target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_9d216b4b-13bd-5cd6-a2e8-24924980a0f2">44. See § 3.16.45 45. See § 3.2(a).
46 46. This analysis and the one in § 2.13 were prepared by James M. Greenfield, FAHP, CFRE, author of Fund-Raising: Evaluating and Managing the Fund Development Process, Second Edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999), and Fund-Raising Fundamentals: A Guide to Annual Giving for Professionals and Volunteers (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994). His contribution is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. The footnotes to §§ 2.2 and 2.13 were added by the authors.
47 47. This statement illustrates how dramatically fundraising (and other) communications have changed in recent years. Other ways a charitable organization can ask for a gift are by means of a website, by email, or by facsimile.
48 48. See § 4.1.
49 49. The increasing sophistication of database companies is allowing them to target mailings more specifically to Americans identified by their racial or ethnic backgrounds; this practice is raising a host of ethical concerns (see, e.g., “The Ethics of ‘Ethnicated’ Mailing Lists,” Wash. Post, Nov. 14, 1992, at A1).
50 50. But see “Evangelists' Electronic Collection Plates Making Fewer Rounds,” Wash. Post, Dec. 20, 1992, at A3.
51 51. In addition, local governments are increasing their regulation of this form of gambling. In general, “Charity Gambling: Who Gets the Take?,” Metro. Times, Aug. 22, 1994, at C4 (The Washington Times); Gattuso, “What's Ahead for Charity Gambling?,” 24 Fund Raising Mgmt. (No. 7) 19 (1993); “Md. Slot Machines Raise Money—and Questions,” Wash. Post, Sept. 27, 1993, at D1; “Charity Casinos Parlayed into Big Business,” Wash. Post, Sept. 26, 1993, at B1; “Charities' Big Gamble” (subtitled “Games of chance raise millions for good works, but questions of fraud could tar nonprofits' image, prompt more regulation”), V Chron. of Phil. (No. 15) 1 (May 18, 1993); “States Say Abuse Is Widespread in Charity Gains,” II Chron. of Phil. (No. 10) 1 (Mar. 6, 1990). One newspaper account stated that “charitable fund-raising [by this method] has lost its innocence. The church basement roulette games that long have been a staple of charitable fund-raising in … [a county near Washington, DC] have grown in recent years into a multi-million-dollar industry that is siphoning money from the people who are supposed to benefit into the pockets of professional gamblers …” (“P.G. Plays Weak Hand against Charity Casinos,” Wash. Post, Feb. 20, 1993, at D1).
52 52. Greenfield, “Fund-Raising Costs and Credibility: What the Public Needs to Know,” NSFRE J., Autumn 1988, at 49.
53 53. Fink and Metzler, The Costs and Benefits of Deferred Giving (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).
54 54. For more details about the environmental audit, see Greenfield, “The Fund-Raising Environmental Audit,” 22 Fund Raising Mgmt. (No. 3) 28 (1991).
55 55. For a summary of the role of, compensation of, and demand for the fundraising professional, see “Fund-Raisers' Own Funds Are Rising,” Wall Street J., Mar. 2, 1993, at B1.
56 56. This analysis was prepared by Richard Larkin, CPA, for use as part of this chapter. His contribution is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. Additional information concerning financial management in this context is available in Gross, Jr., Larkin, and McCarthy, Financial and Accounting Guide for Not-for-Profit Organizations (6th ed.; New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000).
57 57. See § 4.15.
58 58. This commentary is based on an article written by Karl E. Emerson, Director, Bureau of Charitable Organizations, Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
59 59. This analysis was prepared by Delmar R. Straecker, CFRE. His contribution is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
60 60. Subsequently, the president of corporate and legal affairs at a fundraising company wrote a letter to the National Association of State Charity Officials, stating, inter alia, “State government officials rob donors by knowingly diverting untold millions of dollars of contributions from their intended purposes under a cumbersome, outdated multistate licensing scheme” and “[t]hey violate clear constitutional [law] precedent, the federal Privacy Act, and even the laws they are charged to enforce as a way to censor and intimidate nonprofit organizations” (Williams, “State Fund-Raising Rules Harm Charities, Critic Says,” XX Chron. of Phil. (No. 1) 32 (Oct. 18, 2007)).
61 61. The balance of this analysis is confined to state laws, but it is equally applicable to a system of local law compliance.
63 63. See § 4.5.
64 64. See, e.g., § 3.15.
65 65. For the principles an organization may utilize in explanation of the reasonableness of its fundraising costs, see § 4.1.
CHAPTER THREE States' Charitable Solicitation Acts
§ 3.2 Definitions (a) Charitable (b) Charitable Organization (c) Solicitation (d) Sale (e) Contribution (f) Membership (g) Professional Fundraiser (h) Professional Solicitor
