Transparency in Fundraising
Joel Kaplan
December 13, 2011
Last month I wrote about the Editorial Integrity for Public Media initiative that has commissioned a series of working-group draft reports detailing the principles, policies and practices for public media.
Among the reports were those dealing with principles of public media; editorial transparency; and funding and firewalls. These reports can be found at http://pmintegrity.org/index.cfm.
One of the draft reports that had not been completed was one exploring Transparency in Fundraising for Public Media. That report is now complete and can be read at http://pmintegrity.org/pm_docs/TransparencyinFundraising.pdf.
This draft report deals with a number of issues, from donor rights and acknowledgments to gift acceptance policies and the availability of fundraising information.
In terms of anonymous donations, the draft report explains that some donors may wish to remain anonymous for a variety of reasons, but that anonymous gifts should never be allowed when it comes to sponsoring an on-air production.
The report says:
"It should be station policy that significant and/or exclusive donors to support an on-air production must be named. The fact that this type of giving cannot be anonymous should be made clear to the donor through ongoing policies and as part of the solicitation process. This policy should not be circumvented by accepting the gift for education or community outreach when a significant part of the gift will be used to produce programming for broadcast."
In terms of transparency, the report also strongly urges the various public radio and television stations to show their commitment to that principle by making as many fundraising documents as possible available on their website. Stations should also consider publishing a list of production funders on their websites in addition to on-air credits.
As the report says:
"Transparent organizations not only make relevant information available, they make it easy to find and use. When examining this issue, stations should consider the public's barriers to finding and making sense of information provided by the station. When possible, disclosures should be made in a way that allows them to be understood by a non-expert. Providing documents may not always be enough; some donors will require further clarification. Stations should always grant reasonable requests for further explanation. Transparent stations train their development and member services staff on how to respond appropriately to requests for information."
It is important that this editorial integrity project receive feedback from members of the public. Feel free to contact me at jkaplan@cpb.org, and I will pass on any comments to the various working groups.