Charities need help, but with fewer strings

My job description requires that I be involved with community organizations, an easy task to fulfill. As a citizen, giving back to your community is one of the most important things you can do.

But while my passion is boundless, my time is limited, so I’ve selected Partners in Crime Prevention as my volunteer activity. As past president of the nonprofit group, I’ve raised funds for Secret Witness, a program of PICP that offers cash rewards for information leading to the solution of specific crimes; launched the Keep Guns Outta Schools program; and most recently helped a group in Kootenai County start up a Secret Witness program there.

Kootenai County Secret Witness was launched about two weeks prior to the slaying and abduction of the Groene family, a North Idaho case that received nationwide attention.

The entire infrastructure of the Kootenai County Secret Witness program wasn’t in place, but that didn’t stop donors from calling in with offers of money and help. Prior to the FBI stepping in with its separate reward, over $75,000 had been pledged to the Groene case by individuals from all over the U.S.

At that point, we weren’t sure how many pledges would translate to money in the bank. But if someone came forward with a rewardable tip, we needed to be sure we had the money to pay the reward. I was elected to call donors in order to secure the pledged funds.

In doing so, I stumbled into a real learning experience.

Even though the BBB does a lot of work with charities and donors, I hadn’t understood before the higher level of accountability donors now expect, or that charities are feeling the pinch as corporations ask more questions and cut more funding. I came to find that realistic expectations sometimes get lost.

For instance, one pledge came from a Pennsylvania foundation that focuses primarily on missing and exploited children. The pledge had many rules and stipulations attached to it, and that’s fine, it’s their money. But to offer a reward with the stipulation of payment only after a conviction was returned dismissed that pledge from the Secret Witness Program’s “quick reward” system.

Another donor simply offered a large amount of money. We had several conversations with the donor about why we needed pledge funds in hand before offering a reward and he seemed to fully understand these challenges, but the pledge never transpired.

Several smaller donations also didn’t come through because the donors only wanted to pay if the children were “found unharmed.” I can understand not wanting to reward a bad outcome, but as you can see, the logistics were becoming more challenging.

My last two conversations were the best; two Kootenai County business owners had pledged funds totaling about $7,500. When I explained the situation, they both immediately understood that quick action would allow us to make firm statements about the money available. They both delivered their pledged checks that afternoon and those donations became the foundation for the rewards that were paid last month.

Being a BBB president, I usually look at charitable donations from the eye of the donor and push for more accountability from the nonprofit. This was an eye-opener.

It made me understand that we need to allow charities to do their work without trying to manage the work. It’s important to verify that nonprofits aren’t paying excessive salaries or exorbitant fundraising costs, but we also need to trust.

Donors shouldn’t put so many restrictions and expectations in place that it ties the charities’ hands. There needs to be a balance.

On a fairly regular basis, we get folks offering to make donations to Secret Witness with strings attached, and we have to turn them down. Secret Witness’s rewards are paid without strings attached.

We begin with the end in mind — to solve crimes and make this a better place to live.