May 10 2010
Follow the Money, State by State
Just when you think HSUS's factory-fundraising operation can’t get any worse, it does.
You might remember that a few weeks ago we wrote about the 2008 Los Angeles Times analysis of HSUS’s California fundraising disclosures. We've also analyzed HSUS’s “Pennies for Charity” filings with the New York Attorney General. Read them both if you want a primer on how professional shakedown artists raise tens of millions of dollars in HSUS's name, while mere pennies on the dollar actually get to HSUS. (In some cases, HSUS actually loses money on the deals.)
A few of you have asked us if HSUS's record is as sketchy in other states, so we went hunting around
Here are some new numbers. And they’re not pretty. In fact, the overall numbers paint a picture of HSUS spending its donors' money like ... well, like drunken sailors. And the net result is that millions of Americans believe they're supporting HSUS when in fact they're just lining the pockets of scam artists.
The other scam artists, we mean. The telemarketers.
And it appears to be set up intentionally that way.
According to the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office, HSUS 2006 fundraising with Share Group, Inc. (the same professional fundraising firm it employs in New York) netted just $113,686 to HSUS out of $1,562,814 raised—a return of 7.27 percent.
(It turns out that these are national figures, reported independently to various states. So Connecticut's numbers are the same as what we'd find anywhere else.)
HSUS’s fundraising in 2007 with Share Group was even worse. According to filings with Massachusetts, $1,679,763 was raised and HSUS lost $22,257 on the deal—a net negative return of -1.33 percent.
And in 2008, HSUS’s fundraising efficiency was still near rock-bottom, according to its Massachusettss filings. That year HSUS collected a paltry $103,141 out of the $1,950,521 Share Group raised in its name. That’s a return of just 5.29 percent.
If you think HSUS has run into a string of bad luck, think again. HSUS is very clear that this is intentional.
Kentucky’s Attorney General requires charities to list the “Projected % [of Proceeds] to Charity.” Several of HSUS's ongoing fundraisers peg this number at 1 or 2 percent. In other words, HSUS is agreeing to hand 98 to 99 percent of the proceeds to the dialing-for-dollars company it's worked with for more than a decade.
Need more proof? Take a look at this contract HSUS filed with the Colorado Attorney General. It stipulates that 98 percent of gross revenue will go to the “paid solicitor” (in this case, a firm called Donor Services Group, LLC).
We tried to wrap our minds around the enormity of this flim-flam, so we ran all the recent numbers we could find—including reports filed by other members of the HSUS universe like the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) and the Fund for Animals (FFA, which merged with HSUS in 2005).
Since 2006, the Share Group's fundraising activities conducted on behalf of HSUS, HSLF, and FFA have raked in $5,549,284. A grand total of just $147,348 got passed through to the animal charities. That’s a return of 2.66 percent.
We're starting to understand how HSUS spent nearly one-quarter of its 2008 budget on fundraising expenses.
And for the record, we also think we understand the rationale for what HSUS is doing. But we don't agree with it: We believe HSUS is entering into these contracts that project only a 1- to 2-percent "return" because it's also taking possession of the mailing lists that come out of the fundraising activity. We're assuming that you only give money to Share Group, Inc. once. After that, you're part of HSUS's list, and they keep all the proceeds when you donate a second, third, or fourth time.
You also become part of HSUS's overall mailing list, which makes you one of the group's vaunted "11 million supporters and constituents." Even if you never donate again.
Posted on 05/10/2010 at 09:28 AM by the HumaneWatch Team
Document Analysis • Fundraising & Money • (11) CommentsComments
Has anyone ever looked deeply into the Share Group to see who owns it (in part or whole) and how the owners are related to HSUS and its affiliates? It just smells fishy… like are there kickbacks going on somewhere back there?
Ok I’ve got to ask the question - who owns the dialing for dollars company? and what are they doing with the money? Is there any possibility that HSUS owns stock in the Share Group?
I know, pretty paranoid, but again its so fraudulent to solicit funds in the name of poor animals and someone use 98% of those donations for some other purpose than the animals - how is this legal?
And I strongly suspect that HSUS would not allow that much fundraising dollars to slip through their hands without getting rewarded some how - HSUS whats really in it for them?
As always, great work, David! This makes the case once again to give to local animal shelters where all of your contribution can actually do some good.
Please don’t use FFA as the acronym for Fund for Animals. Could create a lot of confusion within the agricultural world!
I do not think the picture of the drunken sailor is a good idea. It is off topic in that it is flippant. We are very serious.
BUT your research is great.
This is a very dirty deal ..is it illegal ?
It should be !
Thank you for your research. Please send this out to others as a query and see what happens.
Is HSUS maybe using the telemarketing thing to launder money? I could swear that I once read that Arthur Benjamin owned some telemarketing companies…..could that be why he donated to HSUS and started the GALA for them in Dallas?
Wow! So the HSUS spends millions just for obtaining mailing lists for future donations? Anything we can do to help YOU obtain mailing lists? Maybe ask our local ag. Organizations if they would contribute? Or maybe call some industry magazines?
It sure sounds fishy to me. We all know HSUS is a racket and they are not going to let that much money slip through their fingers. There’s a gimmick to it somewhere. Maybe someone better tell the IRS to pay some special attention to this matter while they are running HSUS through the mill.
Wow!
Per SEC only 34% of total funds raised are returned to the entire clientele.
Here are some of the Charities Who Have Retained the Services of the Commercial Fundraiser
Defenders of Wildlife
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
Humane Society Legislative Fund
Humane Society of the United States, The
Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust, The
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Inc.
International Rescue Committee
National Wildlife Federation
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
The sailor graphic doesn’t work for me. Our dialogue needs to be more level-headed and less caricature. The issue is real and the tone on this tips the balance more in the direction that the finger-pointing crowd would use to discredit us.