The Gold Rush is on as Helmsley billions come into play … maybe
By Gina Spadafori
July 3, 2008
The news that a judge had trimmed the amount put into trust to care for the dog of the late billionaire Leona Helmsley from $12 million to paltry $2 million was immediately overshadowed by a little tidbit that immediately got every big non-profit animal-advocacy group in the country salivating in their conference rooms:
The bulk of the Helmsley estate is to go to the dogs. Well, maybe. From the New York Times:
Her instructions, specified in a two-page “mission statement,” are that the entire trust, valued at $5 billion to $8 billion and amounting to virtually all her estate, be used for the care and welfare of dogs, according to two people who have seen the document and who described it on condition of anonymity.
It is by no means clear, however, that all the money will go to dogs. Another provision of the mission statement says Mrs. Helmsley’s trustees may use their discretion in distributing the money, and some lawyers say the statement may not mean much anyway, given that its directions were not incorporated into Mrs. Helmsley’s will or the trust documents.
As HSUS top dog Wayne Pacelle points out, this
[...] would represent the largest investment in animal protection in U.S. history. Currently, the largest foundation for animals, Maddie’s Fund, has assets of $300 million. There are many smaller foundations, but in the aggregate, their holdings do not approach the size of the Helmsley fortune.
If her estate is put to use in a way that is consistent with her instructions, a total of $8 billion would result in $400 million flowing to the cause of dog protection per year (if the standard five percent of the corpus is allocated each year).
Assuming the trustees do set up some sort of Maddie’s Fund organization to help dogs (too bad Helmsley apparently didn’t like cats, because the need is in many ways even more dire with them), I would like to see some out of the box thinking, not just a hunk of billions sitting in a trust funding more of what we already do, just at a higher price level.
If the money becomes available, I don’t want it to go to any established national group. None of them. They have money, goals and programs already. Let them go on with them.
What I would like to see it a new organization with an entirely new approach. Like Maddie’s Fund, on steroids. I would like to see a group that doesn’t preach, doesn’t punish and doesn’t try to fix after the fact, but rather starts upsteam, identifies situations that will become problems and prevents them before they do. This must be done with respect for the people who can be helped to help dogs, not with the judgmentalism and arrogant superiority of the “we know better” mind-set that’s all too common animal-advocacy groups large and small.
Too often our animal-advocacy groups decide on the message they want and deliver it in the way that makes sense to them and their donors. People who aren’t reached by these methods are considered “stupid,” “poor,” or “bad” — the latter used as a rationale to punish them with laws and their animals with death in shelters.
To me, this long-accepted strategy of preaching to the donor choir misses the mark by a mile, because it never acknowledges that:
- Most people want to do what’s right for their pets, but many who struggle resent being told what to do by a movement that’s mostly middle-class, white and female. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
- Most people will do what’s right for their pets, if you help them without making it seem like you’re judging them or talking down to them.
So, here’s what I would do with a big chunk of the money and that new organization:
Look at what BadRap has done in some of the toughest, most challenged neighborhoods in the country. They haven’t gone in and told people what to do and how bad they are. They’ve gone in and offered help, and asked people what help they needed:
At our recent Richmond based Free Shots Fair, BR volunteers David & Mary asked Richmond residents for suggestions for improvements that would help pet owners in Contra Costa County. The tape quality is a little ruff, but some of the quotes are great.
What do urban pet owners want? – The same as everyone, everywhere: More accessible vet care, more responsive animal control, more options for exercising pets, more training and education.
You never know until you ask…
Problem is, few ever ask. We see a tough-looking kid walking down the street with a pit bull on a chain and we assume he’s a Michael Vick wannabe, a total write-off. Or we assume people who are selling puppies in front of the big box store are doing it to pick up some cash to buy meth, not because they didn’t have the money to spay their girl or the transportation to get her to a clinic.
Start with a fact-finding force to:
- Find out what how we can help pet-lovers who can’t always help themselves. What, exactly, do they need in terms of services and supplies and how can we get those to them?
- Find out how to communicate on their terms, without coercion, arrogance or derision on the part of the people who are providing those goods and services.
- Find out how to deliver these basics, especially spaying and neutering services, in a way pet-lovers can really use and feel good about. No one likes to feel like a charity case.
For example, don’t offer reduced-cost spay-neuter services (with vouchers to limited-hours clinics they can’t get to because they can’t take a pet on the bus), but bring free mobile veterinary clinics into the neighborhoods and take care of pets no questions asked. And when you get your dog or cat altered, not only is it free, but you get some pet supplies and food to take with you. Some programs even pay people who have their pet altered. We all want more of that, so why not offer a cash incentive, if that works (and it has shown to)?
Treat people like valued customers, in however many languages it takes. Thank you for your business, sir! We’re glad you’re here, ma’am! And yes, that is a mighty cute little puppy! How can we help? Can we show you how to stop your puppy from pulling on the leash? Yes, we DO have a database of housing with pets accepted! And yes, we WILL guarantee your pet deposit with the landlord.
Make the environment of providing services and goods such that people can find out more information easily and in the way they want to get it. They should not be lectured about what you think they should do. Ask what other barriers to responsible pet care they are dealing with …. and help them get over those barriers, too. And remember: Cut people a little slack. Everyone isn’t coming from where you are, and everyone — even people who love their dogs — doesn’t believe a dog belongs on the bed … in the kitchen … or even (gasp!) in the house.
Back to BadRap, which is truly the most innovative organization I’ve seen in the animal world:
In digging around the Net, it seems that Responsible Owner materials offered in Spanish are either hard to find or sorta preachy, so I updated our Great Owners = Great Dogs poster in hopes that it helps makes a difference to somebody. The blurb in red reads:
Important! Dogs that live on chains can become frustrated and dangerous. Do not allow children near dogs that live on chains.
If I were one of the Hemsley trustees, I would so ask the BAD RAP people to be on the Board of Directors. The work they have done continues to defy all history, “common wisdom” and expectations.
This kind of money really can change the world, for dogs and (whether Hemsley wanted it so or not, and it seems apparent she did not) for people whose lives can be changed for the better by an association with animals that’s based on love, care and respect. This is especially true of children, because they more than anyone are who need the help, to break these cycles that frustrate us all.
Let’s get these dogs what they need, and in so doing help people gain the many, long-established benefits of pet-ownership.
Please, Helmley trustees, don’t take that money and do more of the same, putting in place people who pat themselves on the back while looking down their noses at the people who don’t do things the way they want them to. Look at what the innovators are doing to change perceptions and let’s do more of it, from coast to coast. I’m sure the folks at BadRAP would be happy to help, as would any number of leaders in the no-kill movement, people who really are looking at what we do and asking if that’s the only way to do it.
Don’t make it just about the top down. When you want to know what works and what people need, don’t assume … ask them.
By the way, I have a suggestion for the name of this new group: Here Comes Trouble. Because Trouble is the name of the Helmsley dog, of course, and because a group with money that ignores the status quo will be nothing BUT trouble for the old guard. And hooray for that.
Elswhere: Lots of good stuff I keep meaning to point out. Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly stands her ground when people insist that she sign a health certificate on deadline to put a dog on a risky flight … and then when she refused, the people have the gall to try to shake her down for the cost of the flight they missed. … Terrierman gets snarky at the AKC, yes, again, but it always has entertainment value and more than a few valid points … Nancy Freedman-Smith goes green with dog hair. … Best in Flock offers good advice about screaming parrots. (Yes, Eddie, I hear ya. The neighbors two blocks away hear ya, too.) … Nathan Winograd waves a red cape in front of PETA’s lawyers. … Yes, Biscuit! follows up on the moron mayor who thought the answer to an unadequate animal shelter was to turn the dogs loose in a national forest. (By the way, for a place no one has ever heard of, West Helena, Ark., has sure been in the news a lot lately, including for a new book about a massacre there in 1919.)
Remember we are shutting down the blog for the holiday weekend, so make your plans accordingly.
That video made me cry!
Also, my food poisoning came back this morning, with vomiting, so I’m going to the doctor… this doesn’t seem like a normal pattern to me.
*sobs and sobs in frustration watching work deadlines get closer and closer*
Comment by Christie Keith — July 3, 2008 @ 11:41 am
I can only imagine the nightmare of being in charge of distributing this money. No possible way to make everyone happy. Probably no possible way to make a majority happy. Every dollar handed out will draw criticism from someone (or, more likely, someoneS). And the final decisions will probably be made by people unfamiliar with the big picture regarding canine welfare. People who may think PETA helps dogs or something totally whacked like that. Can you imagine what size freezer PETA would buy with a huge sum of cash like that?
Comment by slt — July 3, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
I will tell you from experience that the minute you start trying to offer free (or even low-cost) spay/neuter, veterinarians in the community will rise up in protest. It’s a lot easier said than done.
Comment by Mary — July 3, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
“Assuming the trustees do set up some sort of Maddie’s Fund organization to help dogs (too bad Helmsley apparently didn’t like cats, because the need is in many ways even more dire with them) . . . “
Depending on how they use the funds, if it actually happens that it goes to dogs and the programs duplicate or boost existing programs, diverting existing funds to felines could be an option. Especially with s/n.
The ASPCA does send mobile vans around to ‘hoods. I’ve had over 25 cats altered and my dog on the van that comes to the no-kill in my ‘hood. The van always operates at capacity here. They also have a hoarder crew that goes around and helps in those situations. Seems to be mostly older folks and they are helped with cleaning and reducing the amount of pets and with s/n. Before we had this service, the regular S/N vans would help out. This could/can be done through a shelter or rescue. They helped us with a family that was getting overrun with Dal mixes. 3 generations of pups and they youngest 2 litters were just getting close to sexual maturity. Oy.
Hopefully the courts/trustees make wise decisions. “Or the trustees could use the trust’s money to finance veterinary schools or research on canine diseases.” I wouldn’t mind seeing some go in this direction.
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Veterinarians are not serving those communities now and they are not getting that money now, either. And veterinarians, of course, would be hired to do the work. So some veterinarians would be getting work that no veterinarians are doing now.
“It’s a lot easier said than done” is the motto of giving up before even trying, by the way.
Thank heavens people like those at BAD RAP didn’t use that for their motto with the programs they have tried that no one could have imagined would have worked.
Look at Hector, former Vick dog. The conventional wisdom said the best he could be offered was the pink needle of death. BAP RAP said, “why?”
Conventional wisdom says we must kill for population control, mocking the very definition of “shelter.” A new movement says, “why?”
And here’s the kicker:
The beauty of having a foundation worth billions is that such an organization does not need to pander for donations. Like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, such a group can look at the problems from a completely fresh perspective, build on a completely new foundation and do what has never been done because “conventional wisdom” can be tossed. There is no problem with making “everyone happy” because you don’t have to consider that at all.
I’m not saying that it will be done, but it sure as hell can be done.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
I agree something different needs to be done. Personally, in my the problem of poor pet education is so widespread it makes me crazy. The vets and other agencies offer discounts but it is usually those who don’t really need it that pile in for the specials.
Something innovative needs to spring up. One of the things I stumbled upon right after I moved from San Diego was a college funded by the EDD (Employment Development Department). They spent a good portion of the money setting up a computer school which was free—first come first serve.
It educated people and empowered them with the tools to move forward.
I’d love to see something similar done on the animal front in relation to care, socialization, and training.
Comment by Diana L Guerrero — July 3, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
When I read financing vet schools, I was thinking in terms of scholarships/programs. You could easily have “give back” requirement.
For instance, our city shelter has a youth program and I would bet some could use more scholarship opportunities to be avaiable:
“Those TLC participants interested in working with animals in a medical capacity assist our veterinary technicians and veterinarians, preparing materials and instruments for surgery and monitoring the health of recovering animals.”
http://www.nycacc.org/tlc.htm
Anyway, it was just a thought :)
Thanks for reposting the Hector video. I need to pass it on to my baseball/football league. The guys will be happy to see the positive news :)
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
oh, I’ll bet my life that the money will be either dispensed to HSUS/ASPCA/PETA/Best Friends because of their public profile and ability to self-promote, or a new organization (with paid advisors from these orgs) modeled after those large organizations. Or, as is MOST likely: reduced to a fraction (some millions) of the amount with the rest going to large national charities like the Red Cross, United Way, etc.
The chances of so much money going to small innovative programs is just zero. And any such small program be definition would no longer be small… and no longer innovative.
Such a huge sum of money is beyond comprehension.
Comment by EmilyS — July 3, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Oh, Emily, aren’t you just a bright little ray of sunshine?
You have absolutely no idea what the chance of any money going to innovative programs will be … nor do I.
But I will guarantee you that the minute everyone decides nothing will ever change is the minute it’s a certainty that nothing ever will.
I have seen a lot of things change in my 50 years, some of them for the better. So anything is possible. If I didn’t believe it, well, I sure wouldn’t be doing the work I do. Why bother?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
NYC is pretty dog/animal friendly and is also working towards no-kill. The head of the Mayor’s Alliance is also a lawyer. If those involved in the decision wanted, they have plenty of local resources for advice/education. Heck, even if they only consulted with the ASPCA, I don’t think it would be horrible. After all, they partnered with Bad Rap and others on the Vick dogs with good results. I think their mindset would be a huge positive over say . . . PETA, etc. They are also working nationally along with local, so I think that adds a decent perspective comparatively. I don’t always agree with them, but they are better than other options, imo. And isn’t NW still upstate?
I do think they may revive the Human charities part to an extent, but hey, ya never know (as we say in NY!)! Maybe she ends up becoming the big benefactor from the sky the dogs need :)
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if someone with the power to bequest such a staggering sum had some more concrete directives attached than “help dogs?”
Honestly, how self-indulgent could one be, to leave such a great looming lump of *thing* in one’s wake, without a carefully thought-out plan for implementing it?
Of course, a real philanthropist (or philcynopist?) would have been developing those programs and putting forward the lucre in her lifetime.
Bill Gates comes to mind. He knows *exactly* where he wants his money to go, how it’s to be spent, and he sees to it that it happens.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 3, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Gina, I’d be happy to make a private side bet with you on what percentage of the Helmsley money goes to animals.
This kind of thing is unprecedented. It’s NOT like the Gate foundation.. that’s Gates’ money and the Gates’ personal involvement. Their money, their committment, their priorities (which have changed quite a bit, as is their right of course)
THIS case is the money of a dead person who left vague instructions. Without her living presence to compel compliance, the “world” will not allow billions of dollars to go to animal charities. Her will left wiggle room.
YOU and other animal bloggers and the small innovative groups will have no say in what happens to the money. The courts will decide.
Get real.
Ill be very very happy if ANY small percentage goes to real animal groups. That would not mean PETA or HSUS or ASPCA, who of course would love to build new facilities with all the $$$$$$$
Comment by EmilyS — July 3, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Thanks Gina!….the link isn’t working. here it is…
http://mainepets.mainetoday.co.....ml?id=3829
Bad Rap rocks. Too bad we can’t vote where the money goes…
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — July 4, 2008 @ 2:02 am
Gah - I certainly appreciate the most encouraging vote of confidence and mention of BR’s projects. Thank you. And it’s my birthday, so, thank you twice.
Gina, you said it as no one else has yet: Change has to come from caring about the pet owners as much as their pets. We all could stand for some improvement there. Unfortunately it’s not something you can buy, although wouldn’t it be fun to go shopping for that attitude shift?
I hate to see veterinarian resistance used as an excuse to avoid bringing free and low-cost services to pet owners. This is america, the land of free enterprise… Let the vets find a way to one-up your program. Or better yet, win them over. If we can’t get buy-in from the vets, then how can we ever expect to get it from the pet owners?
On the same hand, we have to care about the types of pets other people have, even the ones that don’t look or act like dogs we’d want to own. Me — I’ve got a lot of work to do on the chihuahua angle. They smell my fear - LOL
Comment by Donna — July 4, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Donna, how cool is that? Happy Birthday!!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 4, 2008 @ 10:00 am
I’d like to see Leona’s money go to:
1) free vet care vouchers for middle/lower income people and seniors
2) political lobbying for pet food manufacturing reform and humane practices (several million ought to buy off a government official or two)
3) creation of more no kill shelters
4) research into canine diseases
Unfortunately, Leona, ticked off many people in her lifetime; she was rather unkind to people. There might still be a battle in court over the dough. Let’s see if the money really will go to help dogs.
Comment by perkysmom — July 8, 2008 @ 11:39 am