By Clint Carpenter

No doubt, the events of September 11 will be etched in the hearts and minds of Americans forever. The impact on fundraising following that catastrophic day evoked varied opinions throughout the sector.

According to Giving USA, giving to September 11-related funds represented less than 1 percent of the $212 billion in contributions. Giving USA estimated that $1.88 billion was given to September 11-related groups through Dec. 31. Some 270 new organizations were created across the country following the tragedies, in addition to the funds set up by established groups.

Individuals accounted for the majority of September 11 giving at $1.25 billion, followed by corporate gifts at $410 million and foundation grants at $195 million.

The report noted that the 0.5 percent overall increase in giving (-2.3 percent when adjusted for inflation) is not directly due to September 11 relief funds generated in 2001.

Maj. George Hood, national public affairs director at Alexandria, Va.-based Salvation Army (SA), said fundraising efforts were going well before the terror attacks, but September 11 spurred patriotism and more than $80 million for the organization's relief efforts.

Hood said he doesn't believe that the money raised for the relief effort would have been directed toward the sector had the tragedies not occurred because of where the economy was at the time of the attacks and diminished giving. "Our direct mail was flat," Hood said, adding that all other fundraising programs were up following the attacks.

Hood said the biggest impact of September 11 giving could be on organizational infrastructure, because the processing fiasco generated by the influx of money forced groups to restructure to prepare for future events.

Hood said SA's phones were ringing so much in the 24 to 48 hours after the tragedy that its system crashed. Once they were back running strong, however, things ran smoothly, he said.

Eugene R. Tempel, executive director of The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University in Indianapolis, said there was no way to know whether funds generated in response to the attacks would still have flowed into the sector. "We can't be certain about what the impact of giving to September 11th was on the total," he said.

Giving by foundations, for example, would have been roughly the same, according to Tempel, because of the 5 percent payout requirement that foundations don't usually greatly exceed. "When September the 11th happened, corporations responded. There's just no question about it," he said. "Twenty-two percent of the total, according to the Giving USA estimates, of money going to New York came from corporations," he said.

Still, Tempel said the media coverage the relief effort was also fueled those giving results, and more of the $1.88 billion might have gone to other organizations had the tragic events not occurred. "One of the things that happened for a long time after September the 11th was that a lot of organizations experienced a real hiatus in fundraising efforts," Tempel said. "One day a reporter asked me, 'Why do you think people are continuing to give?' and I said, 'Because you're continuing to report on what happens here, and you continue to show the scenes, and you're bringing it to people's minds.' And it really took getting past that before organizations were able to recover."

Michael Farley, vice president, chapter fundraising for the American Red Cross (ARC) in Washington, D.C., said that in addition to the economy, the visibility and the sustained drama of September 11 may have created a donor fatigue that factored into the inflation-adjusted fall in charitable contributions.

"People respond to what charities do every day and then you add on top of that an extraordinary national tragedy that is highly publicized for week upon week, and people might have entered into what we sometimes see as donor fatigue," Farley said. "They've given to a tragedy over and over again, or have given to several things and they're just plum worn out. … That's just one guy's opinion."

The local Salvation Army in Indianapolis was behind its fundraising efforts in the first week of December, Tempel said, though it reached its goal by the end of the month. He speculated that if the attacks hadn't happened the organization might have been able to meet the goal sooner and maybe exceed it.

"I think in some ways September 11th might have slowed giving," Tempel said. "I just don't think you can count on that one event -- we can go back I suppose and look at what happened during a year where there were two big hurricanes or something and see what was generated as a result of those."
ARC raised $754.3 million toward September 11 efforts as of the end of December and Farley said the whole experience has taught the charity many lessons about clarifying fundraising language and accountability during a tragedy.

"As the funds were raised and time wore on, charities became under much more scrutiny to donors," said Farley. "Particularly, new donors who were watching what was going on with this. … In our experience every aspect of our service delivery and fundraising infrastructure was tested and stretched beyond its capacity."

The overburdened ARC infrastructure meant delays in acknowledging gifts and compromised stewardship because of the shear volume of the contributions, explained Farley. Of course, the mishandling of the effort also led to the resignation of Bernadine Healy, ARC's president and chief executive officer and ongoing scrutiny of its operations.

"I think it causes all of the nonprofits to be more accountable," said Farley. "I really think that in the end, because of the increased scrutiny and the challenges we had, because of the volume of the gifts and the level of the tragedy, that charities are called to a higher standard of performance, and I think they need to respond to that as good stewards of donor relationships."

Matthew Sinclair contributed to this report.

© 2006 The NonProfit Times Privacy Policy