APRA responds to WSJ article on the use of data and technology by charities
Every few years another reporter discovers that fundraisers utilize data and technology to help them do their jobs. The headline could read “Nonprofits strive for greater efficiency by using data and technology” or “Data and technology help organizations lower the cost of fundraising and increase the amount of your donations that go to their missions.” Unfortunately those headlines lose out to
Is Your Favorite Charity Spying on You?
As professionals who have spent our careers helping organizations spend their precious time and money working with the right people at the right time, we are saddened by an article that misleads and misprepresents what is actually happening. The very same data and technology that the WSJ portrays as spying is being used right now to sell us cars, jewelry, soap and every other consumer good. Fundraisers are using only a fraction of what businesses use, and they use it to raise money to feed, shelter, educate, and heal which seem like pretty good ideas to us.
We ask a lot of our nonprofits, and during the Great Recession we have asked them to do more while receiving less. I think it is time for publications like WSJ to stop writing sensational headlines and start writing about how organizations are working to do good better.
Here is the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement’s response to the article. Well said APRA!
Anne Kadet’s recent article about research in philanthropic organizations (Smart Money: Is Your Favorite Charity Spying on You? (May 16, 2010)) misrepresents the scope and purpose of donor research, and as a result misleads Journal readers about its nature and use.
Like so many, we share a deep concern for and sensitivity to personal privacy and identity security. That’s why in addition to complying with all legal requirements, including legislation such as FERPA and HIPAA, professional researchers also adhere to thoughtful ethical guidelines about how information should be gathered and used. A deep-seated concern for individual privacy is also why we and our organizations are fundamentally committed to maintaining the confidentiality of personal data that our donors have shared with us.
The nonprofits we work for aspire to be as effectively managed as for-profit organizations, using technology, market research, and smart business skills to flourish when resources are constrained. Research and analytics help charities use staff, volunteer time, and marketing resources as carefully and effectively as possible. Information we gather and use is obtained from publicly available sources–sources accessible to anyone reading this article. Fundraising researchers can no more be considered ‘spying’ on donors than the Journal can be considered ‘spying’ when it analyzes an SEC document or reports on a public court filing.
We encourage those who would like to learn more about the profession, our work to serve the public good, and our ethical commitment, to visit the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement (APRA) at www.aprahome.org.
Deborah L. Mueller
APRA President
Robert D. Scott
APRA President-elect
May 20, 2010
· 
LoriAndDavid · 
2 Comments
Tags: APRA, Fundraising, Philanthropy, Prospect Research · Posted in: News of Note
2 Responses
Excellent reply by Ms. Mueller and Mr. Scott. If there is a group of professions who take seriously the notion of donor-privacy, it is prospect researchers.
The WSJ article is sadly typical of journalistic sensationalism in recent years. I caution that we not make too much of it. Far more important is how fundraising professionals, representing those very charities WSJ attempts to disparage, positively interact with our donors and prospects. The last thing one wants to do in the living room or in the conference room is project defensiveness or negativity. Consider the article one more passing cloud in a vast, sunny sky, and get back to the good work of supporting the good cause you represent.
Leave a Reply