HSUS on the no-kill revolution: A matter of semantics, good intentions … and money
By Gina Spadafori
November 9, 2007
Yesterday, the folks at the Humane Society of the United States sent me a link to a blog post by the group’s president, Wayne Pacelle, regarding the no-kill movement. There was so much said and unsaid in the post that I called Christie, we talked about it for a long while, and then we both decided to sleep on our thoughts overnight. (She was going to hear Nathan Winograd speak on his no-kill advocacy in San Francisco last night, and will be blogging on that today soon.)
Before I get to that post, I have to come clean on my own thoughts regarding the HSUS. Although many people who support reputable, responsible and ethical breeding see HSUS and PETA as marching in lockstep towards the day when there are no domesticated animals — in homes as companions, on farms, in zoos and certainly in bio-medical research — I have never seen things that way.
PETA is pure and simple an animal-rights organization. I have sat across a desk interviewing PETA head Ingrid Newkirk, and I know that her own philosophies regarding the “use” of animals could not be more clear and might come as a surprise to the Hollywood idjits who do stunts for them or all the loving pet-owners who send money to them. I have no issue with PETA having a pure animal-rights philosophy — they’re welcome to it, here in America — but I want them to own up to it in all their materials and quit representing themselves as the authority on animal issues. They don’t speak for me, and they don’t likewise don’t speak for the vast majority of the seven of 10 American households with a pet. When they pretend to speak for us, I call them on it. Case closed.
Now, the HSUS.
I have known many HSUS staffers and former staffers for more than 20 years, and have long admired the work they’ve done. Like Bob Baker, the brave and indefatigable investigator (no longer with the HSUS) who has spent his life exposing puppy mills. Or Eric Sakach (still with the HSUS) , who knows more about the dog-fighting underground than anyone alive. Or Dr. Randall Lockwood (now with the ASPCA), the nation’s top authority on dog bites. The HSUS has, for better and for worse, shaped how many of shelters operate, improving standards of care and professionalism, and helping to bring in innovative programs (like behavior counseling) to many of them.
But the HSUS hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to companion animal issues, and they’ve headed down some wrong roads. They were late to identify the potential of “trap, neuter and release” (TNR) programs for feral cats (which, to read Mr. Pacelle’s latest blog post, they’re now supporting), and they have so far proven incapable of understanding the difference between a reputable, ethical breeder who is working to preserve heritage breeds and working dogs — and a careless, clueless and/or greedy back-yard breeder or high-volume commercial breeder/puppy mill.
Hence, the HSUS’ clueless, careless and borderline greedy support of breeding bans, such as California’s AB 1634.
But unlike PETA, which I’m sure will never change its core message, HSUS has proven to be very flexible, especially once they realize those issues that are sure-fire money-raisers, or, more specificially, sure-fire enemy-makers that will slow the fund-raising efforts. And unlike PETA, I have no doubt HSUS can and will shift again. (Nothing is wrong with a charity fund-raising, by the way. It’s what you do with the money that counts. And how you represent your group while raising the money.)
Which brings us, at last, to HSUS chief Wayne Pacelle’s blog post yesterday (”Setting Aside Semantics: Not Killing Pets Must Be Our Goal“):
If you discern a difference between the words, ‘no kill,’ and the words, “No-Kill,” you understand that I’m about to wade into a quarrel.
If, on the other hand, you don’t see much difference except for capital letters and a hyphen, well good for you. You’re on the right track.
You see, America views those of us in the animal protection movement as being against the needless killing of animals. America happens to be correct. Everyone sincerely committed to the cause of animal protection embraces the concept of animals living complete and quality lives—uninterrupted by torment or cruelty.
[...]
The organization I lead has been committed to the principle of protecting animal life since its inception more than a half-century ago, and so are our members and staff. It was The HSUS, more than any other group, that pioneered the concepts of legislation, education, and sterilization to combat the pet overpopulation problem.
We don’t just say it, mind you. It’s the foundation of everything we do and of every aspiration we hold.
So am I in favor of no kill? You bet I am. Have been and always will be. And, yes, so is The HSUS.
There is, of course, more to the story. Some in our movement have been advancing a different kind of “No-Kill.” This “No-Kill” means operating animal shelters in which healthy and treatable dogs and cats are not euthanized for time and space considerations.
This, of course, is a sweet bit of face-saving BS, and a pretty broad slap at Nathan Winograd’s book, “Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America,” which we’ve written about here more than any other topic outside of the pet-food recall. But then, it’s perhaps understandable that the HSUS would be a tad defensive, since much of “Redemption” is a pretty strong slam on the HSUS itself, Mr. Pacelle’s “we’re above the fray” phrasing notwithstanding.
So skip the self-serving BS opening and read on:
But … and naturally, there is a “but” here. But “No-Kill” as an outcome cannot be universally expected to occur overnight, and it cannot succeed without multi-pronged efforts by committed communities. Its conscientious backers recognize that. It’s simple mathematics. If euthanasia is not occurring and intake of dogs and cats is significantly exceeding adoptions, then overcrowding and warehousing—and the attendant suffering—are the undesirable and also unacceptable outcomes. Or if shelters close their doors to animals in need, then the problem is just being pushed off to someone or someplace else, with euthanasia the likely outcome and with the fundamental dynamics essentially left unchanged.
On the other hand, we must not accept routine euthanasia as a social norm. We should raise expectations and set aggressive goals, but recognize that shelters can’t do it without community engagement at every step. We must continue to reduce rates of relinquishment by ramping up affordable and accessible spay and neuter options and helping people resolve normal pet behavior issues. At the same time, we must show a renewed commitment to bring additional resources, a sustained sense of urgency, diligence, volunteerism and creativity to expand the number of suitable homes and adopt more animals. We can redesign shelters to be more inviting to potential adopters, make it possible for apartment dwellers to have pets, develop sophisticated and research-driven marketing campaigns, partner with other community-based institutions, and so much more.
The problem is not unsolvable. Nationwide, only about 20 percent of dogs in homes come from shelters—the rest come from other sources. It would only take a relatively small increase in the adoption rate along with a modest reduction in the birth rate to go a long way toward solving the problem of euthanizing healthy and treatable dogs in many communities.
Emphasis mine. Hmmmmm. Mr. Pacelle is now channelling Richard Avanzino of Maddie’s Fund! Now that’s a pretty neat trick! He then goes into puppy mills, feral cats and pit bulls, and that’s all well worth reading, but I’m going to let you do this on your own.
The grand finale:
Let’s keep moving forward until no healthy and treatable animals are euthanized. Let’s focus on that, and not deplete our energy or divide our strengths with evermore strident internal debates—no kill vs. “No-Kill.” These two words belong to all of us, no matter how they are punctuated. Every day we spend criticizing each other in the circular argument between rightness and reality is a day when the puppy mill operators and the dogfighters and the Internet sellers and puppy importers get something less than our full attention. If we’re willing to challenge ourselves and work together, we can get to our lifesaving goal far quicker. And this we must do—lives are depending on us.
I welcome your thoughts on how to speed up progress so that no one can fathom a difference between the words, no kill and “No-Kill.”
Let’s focus on that, and not deplete our energy or divide our strengths with evermore strident internal debates—no kill vs. ‘No-Kill.’
Now, now, Mr. Pacelle, let’s give credit where credit is due. You wouldn’t even be posting this were it not for “Redemption.” And the no-kill movement — this semantic distinction of yours is more face-saving BS — hasn’t “divided our strengths” but rather energized and focused a new army of animal-lovers who are tired, tired, tired of the intitutional status quo of shelters run by people who cannot see any way out except to empty the cages by killing, fill them again and blame “bad people” for the problem. I’m really sorry if your feelings are hurt by the charges in “Redemption,” but it was apparently the only way to get your attention.
However, I’m absolutely delighted that you’re on the target and on the team now. I’m sure you’ll now be wanting to change your zeal for misguided mandatory spay-neuter legislation like California’s AB 1634 that targets reputable breeders and gives puppy-mills a free pass. I’m also sure you’ll be wanting to look more at the Maddie’s Fund model, of community engagement towards no-kill goals.
And I’m sure, more than anything else, you’ll be wanting to put your money where your mouth is, and loosen the HSUS purse strings for a massive program supporting the building of no-kill regional efforts and promoting cooperative strategies that bring all animal-lovers into the fight.
Am I right? Words are cheap, Mr. Pacelle. Let’s see some action.
You of course remember this particular link:
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/157
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 9, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Wow, Pat! I hadn’t. Geez, the HSUS is really coming along!
From Pat’s link, the steps towards change:
“What people do when you start to institute a change (in chronological order)
Ignore you
Pretend to agree but actually do nothing
Resist, delay, obstruct
Openly attack you (the dangerous phase, but also a sign that change is starting)
Absorb
Utilize
Take credit
Proselytize”
Karen Pryor really has it nailed. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 9, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Someone, quick, click Wayne.
Pat, I’ve got my clickers ordered by the way—-and the book.
Must note that the challenge is probably more for me than Keagan. It IS hard to wrap your mind around totally new ways of doing things. The testimonials for Karen Pryor’s methods are amazing and I’m sold.
Here Wayney-wayney.
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Imagine clicker training being held at county shelters in preparation for animal adoption; a prerequisite just like spaying and neutering!
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Nadine, a good exercise is “The Clicker Game”. You play it with another person, taking turns being the “Trainer” and the “Animal” with some sort of simple task being trained (such as “Turn on the light switch” or “Walk in a circle around that chair”). It’s like the “You’re getting warmer/You’re getting colder” game, except that the “Trainer” uses the clicker (and ONLY the clicker) to tell the “Animal” when they’re on the right track. To make it fun, use something like M&Ms to treat after each click. It’s a great way to get a sense of how *hard* it is for our critters to figure out what we’re trying to get them to do (which is a good thing to remember the next time you get frustrated with your dog for “not getting it”).
And to keep this on the topic of the thread, clicker training works great in a shelter environment to teach the dogs there some simple behaviors (such as walking on lead or “sit to greet”) which can REALLY enhance their adoptability).
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 9, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Pat, buying M&Ms for husband. Thread re adoptability, how hard would this be to teach walking on lead or sit?
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Hi Nadine,
I am not Pat, but I am a clicker traner. Sit has to be about the easiest thing EVER to train with a clicker.
Remember, behavior that is rewarded is likely to be repeated. Catch your new doggie (and hubby) being good.-Nancy
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — November 9, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Sit is one of the easiest behaviors to teach using the clicker. The reason is because you can use “capturing” to get the dog to understand that “Sit” is the desired behavior. “Capturing” is one of several ways of “Getting the behavior” (more details in a post here: http://www.clickersolutions.co.....havior.htm). Capturing a Sit or a Down is usually the second thing I show people how to do with a clicker (“Doggie Zen” is usually the first).
Putting the behavior on cue (so that the dog does a “Sit” when you *ask* for a “Sit”) takes a little more work, but that’s going to be the case whether you’re using clicker training or some other approach. The big difference in clicker training is that you work on getting the behavior BEFORE adding the cue word rather than using the cue word before the dog even knows what the desired behavior is.
For “walking on lead”, you generally use more “shaping” - looking for small approximations of the desired behavior (that *split second* when the lead is loose) and then building up from there. It’s easier to do in a lower-distraction environment than a shelter, so it’s best if the dogs can be taken off-site for these lessons. But if that’s not possible, it can still be done in the face of distractions - it’s just going to take a bit more time and patience.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 9, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Gina, you give HSUS (better known as H$U$) far too much credit.
They have experts on dogfighting? Sure, they HIRE dogfighters, and starting in the 1970’s HYPED a minor activity so that it became a cool sounding activity, attracting all kinds of miscreants. HSUS MADE dogfighting the apparent epidemic it is today, and their socalled anti cruelty campaign is now their biggest source of income.
Hypocrites of the first order? You bet. They FUNDRAISE on the issue of cruelty to dogfighting victims at the same time they advocate KILLING these very victims (and so recommend to all shelters.)
They run NO shelters. How do they get to be “experts”?
They are against Winograd’s no kill vision… .until they see the $$$$$$ before them. NOW Wayne wants to try to spin some words to make it seem like they’re on the same page.
They are just as bad as PETA. Read their literature.. if they are against intentional breeding, OF COURSE they will support draconian laws against breeding. If there is no intentional breeding, what kind of companion animals do you think will ultimately remain? It’s no secret that Wayne has written AGAINST people having pets.
Comment by EmilyS — November 9, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Nadine wants someone to adopt her husband???
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 9, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Emily, I give them just the right amount of credit … and hope that with encouragement, things will change there.
Click. Treat. Change.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 9, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
oh Gina, here’s the thing: you are about communicating useful information to pet owners. Wayne is about power/influence/ideology and building HSUS’ income (and no doubt his own, which is already pretty substantial).
YOU are sincere. Wayne is not. What possible “treat” do you think you can offer that would induce any change in him?
So really: who’s clicking whom?
Comment by EmilyS — November 9, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Brilliant! And fair.
You are right that HSUS is different from PETA. They are both better … and worse.
They are better because they are not ideology driven, and they have actually done a few good things over their long tenure in America.
They are worse because they are an almost pure direct mail mill.
At least ideologues believe in something, however, wrong.
Direct mail mill operators only believe they will have to change their message if their rate of return drops below 1%.
This is my criticism of the HSUS; they are little more than a direct mail mill. I know a LOT about direct mail. I have written it, analyzed it and exposed it. And HSUS is just one more in a sea of “fright factories” who know that “the heart out pulls the head” and whose business plan is predicated on targetting naive senior citizens as much as they possibly can.
Lying to the geezers is a core part of the HSUS business plan.
Do some good people work at HSUS? Sure. That’s true for ALL large organizations.
Do some experts work in an organization as large as HSUS? I would hope so!
That said, do not confuse what the organization is about, or who has the REAL power within the HSUS.
The core business of HSUS is not animal welfare, but laser printing, #10 carrier envelopes, bar codes, and direct mail caging operations.
The core business of HSUS is not about dogs and cats, but about pre-sorted third class mailings at non-profit rates, and business reply envelopes containg letters that close with a request for “your most generous gift at this critical time” followed by a breathless “P.S. …” to make it seem even more urgent.
And the target audience is old people who are led to believe they are helping animals at their local shelters. Which is a LIE that has contined for more than 50 years now. Mr Pacelle is simply the latest keeper of this lie.
As you note, HSUS is trying to subtly change its message and tactics, but it is doing so SOLELY because people are no longer buying their old line of bull.
So now they tell us they are no longer selling bull — they are selling “male cow” instead.
The core business of direct mail mills is predicated on two axioms: 1: Say anything, and 2: Do nothing.
That has been the core business plan of HSUS for a very long time, and it is not going to change because it can’t.
You see, direct mail is EXPENSIVE and the salaries these folks get are not small, and the only way to keep the machine flying is by sending out millions and millions of emotion-ladden letters to old people who are confused about where their hard-earned retirement money is going.
Would the board of HSUS keep Pacelle if membership went down? No. So to keep business up, he has to keep sending out millions and millions of direct mail letters.
Would people donate if they knew 75 cents out of every dollar they gave to HSUS went into more direct mail? NO. So he does not tell them.
Would they donate if they knew the HSUS did not help a single local shelter? NO. So this fact is never said.
So the truth is purged, and the letters continue to roll out, and the business plan remains the same.
And that business plan is SAY ANYTHING and DO NOTHING, or as least do as little as possible.
One way to make it look like you are doing something for almost no cost (and with almost no effort) is to simply FAKE IT by taking credit for work you did not actually do.
That is what Mr. Pacelle is trying to do now.
What you call “Channeling Maddie’s Fund” is really nothing more than intellectual and moral theft of the work of others. Mr. Pacelle is trying to steal success he did not earn, even as he tries to marginalize those who are actually leading the push for change.
The good news is that HSUS is apparently feeling the heat. The bad news is that it can never see the light, because it is wedded and welded to a direct mail mill business plan. Maddie’s Fund is not, which is why it can not only afford to tell the truth, it has the resources to make a difference.
Patrick
PBurns@erols.com
Comment by PBurns — November 9, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Gina LOL LOL LOL —- no, Russ is a keeper! We just need him to learn the new training methods along with me … M&Ms would be one appropriate reward for him! As a librarian, letting him sit down and read a good book would be another! Note: Russ needs no “sit and stay” training. However, he IS the other person to train Keagan and he makes ‘terrible’ facetious, corner-of-his mouth and tongue-in-cheek statements about how to train the dog. Not serious in the least, just has a warped sense of humor. He thinks Keagan is great and we’ll never give him up for anything. We are hoping Keagan will become a Library Reading Dog if we are (together) successful. I’ve obedience trained with older methods while Russ has always just had good dogs, so we’ll both be challenged.
Thanks, Pat, for all the info. Is that your site you linked to? Do you make house calls, lol?
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Oh, Patrick, you’ve put it so succinctly. Now, what can and will we do about it? Any suggestions?
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Oh my no! That’s Melissa Alexander’s ClickerSolutions site. I used to post to the ClickerSolutions email list until it became a bit too high volume to keep up with.
And I do make house calls - but only if you’re within driving distance! LOL!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 9, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Pat—-and—-so—-what do you consider driving distance?
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Well, if I have to make a potty stop - that’s probably too far . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 9, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Pat, too bad. Well I guess we’ll have to wing it then!
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Well said, Gina. Keep exposing both groups. Help us find the good groups. Have to go now, dog demanding dinner early. Apparently I’m the trained one.
Comment by kb — November 9, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Excellent blog, Gina. And I, too, will have to sleep on all of it….and really need to hear Nathan Winograd speak.
One thing bears consideration: PETA started with a very succinct mission: to defend animal rights. As they grew they became the perceived “animal experts” by default, since there were few other animal orgs back then that had the stature of PETA.
Throught the years this misperception that PETA was the expert on all animal matters persisted and often PETA was unwittingly caught in the maelstrom.
Times have changed and hopefully the PETA I used to know will go back to doing what they do best: defending animal RIGHTS.
Like any good business, you have to find your niche and stick with it.
Comment by Lynn — November 9, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Christie will blog about Nathan Winograd’s “Redemption” talk this weekend. She’s on deadline now. (Hmmmm … Christie … your editor is w-a-i-t-i-n-g. ::: Looks at watch:::: )
Patrick: Incredible comment. Hope you repeat it on your blog for maximum exposure. As Voltaire said, “common sense is not so common.” I think that’s because you got enough of it for a dozen people, you greedy bastard. :)
Pat, Nancy and Nadine: I “loaded the clicker” tonight with Pip. He picked it up so quickly I’m guessing one of his foster homes worked on clicker training with him. I think he’ll be good at it! Pat knows this book, but Nadine, check out Melissa Alexander’s “Click for Joy,” which features a lot of the information from the list Pat mentioned. (Which I had to opt out of, too, for the same reason: Too much traffic!)
OK, that’s it for me tonight. I’m jet-lagged and road-weary. We’re heading for bed!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 9, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Pfffft. You’re going to bed. I’m still writing. It’ll be there when you get up, Ms. Early Bird.
Comment by Christie Keith — November 9, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Patrick, this is the most excellent characterization of the H$U$ that I’ve seen. Do you mind if this is crossposted with credit given to you?
Comment by DogLover — November 9, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
Gina, that’s really exciting about Pip and the clicker! I’ll order the Alexander book too, thanks! I was impressed with the web info. I’m really grateful for all this input!
Comment by Nadine L. — November 9, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
I have added a (hopefully) smoother version of my earlier comment here to the terrierman blog at http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com Cross post away. I have linked back to Gina’s excellent piece, of course, and also to an earlier (long) summary of Winograd’s book.
By way Gina, the empty-cage shelter picture on your post was PERFECT.
Patrick
http://www.terrierman.com
Comment by PBurns — November 10, 2007 @ 3:52 am
Given HSUS’ recent shennanegins with the Vick Dogs, they lost their donation from me this year. As others have blogged, I too want to see them put their $ where their mouths are on the NO-Kill issue before I resume donations.
That being said, I believe that accuracy and truthfulness are important. Not only by them, but by us.
I’ve checked out HSUS on Charity Navigator.com and they give them a 4 star rating (out of 5). According to CN, only 13.8% of funds raised goes to support fundraising, and 79% of funds goes to programs.
http://www.charitynavigator.or.....orgid=3848
Patrick, where do your figures come from? Please explain why your assertations differ so much from a well respected independent charity rating service.
Granted, you, like me, may not agree with where the 79% of funds is being spent but let’s keep our criticism’s based on factual evidence.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 10, 2007 @ 7:43 am
I agree with 2CatMom… and I’d also like to read evidence for Patrick’s assertion that HSUS is specifically targetting the elderly.
13.8% for fundraising IS quite high, though.
Comment by EmilyS — November 10, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Patrick’s quite capable of answering on his own, no doubt, and I’m sure he will.
But I do know something about the senior connection. Successful direct mail appeals always target seniors, and there have been many investigations and hearings about this — not to mention seminars for direct mailers on how to do it.
A Google search on “direct mail” and “seniors” will turn up more than you can stand to read on the subject.
As for the figures, I know many charities put direct-mail appeals not in the “fund-raising” category but call them “programs” or “outreach” for their “educational” information.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 10, 2007 @ 10:13 am
thanks for that info about direct mail/seniors, Gina.
Then it’s really nothing unusual/unique/conspiratorial or even sleazy for HSUS to do that. Or at least not more sleazy than, say, AARP?
Their direct mail techniques are the LEAST important reason to hate HSUS, considering how many dogs they are directly responsible for killing.
Comment by EmilyS — November 10, 2007 @ 10:53 am
I agree: It’s no more/less sleazy than any other group that targets people who are especially vulnerable. But hey, direct mail and phone solicitors are hardly on anyone’s list of the most admired professions, wouldn’t you say?
Would we like it more if a direct-mail money machine advanced policies we agree with — no matter what the charity — even if some people had all their savings tapped by the persuasiveness of the pitches? Hmmmmm. Gotta think about that one.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 10, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Anybody notice how much Wayne resembles Scott Peterson? You can put a baby face on for the public, lie, but we are not buying your rhetoric. I for one have no trouble seeing that no kill means zero kill.
Comment by Concha Castaneda — November 10, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Emily S - 13.8% for fundraising sounds high, but you should see what other organizations spend! Paralyzed Veterans of America for example, spends 32.1% of their budget on fundraising (2 atar rating). Even worse, they use telemarketers that keep 90% of the money they raise.(Yes, this is from CharityNavigator).
Anyway, HSUS has done some good work in the past (horse slaughter and livestock care issues) and may do some good work in the future. I’ll wait and see if they merit any future donations from me.
If they move to a real NO-KILL stance, wonderful. Given their size and influence, it will only be for the good. And if money is motivating them to change their stance - fine -that means that they get why people like me aren’t giving them money anymore.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 10, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
One sure way a charity will never get a penny from me is to send me something “free” in the mail.
I started the Gulf Coast SPCA with a few friends in Mississippi specifically to help the animals. Not one cent was ever used for anything but care of animals. Most of the time we used our own funds.
Unfortunately I had to leave after Katrina but they are still working hard with the local shelter on a spay and neuter clinic on the shelter grounds. Two of us spent our own money to become certified animal euthanasia techs to help convince the county shelter to stop using their gas chamber.
We had to deal with HSUS after Katrina and they were more concerned with getting good press than anything else. The volunteers put up a sign where HSUS was set up calling it “Camp FUBAR” and the sign stayed the whole time they were there.
Comment by Patty P — November 10, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Gina-
FYI. Erich Sakach is still fighting the good fight. Recently was involved in a major cockfighting bust. Continues to support disaster preparedness and response for animals. Works with various state,local, and NGO groups on disasters and animals. Went down to fires in Southern CA and helped with emergency response and coordination.
Comment by glock — November 10, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Some non profit organizations hide their fundraising costs behind sister organizations or else they have creative ways of accounting for fundraising costs.
For example, the costs of a direct mail campaign might be hidden under the category of “education” or some such thing rather than fundraising which was its true purpose.
There was an investigative series some time back about the fundraising of major environmental organizations. The investigation found wide variations in how the various groups classified the same kind of fundraising costs. Some groups are transparent, and some are trying to hide the costs by clever book keeping.
I don’t put a lot of stock in the 13.8% fundraising figure that HSUS quotes. I bet it’s really a lot higher than that.
Comment by LauraS — November 10, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
2CatMom -
HSUS is a fraud as an animal group, but great as a PR firm. They haven’t done any good. You mention horse slaughter, but they have had nothing to do that with that campaign other than issue press releases taking credit for things they didn’t do. Thet group that started the horse slaughter campaign and still leads it is the Animal Welfare Institute. I am amazed at how HSUS gets away with what they do. It only takes a bit of research to see they only do press. Look up AWI on Charity Navigator if you want to see a good group!
HSUS actually fakes their rating on CN by passing money through their international division the Humane Soceity International. Without them HSUS would go back to its old D rating.
Comment by Sue Walker — November 10, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Sue: Thanks for the tip. I will take a closer look at their annual reports - and query CN on this point.
Comment by 2CatMom — November 10, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
-
Charity Navigator” and most other charity-ranking sites allow organizations to claim most of their direct mail costs as a “program expense.”
In fact, a huge portion of what is listed as a “program expense” for HSUS is really nothing more than direct mail costs for paper, printing, postage, name acquisition, and consultants to manage the massive direct mail machine that is the heart and soul of the Humane Society of the U.S.
Think about it.
HSUS claims it has nearly 10 million members (Google it) and yet it also says it spends only $11.9 million on fundraising? Those two number cannot sit on the same page with truth. You cannot send membership renewal and special appeal letters to 10 million people for the expenses they are quoting as fundraising, much less prospect to replace all the HSUS members who will not renew their membership this year and every year (the majority). Something is wrong with the numbers, and as a 25-year veteran nonprofit manager I will tell you where the error is: the fundraising expense number. These things are known lies and charity-ranking sites like Charity Navigator simply wink at it.
Why is this kind of cost-shifting allowed? Good question!
One thing it reveals is that direct mail really IS the core business of many nonprofit organizations. HSUS and PETA are just two names among scores of organizations that operate the same way.
The method these organizations use to calculate what “percentage” of their direct mail letters are to be accounted for as “fundraising” is pretty amusing.
If they have a 4-page letter (the average length) which sets out “the problem” for 3.5 pages and asks for a gift in the last half page, then 87 percent of the letter is deemed to be “education” and listed as a “program expense,” and only 13 percent or so is deemed to be “fundraising.”
Because HSUS, PETA, and so many organizations are banging hard on our mail boxes for donations at this time of year, it’s worth spending a little time looking at the economics of direct mail, and explaining how it really works. I think, if you follow my narrative, you will see I am really quite conservative when I say 75 cents out every dollar most folks give to HSUS goes to pay for more direct mail. The actual figure, for the average donor, is well over 100 percent.
So here goes:
1. The lowest-cost direct mail solicitation letter will cost about 50 cents a unit if you are printing and lasering them in HUGE MASS quantities (and I mean really big numbers) and doing everything as cheaply as possible. The names and addresses alone will cost you about 10 cents a unit, plus there is postage, printing, mail merge (the purging of duplicate names acquired from multiple list-vendors), lasering addresses and salutation, etc. The figures I am quoting here are VERY conservative and not up to date. Real package production numbers today are likely to top well over 70 cents a unit. No matter. Let’s use the lower number anyway.
2. The return rate on direct mail is about 1 percent. This means that out of 100 letters that are sent out, only ONE business reply envelope will come back to the sending organization with a donation in it. For environmenalists out there, this means about 6 pounds of paper (generally not recyclable due to the use of gummed stickers, window envelopes, coated stock, staples, etc.) is sent out in order raise just ONE direct mail donor for a nonprofit organization.
3. OK, so how much money does this ONE donor give to the organization? Not much. The average direct mail donor to an organization like HSUS will give a gift of $20 to $30.
4. Those with a calculator are, no doubt, trying to figure out how anyone can make money on direct mail. After all, based on the numbers I have quoted here, every person that joins a nonprofit organization like HSUS is actually COSTING that organization $20 to $30 per person. How can that be?
5. The answer is that HSUS and other direct mail organizations make money by going back to their membership again and again asking them to give more and more money. For example, if you joined the Humane Society of the U.S. last year, you are sure to have received a “special appeal” from HSUS asking you to give more more money for the “special” cause of dealing with the Michael Vick dog fighting case (never mind that HSUS had nothing to do with it). Special appeals like this are regular fair for every nonprofit organization, and lighting fast “creative teams” are hired to hammer out the direct mail copy, produce the art, and get the production out and in the mail in very short order.
6. The response rates for Special Appeals are much higher than for new-membership solicitation pieces (called acquisition or prospect pieces), but they still garner only a 15 percent response rate for even a very successful program and an excellent appeal. The good news here, however, is that a 15 percent response rate for a Special Appeal is a very cash-positive thing. If the average donation to a Special Appeal is $20, and the special appeal costs $1 a unit (Special Appeals generally costs more than acquisition packages due to smaller print runs), then a $100 investment in a direct mail package sent to 100 new members will generate $300, for a net profit of $200. Since the organization will be sending out four Special Appeals a year, this works out to be $800 in to help defray the $2,500 acquisition cost of adding those 100 new members to the organization’s roles in the first place. You still have a deficit, but we are making progress!
7. Where the real money comes in, is not with Special Appeals, but with renewals. An organization like HSUS can expect to have 75 percent of its first-time members never renew. In short, 75 out of 100 first year HSUS members are total losers for HSUS. That’s a huge loss. On the other hand, 25 percent of HSUS’s menbership are likely to renew, so that loser of a 1 percent “prospect” mailing becomes a cash-generating machine when some version of it hits a 25 percent response rate as a renewal. A renewal package will cost about $1 a unit (smaller mailing volumes, etc.) but a $100 investment here can be expected to bring in $700 or so, for a total “profit” of $600 per 100-person renewal mailing.
9. Now, if you are following along, you will see that over time we are recouping our money. Though we had huge costs, and a massive negative cash flow up front, we began to recover some money back over time.
10. After two years of Special Appeals and two renewals, the surviving member/donor to a direct mail organization will become a cash cow — the cash cow that enables the direct mail machine to pump out more direct mail in perpetuity. But, you will notice, NOT A DIME has gone to real program work yet. Help dogs and cats? Sorry, that’s not yet on the agenda. Maybe later. Or maybe never.
11. If you do a leaf-plot of any direct mail cohort, you will see that the AVERAGE DONOR to HSUS is actually costing the organization more than he or she ever donates, and that 100 percent or more of the money these folks give to HSUS is simply spun down the direct mail rat hole. HSUS is not unique in this regard, by the way. This is the way it is with a lot of direct mail organizations.
12. The direct mail industry describes the system I have layed out here as “prospecting” for members and donors. The analogy is to gold: You put 100 tons of earth into the front hopper (a list of people who might give to the cause you are raising money for), and then you do a hard wash of the dirt to float off as much scum as possible. What starts out as a ton of earth is 99.99999 percent dirt at the front of the mill. After one pass through the wash, the remainder is reduced to 99 percent dirt and 1 percent gold. With each pass through the wash, the amount of dirt goes down, and the amount of gold goes up. You never get much lower than 80 percent dirt and 20 percent gold, but 20 percent gold is the stuff of direct mail dreams. Twenty percent gold? Imagine!
13. The level of donor-milling that goes on in the direct mail world is astounding. Nonprofit donor lists are ranked and assesed with finer scales than were used at the Comstock mines. Today computer keep careful tabs on such things as “recency, frequency and monetary,” and a donor’s “highest gift to date.” The ever-present goal of every direct mail factory is to move the donors up the “giving ladder.” The theory is that anyone who gives $50 can give $100, and that anyone who gives $100 can give $500, etc. And, of course, you can do more than just milk the living. Organizations like HSUS have active bequest and planned giving programs too. Bequests are really fine things. After all, the dead never complain too loudly about what you do with their money.
TO RECAP: Most of the people who write a check to the HSUS are actually costing the organization more money than they are donating. In this sense, 100 percent of their check (and then some!) is going down the rat hole of direct mail. The same is true for people for who join HSUS, give money to a special appeal, and even renew their membership. It is only after someone has been a member of HSUS for at least two years that there is the slightest hope that ANY money they are giving HSUS is going to any other purpose beyond paying the cost of keeping the direct mail machine running.
And to recap, HSUS is not unique in this regard. The same economic engine is at work inside most nonprofit direct mail mills. The Human Society of the U.S. is only one of a whole bevvy of ugly direct mail fright factories that are out there.
Now, to answer a final question: Why do direct mail mills target seniors citizens? Well, for one thing, seniors actually read. Young people listen to I-Pods and watch TV. Also, seniors are less educated (less sophisticated if you prefer) and are more trusting. Also, as a population ages, it tends to skew more to women. The older a population is, the more women it will have. While women are not quite as likely to be BIG donors, they are more likely to respond direct mail, and often are more frequent donors as well. Women are also more likely to be influenced by emotion-based direct mail appeals; the kind of thing the Animal Right crowd specializes in.
And then, of course, we have seniors who donate to charities because it means at least *something* comes in the mail. You would be surprised how many lonely old people out there thrill at getting something in the mail that is actually addressed to them. The kids never write. At least that nice looking Mr. Wayne Pacelle does.
And so there it is. That’s how it works.
If Wayne Pacelle wants to argue the specific HSUS numbers with me, I am more than happy to do so as I work just around the corner from him in Washington, D.C.. If he will bring his ledgers (the real data not the processed IRS 9-90 drivel), I will buy him lunch, and we can go over the data and run a cohort analysis to figure out how long it takes for a HSUS member to “go green” and get out of the red. My only stipulation is that after I run the data, I can publicize it. Who knew truth to suffer in a free and open investigation?
Patrick
PBurns@erols.com
http://www.terrierman.com
Comment by PBurns — November 10, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Bravo Patrick!
Comment by LauraS — November 11, 2007 @ 6:30 am
what Patrick writes is very much in line with my own experience with nonprofits. It’s not a conspiracy or a secret, though… you can easily learn about nonprofit fundraising through a variety of sources.
Almost EVERY nonprofit conducts some or all of its fundraising this way… even the tiny grassroots organizations I was involved with. Now my group actually had “members” who participated in activities and voted for the board (which to me is a definition of member. Most of the big groups like HSUS don’t really have “members”.. they have “supporters”)
So Patrick’s posts while informative, they are no particular attacks on HSUS, but on the nature of fundraising. Which may indeed deserve such scrutiny.
But the important question to ask is not how an organization raises money, but what it DOES with the money (aside from more fundraising)
Does HSUS fail on this account?
YES! They do very very little that truly helps animals.
So the focus on fundraising is, to me, off target.
BTW given the nature of HSUS, you can expect to see a post on their “blog” attacking Terrierman personally, as well as what he does with his dogs. Wayne P did not get to where he is today by being nice.
Comment by EmilyS — November 11, 2007 @ 10:35 am
My guess is that would make the Terrierman’s day.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 11, 2007 @ 11:02 am
So, even though I’m seriously irritated at having been sucked into giving HSUS money under the false pretense that they were sheltering the Vick dogs and was going to write them a nasty letter about their ripoff, I should save the postage because, actually, I have cost them money by sending them money. And I will continue to cost them money for as long as they keep sending me “appeals” for money, since they will never, ever get another dime out of me. Hummm. Sounds good to me. Lewis Carroll would be proud.
Thank you Mr. Burns for taking the time to educate all of us on how this little corner of the world works. My non-profit experience never included this particular little trip through Wonderland.
Comment by Susan Fox — November 11, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Susan,
Here’s an even better idea. When you get one the numerous donation solicitations from the H$U$ with the pre-paid postage envelopes fill it with lead fishing weights and then return it. ;-)
Comment by DogLover — November 11, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Patrick and Emily are right that HSUS is not alone in being a fundraising machine that hides its fundraising costs. There was an outstanding 5 part series in the Sacramento Bee several years ago entitled “Environment, Inc.” by Tom Knudson. The series goes into detail about the fundraising practices of the major environmental organizations.
Quoting from Part 3 of the series, you will see the same tactics that HSUS employs:
“Dear Friend,
I need your help to stop an impending slaughter.
Otherwise, Yellowstone National Park - an American wildlife treasure - could soon become a bloody killing field. And the victims will be hundreds of wolves and defenseless wolf pups!
* * *
So begins a fund-raising letter from one of America’s fastest-growing environmental groups - Defenders of Wildlife.
Using the popular North American gray wolf as the hub of an ambitious campaign, Defenders has assembled a financial track record that would impress Wall Street.
In 1999, donations jumped 28 percent to a record $17.5 million. The group’s net assets, a measure of financial stability, grew to $14.5 million, another record. And according to its 1999 annual report, Defenders spent donors’ money wisely, keeping fund-raising and management costs to a lean 19 percent of expenses.
But there is another side to Defenders’ dramatic growth.
Pick up copies of its federal tax returns and you’ll find that its five highest-paid business partners are not firms that specialize in wildlife conservation. They are national direct mail and telemarketing companies - the same ones that raise money through the mail and over the telephone for nonprofit groups, from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to the U.S. Olympic Committee.
You’ll also find that in calculating its fund-raising expenses, Defenders borrows a trick from the business world. It dances with digits, finds opportunity in obfuscation. Using an accounting loophole, it classifies millions of dollars spent on direct mail and telemarketing not as fund raising but as public education and environmental activism.
Take away that loophole and Defenders’ 19 percent fund-raising and management tab leaps above 50 percent, meaning more than half of every dollar donated to save wolf pups helped nourish the organization instead. That was high enough to earn Defenders a “D” rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy, an independent, nonprofit watchdog that scrutinizes nearly 400 charitable groups.
Pick up copies of IRS returns for major environmental organizations and you’ll see that what is happening at Defenders of Wildlife is not unusual. Eighteen of America’s 20 most prosperous environmental organizations, and many smaller ones as well, raise money the same way: by soliciting donations from millions of Americans.
But in turning to mass-market fund-raising techniques for financial sustenance, environmental groups have crossed a kind of conservation divide.
No allies of industry, they have become industries themselves, dependent on a style of salesmanship that fills mailboxes across America with a never-ending stream of environmentally unfriendly junk mail, reduces the complex world of nature to simplistic slogans, emotional appeals and counterfeit crises, and employs arcane accounting rules to camouflage fund raising as conservation.
Just as industries run afoul of regulations, so are environmental groups stumbling over standards. Their problem is not government standards, because fund raising by nonprofits is largely protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Their challenge is meeting the generally accepted voluntary standards of independent charity watchdogs.
And there, many fall short.
Six national environmental groups spend so much on fund raising and overhead they don’t have enough left to meet the minimum benchmark for environmental spending - 60 percent of annual expenses - recommended by charity watchdog organizations. Eleven of the nation’s 20 largest include fund-raising bills in their tally of money spent protecting the environment, but don’t make that clear to members.
..
“Environmental groups all do this,” he said. “They take credit for things that are generated by many, many people. What is a community accomplishment becomes an individual accomplishment - for the purposes of raising money.”
..
“Oftentimes, we said very cynically that for every dollar you put into fund raising, you only got back a dollar,” he recalled. “Unless you hit a big donor, the bureaucracy was spending as much to generate money as it was getting back.”
Some groups are far more efficient than others. The Nature Conservancy, for example, spends just 10 percent of donor contributions on fund raising, while the Sierra Club spends 42 percent, according to the American Institute of Philanthropy.
..
Determining how much environmental groups spend on fund raising is only slightly less complex than counting votes in Florida. The difficulty is a bookkeeping quagmire called “joint cost accounting.”
At its simplest, joint cost accounting allows nonprofit groups to splinter fund-raising expenditures into categories that sound more pleasant to a donor’s ear - public education and environmental action - shaving millions off what they report as fund raising.
Some groups use joint cost accounting. Others don’t. Some groups put it to work liberally, others cautiously. Those who do apply it don’t explain it. What one group labels education, another calls fund raising.
..
Look closely and you’ll find sweepstakes solicitations, personal return address labels, free tote bag offers and other fund-raising novelties cross-dressing as conservation. You also find that those who monitor such activity are uneasy with it.
David Ormsteadt, an assistant attorney general in Connecticut, states in Advancing Philanthropy, a journal of the National Society of Fundraising Executives: “Instead of reporting fees and expenses as fund-raising costs, which could … discourage donations, charities may report these costs as having provided a public benefit. The more mailings made - and the more expense incurred - the more the ‘benefit’ to society.”
The Wilderness Society, for example, determined in 1999 that 87 percent of the $1.5 million it spent mailing 6.2 million membership solicitation letters wasn’t fund raising but “public education.” That shaved $1.3 million off its fund-raising tab.
One of America’s oldest and most venerable environmental groups, the Wilderness Society didn’t just grab its 87 percent figure out of the air. It literally counted the number of lines in its letter and determined that 87 of every 100 were educational.”
Comment by LauraS — November 11, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
I posted the above though it isn’t a pet issue so folks could see that the claims that HSUS and similar groups are fundraising machines aren’t paranoid delusions. The kind of conflict fundraising these groups employ has become increasingly common by many different kinds of activist groups. It’s not unique to HSUS, AR groups, environmental groups, or “liberal causes”. Groups that appeal to conservatives employ exactly the same tactics. Collectively, they have contributed to the unhealthy polarization of our society.
Comment by LauraS — November 11, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Tom Knudson is a two-time Pulitzer winner — once for the Des Moine Register (1985) and once for The Sacramento Bee (1992). He was at The Bee when I was, and he won for the second time the same year my friend Deborah Blum won for “The Monkey Wars,” also for The Bee.
I was sitting right across from her at the time. Pretty good day, that one. Her “The Monkey Wars” series, about primate research, later became a book and it’s a great read.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 11, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
I used to donate money to probably two dozen different activist organizations, representing several different causes that I believe in. I was getting easily over 100 fundraising appeals a year in my mailbox. In addition to the annual membership renewals, there were the “special appeals letters” that Patrick writes about. These are emotional pleas to try to get members to donate even more in response to some exaggerated crisis.
I finally got sick of all the hyped up crises, sick of all the extremist rhetoric, sick of all the requests for money, and sick of all the junk in my mailbox. I quit donating to almost all of these organizations — even though I still believe in the causes. At the time, I didn’t realize how much of the money I was donating was going toward sustaining the fundraising beast.
Nowadays, I look at things differently. If an organization is based on the flaming rhetoric of emotional crisis to solicit donations, I (usually) don’t donate. This is especially true if they are using emotionally-charged horrific photographs to try to get folks to empty their wallets [oftentimes these photographs are misleading and sometimes even staged…yes, faked]
If an organization takes (nearly) sole credit for the accomplishments of collective efforts, I don’t donate. [As an example, no fewer than three organizations have tried to take a grossly disproportionate amount of the credit for getting AB 1634 shelved]
If an organization sends me multiple glossy “special appeals” mailings each year to try to get more money, I don’t donate…. because I know regardless of what Charity Navigator says that they are spending too much money on fundraising.
I donate to organizations that logically lay out facts rather than resort to simplistic emotional appeals. I donate to organizations that work cooperatively and creatively with diverse stakeholders.
Comment by LauraS — November 11, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
ALL the big “cause” groups are the same from the fundraising point of view. I give to very very few national groups. In fact, I no longer give to ANY group, including rescues, that won’t publish specific information about what they do and what they accomplish, either. High sounding goals and pleas to sheer emotion no longer impress me. I give to a very few dog related groups. I don’t even give to the pit bull rescue from whom I got one of my dogs. Among the larger environmental groups I like Bat Conservation International. I also give (though I admit some of the reason is sentimental) to the Jane Goodal Institute. HSUS/Defenders, Audubon, Nature Conservancy, nope. I wouldn’t give to the NRA or to National Wildlife Federation either.
Comment by EmilyS — November 11, 2007 @ 9:41 pm