit of that goal to be “creepy.” These tools help us to accomplish that goal quicker, and in a lawful manner, by using information that individuals have already agreed to disclose, as an already understood given, by living in our free society.