In mid-April 2003,   the Wise Giving Alliance formally introduced the new standards for charities that it has been developing for several years now to update and replace the standards of the former National Charities Information Bureau and Council of Better Business Bureaus,  which merged to form the Wise Giving Alliance.

A few weeks earlier,  the Animal Centers of Excellence introduced the most thorough code of ethics proposed so far to govern the operation of animal sanctuaries.

ANIMAL PEOPLE meanwhile has been obliged since July 2002 to defend in court our efforts to monitor the accountability of animal charities and fundraisers.  During depositions in connection with that case,  which is still underway,  we were asked if we had ever listed the standards that we believe ethical animal charities and fundraisers should observe.

In view of the awkwardness of some of the Wise Giving Alliance standards when applied to animal charities,  we realized that now would be a good time to spell out precisely which of those standards and which others we consider most important in evaluating whether a charity and the fundraisers it hires,  if any,  are working in an ethical manner.

Expecting people and institutions to observe ethical standards must be recognized as expecting something more than mere obedience to laws.  Laws set the foundation for ethical conduct,  but only at the level that lawmakers deem essential to enable society to function.  Much that remains legal is nonetheless neither ethical nor moral.

Thus institutions other than law-making bodies,  ranging from professional accreditation panels to individual watchdogs,  recommend codes of ethics which are meant to inspire adherence to higher standards than laws alone require.

Subscription to a code of ethics is usually voluntary,  but must be essential in order to earn the endorsement or approval of whoever recommends it.

Many organizations and individuals offer ethical standards that apply in various ways to animal-related charities, yet there is no single widely recognized code of ethics that addresses the spectrum of animal-related charitable purposes,  nor even a single standard for the ethical operation of nonprofit organizations which ANIMAL PEOPLE believes is fully appropriate to the unique aspects of animal charities.

The existing standards for the ethical operation of charities,  over and above the requirements of law,  tend to presuppose that the charities are serving a constituency (such as the membership of a church,  patients and staff of a hospital,  or the students and faculty of a school) who are capable of substantial self-governance and self-protection from corruption and exploitation.

Animal-related charities serve a far more vulnerable constituency.  This in turn requires a different approach to oversight.

The standards established for the governance of charities by the Wise Giving Alliance and similar organizations tend to assume that mismanagement and misuse of donated funds are most likely to result from corruption among hired staff at the program management level.  The Wise Giving Alliance et al are primarily concerned with abuses that may be committed by "hired gun" administrators,  who are motivated more by the rewards they may obtain from managing a charity than by the charitable work itself.  Therefore,  they seek to minimize the influence of program service staff on boards of directors,  whose duties are usually defined as policymaking, oversight,  and fundraising.  This approach is backward,  however, in application to charities managed by the founders or other people who have worked their way into authority after starting as volunteers or low-paid program service staff--as is often the case with small charities and charities in causes such as animal protection,  which
usually employ just a few professionals,  if any,  recruited on a competitive basis from highly paid fields such as medicine and law.

Founders and others motivated enough by the charitable mission to work for low wages,  or none,  are relatively unlikely to steal or otherwise seek excessive benefits from the organizations they serve.

Adhering to the board structure recommendations of the Wise Giving Alliance therefore tends to increase rather than decrease the possibilities for conflict of interest and self-dealing within small charities and animal charities. Attempting to prevent highly paid professionals from operating charities in a self-interested manner, the Wise Giving Alliance standards all but exclude paid personnel from having any responsibility for policymaking, oversight,  and fundraising,  even if they are the founders and earn just a fraction of what their skills might fetch in the for-profit sector.

ANIMAL PEOPLE has observed and documented over many years that within animal protection,  corruption and other unethical conduct proceeds far more often from the activities of detached boards and hired fundraisers than from the work of founders and key staff.

ANIMAL PEOPLE accordingly offers the following 10 standards for the operation of animal charities,  and 10 parallel standards for fundraisers employed by animal charities.

Animal charities and their fundraisers are at liberty to pursue whatever policies the law allows.

These standards,  however,  define what ANIMAL PEOPLE believes to be ethical and moral conduct by animal-related charities and fundraisers.  To be considered ethical by ANIMAL PEOPLE,  a charity or fundraiser must actively strive to meet them.

Standards for charitable fundraising and related policies

1)   The activities of an animal protection charity should verifiably endeavor to help animals,  committing the overwhelming volume of resources raised to animal protection work other than fundraising,  administration,  and the maintenance of reserve funds.

 a)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that all fundraising and program literature distributed by an ethical animal protection organization should be truthful,  accurate,  and up-to-date,  and should be amended or withdrawn,  as is appropriate,  when circumstances change or new information emerges.   If a project, campaign,  or program is announced but fails to be developed,  for whatever reason,  donors should be informed as to what happened and what was done instead with the resources raised in the name of that project,  campaign,  or program.

b)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that under all except the most unusual circumstances,  which should be clearly,  fully,  and prominently explained to donors with solicitations for funds,  an ethical animal protection charity should hold fundraising and administrative expense to less than 35% of total expenditures within a calendar or fiscal year.  ANIMAL PEOPLE considers "fundraising expenses" to include any use of telemarketing to solicit funds,  as well as any direct mailings which solicit funds,  include envelopes for the return of donations,  and would probably not have been mailed if postal rules forbade the inclusion of the donation envelopes. (This standard parallels the guidelines of the Wise Giving Alliance.)

c)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes under all except the most extraordinary circumstances,  which should be clearly,  fully,  and prominently explained to donors with solicitations for funds,  an ethical animal protection charity should avoid keeping more than twice the annual operating budget of the charity in economic reserves,  including investment accounts and the reserved assets of subsidiaries.  (This is also consistent with the recommendations of the Wise Giving Alliance.)

2)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that the charitable activities of an animal protection charity should be clearly visible to donors, news media,   and the public.  This includes filling out IRS Form 990 fully and accurately,  and filing it in a timely manner.  Donors, news media,  and the public should have appropriate opportunity to personally verify the charitable program.

3)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that animal care charities should go beyond meeting the minimal animal care standards enforced by government agencies such as the USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act,  and should endeavor to meet or exceed the "best practice" recommendations of the major supervisory and/or accreditation organizations,  if any,  overseeing
their specialties.  Because the purposes of animal care charities vary widely,  the "best practice" recommendations appropriate for them to follow are also widely varied.

Examples of supervisory and/or accreditation organizations whose animal care standards we may expect charities to follow include,  but are not limited to,  the National Animal Control Association,  if an organization holds animal control contracts;  the American Zoo Association and the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks & Aquariums,  if the organization exhibits animals or manages zoological conservation programs;  and for animal sanctuaries,  the standards of the Animal Centers of Excellence,  The Association of Sanctuaries,  and the American Sanctuary Association.

Similar organizations set comparable standards for animal care in many nations,  with variations suited to their circumstances.

Where no national or regional organization has established standards appropriate for the operation of animal care charities, ANIMAL PEOPLE finds generally applicable the "best practice" recommendations in the instructional pamphlet series authored by Sri.Maneka Gandhi for distribution by the Animal Welfare Board of India. These recommendations were developed for use under highly adverse conditions with limited resources,  yet aspire to a very high level of animal well-being.

4)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that an ethical animal protection charity should behave in a manner which takes into consideration the welfare of all animals,  not only those under the direct auspices of the charitable programs.   Just as it would be unethical for a human welfare charity to sacrifice the well-being of some people in order to benefit a chosen few,  so ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is inherently unethical to cause some animals to suffer on behalf of other animals.

a)   Policies which promote the well-being of some animals by encouraging the killing of predators or competitor species are to ANIMAL PEOPLE inherently unethical--as are policies which encourage the release or return of animals to habitat where the animals are unwelcome and may be at high risk of enduring human cruelty or extermination.

b)   ANIMAL PEOPLE recommends that all food served for human consumption by or on behalf of animal protection organizations should be vegetarian or,  better,  vegan.

5)  ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that an ethical animal-related charity should behave in a manner which takes into consideration the well-being of the whole of the animal-related nonprofit sector.

a)   Fundraising may be competitive,  as organizations strive to develop the most effective programs within their specialties,  but ANIMAL PEOPLE views as inherently unethical any practice which tends to increase the fundraising costs as opposed to program expenditures of the animal protection sector in general.

b)   ANIMAL PEOPLE views as inherently unethical the involvement of an animal protection charity,  or the officers, directors,  and other management of the charity,  in any form of crime except for occasional acts of open civil disobedience undertaken in connection with nonviolent protest. ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that animal protection charities should not be directed or managed by persons of felonious criminal history involving theft, fraud,  or violence against either humans or nonhuman animals.

6)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that even beyond the requirements of law,  an ethical animal protection organization must discourage racism,  sexism,  sexual predation,  discrimination,  and harassment. Humans are animals too,  and must not be subjected to any practice which would be considered cruel or inappropriate if done to the nonhuman animals who are the intended beneficiaries of the work of an animal-related charity.

7)  ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that even beyond the requirements of law,  an ethical animal protection organization must endeavor to maintain facilities which are safe,  clean,  and physically and emotionally healthy for animals,  visitors,  and staff.

8)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that if and when an ethical animal protection organization finds itself to be in violation of any of the above standards,  however accidentally and unintentionally, it must set to work immediately to resolve the problems.

9)   ANIMAL PEOPLE views as inherently unethical the use of legal action to attempt to silence criticism.  ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that all nonprofit charities and their officers,  directors,  and management should view themselves as operating under public scrutiny, for the public benefit,  and as being therefore public figures subject to the same kinds of observation,  criticism,  commentary, and satire as elected officials, candidates for public office,  and celebrities.  This is a somewhat more stringent requirement than is recommended by other codes of ethics recommended for nonprofit organizations.  It replaces the expectation implied within the standards developed with human service institutions in mind that the constituency of the charity shall be able to monitor the work and intervene if necessary to ensure that the duties of the church, school,  hospital,  or other type of charity are properly fulfilled.

10)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that an ethical animal-related charity,  if it employs an outside fundraiser,  should hire only fundraisers with no conflicts of interest,  such as simultaneously representing organizations or political candidates with goals opposed to those of the animal-related charity,  and follows ANIMAL PEOPLE's "Standards for Professional Fundraisers,"  listed below.

Standards for Professional Fundraisers

F-1)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that an ethical fundraiser for an animal protection charity is one who endeavors to help the client charity to meet all of the ten standards enumerated above.

F-2)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is inherently unethical for a fundraiser to undertake telemarketing,  direct mailing,  or any other kind of activity at a level or in a manner which results in combined fundraising and administrative cost exceeding 35% of the total expenditures of the charity during the fiscal or calendar year.

F-3)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is inherently unethical for a fundraiser to make claims in telemarketing,  direct mailing,  or other fundraising activity which are not factually substantiated.

F-4)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is incumbent upon a fundraiser to ascertain that all claims made in telemarketing, direct mailing, or other fundraising activity are factual.  As with the failure of an animal protection charity to meet basic animal care standards, ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that ignorance is no excuse.

F-5)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is incumbent upon a fundraiser to ensure that all nonprofit organizations represented fill out and promptly file a complete and accurate IRS Form 990,  if operating in the U.S.,  including complete disclosure of all telemarketing and direct mailing expenses,  and that an ethical fundraiser should sever ties with any charity which fails to do so.

F-6)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is incumbent upon a fundraiser for animal care charities to ensure that all applicable animal care standards are consistently met.  Though an ethical fundraiser may represent an animal care charity which is raising funds to achieve compliance with applicable standards that it temporarily falls short of meeting,  ANIMAL PEOPLE believes the need to raise an exceptional amount of money for capital improvements does not justify an investment in fundraising so high that fundraising and administration cost more than 35% of the total expenditures of the charity during the fiscal or calendar year.  ANIMAL PEOPLE believes an ethical fundraiser for animal care charities should not represent an organization which is so far derelict in meeting the applicable animal care standards,  especially those of the U.S. Animal Welfare Act,  that adequate funds to make  improvements cannot be raised while staying under the 35% limit.

F-7)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is inherently unethical for a fundraiser to represent an animal protection charity which is involved in any kind of crime other than civil disobedience undertaken in connection with nonviolent protest,  or whose officers, directors,  and other management are involved in crime other than civil disobedience as nonviolent protest,  or whose officers, directors,  and other management have felonious criminal records involving theft,  fraud,  or violence against either humans or nonhuman animals.  ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that it is incumbent upon a fundraiser to ascertain whether the key personnel of client charities have criminal history.

F-8)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is inherently unethical for a fundraiser for animal protection charities to simultaneously represent organizations or political candidates whose activities or goals conflict with the interests of animals.  For example,  ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is inherently unethical for a fundraiser for animal protection charities to simultaneously represent,  including through technically separate companies,  any organizations or political candidates whose activities or goals include weakening or repealing animal protection laws.

F-9)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes it is inherently unethical for a fundraiser to use lawsuits,  or the threat of lawsuits,  to try to silence criticism,  or to try to compel a charity to adhere to a fundraising contract which the charity has determined is disadvantageous.  If a charity finds that it erred in signing a contract which is so disadvantageous that the activities undertaken in the name of the charity are not chiefly benefiting the charitable work,   the charity should be allowed to break or amend that contract without further allocation or diversion of resources away from the charitable work that it was incorporated to do.  An ethical
fundraiser should accordingly discourage client charities from incurring debts to the fundraiser so large as to require additional fundraising activity after the initial contracted telemarketing or mailings.

F-10)   ANIMAL PEOPLE believes that fundraisers for charities should view themselves as operating as ex-officio officers of their client charities,  under mandate to represent the best interests of the client charities,  and under public scrutiny,  for the public benefit,  which makes them therefore public figures subject to the same kinds of observation,  criticism, commentary,  and satire as elected officials,  candidates for public office, and celebrities.

Similar standards already apply to the conduct of lawyers employed by charities in some states,  recognizing the privileged position of a lawyer relative to the governance of a charity,  yet a hired fundraiser often has equal or greater influence on how a charity operates because fundraising along with policymaking and oversight is among the generally recognized duties of a nonprofit board of directors.

These standards were published in the May 2003 edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper.