As I wait and wait and wait for the results from my Public Information Request from the Texas Office of the Attorney General (they have until October 3, 2014 to respond), I got to thinking about non-profits in general. I'm asked all the time what I think of non-profits. I feel like I'm in an excellent position, after eight long years of writing about various so-called "non-profits," to render an opinion on the subject. Here is what I have learned thus far:
It is super easy to apply for non-profit status:
It is super easy to obtain "charitable" status with the IRS--all you have to do is fill out a few forms and presto you too can have instant tax exemption status for your brand new "charity." According to America's 50 Worst Charities Exposed, 99.8 percent of applicants were approved after they simply filled out a form!
Scam artists show up in the wake of every disaster. Like vultures circling above road kill, they swoop in on any opportunity to take advantage of the disadvantaged, capitalizing on your compassion and manipulating your emotion.Charities and nonprofits are the perfect vehicles in which these scammers can hide in plain sight. “Charitable organizations” run the gamut from upright and successful, to well meaning but incompetent, to corrupt, greedy and devious—and everything in between.How do you know where a particular organization fits along this spectrum? We’d all like to think our hard-earned dollars are going to be used for the highest good,but how do we really know?
Yes, how do we really know? It became clear to me during the WAO investigation that the IRS does not verify the information printed on the non-profits' 990s (tax return) nor does it conduct random audits of those tax-free charities. It was obvious that the IRS does not verify the Board or highest paid salaries of employees working for the non-profit against their actual individual tax returns. A classic example of this type of fraud can be seen here. I would not be surprised if this type of illegal behavior happens a lot more than most people think.
Then there's the tax exemption status that non-profits love to use at grocery stores, home improvement stores, etc. Who's going to challenge a non-profit's purchases for various personal items and trips as seen by the WAO and the recent thievery case by TWS' executive director? The IRS? I don't think so.
All those expensive trips taken...all the gifts purchased for family and friends...all the non-charitable-related items acquired by the thieving executive directors at the organization's expense...whose going to challenge those purchases? The IRS? The non-profit's board of directors? I think not.
There is an incredible lack of accountability by the IRS when it comes to charitable organizations. The IRS was informed as to the illegal activities that took place at the WAO and they did nothing to stop them. Just a wink and nod and it was back to business as usual for Carol Asvestas. I have no doubt that TWS received the same wink and nod from the IRS for all the thievery that took place by "Thieving Thies".
I especially love when non-profits submit their tax returns one to three years LATE and no one from the IRS charges these non-profit with "late penalties." Why should any non-profit organization submit its tax return LATE if it is keeping track of the monies coming into the organization and how much money was used to fund various program expenditures. A credible organization should have its books in order and in inspectable condition at all times--there is no excuse why a non-profit should not proudly display its last five (5) tax returns on the website homepage.
Shouldn't you know how your donations are used? Did you know that many non-profits now use your donations to fund political action committees? So let's say you think you're donating towards animal care and feeding, when in reality your money is going to a PAC--would you be happy to learn how your money was really used? I can't emphasize enough how important it is to see the non-profit tax returns BEFORE you donate one thin dime. Look at the salaries paid to the managers/directors and workers. Look at the salaries paid to the BOD. Look at how much money goes toward other "causes" than the ones you thought you were donating towards. You will be amazed at how some of your donations are really used.
Shouldn't you know how your donations are used? Did you know that many non-profits now use your donations to fund political action committees? So let's say you think you're donating towards animal care and feeding, when in reality your money is going to a PAC--would you be happy to learn how your money was really used? I can't emphasize enough how important it is to see the non-profit tax returns BEFORE you donate one thin dime. Look at the salaries paid to the managers/directors and workers. Look at the salaries paid to the BOD. Look at how much money goes toward other "causes" than the ones you thought you were donating towards. You will be amazed at how some of your donations are really used.
How some non-profit advertises on Facebook, Twitter, and it's Newsletter.
Nothing tugs the old heart strings than a cute picture of a kitten, tiger or lion cub. Often times, the pictures you see of the animals are close-up shots--where all the animals look fluffy, cute, and adorable. Look closely...is the background faded out? Can you see the full-length of the animals' body and his enclosure or outdoor space? Are there more pictures of the cubs and kittens, and less and less pictures of the older adult animals? This is all about deceptive advertising. For you see, you'll be more incline to donate towards a cute little critter than a full-grown adult. If the enclosures are small or on concrete, well that's no problem for today's photographer--all you have to do is take a head shot and fade out the background. Cat too skinny to show the body? No problem, just show the cat's head only. Is the animal sick? No problem--just don't take a picture of the sick cat and no one on Facebook or Twitter will ever know. Animal passed away--no problem...just don't make mention of the animal's passing on Facebook or Twitter. Or even better, mention the animal passed away in a newsletter weeks later so that no one can respond to the death in a public way.
What breaks my heart is when an animal dies at a sanctuary, for whatever reason, and the workers/volunteers are told not to post or tweet about the animals' passing. Sssshhhh...it's a secret. Don't want the media or donors to learn about the animals deaths or answer any "awkward" real-time questions on the Facebook or Twitter pages, now do we?
 |
| Bonnie |
Would you want to donate money to a sanctuary that tells its workers/volunteers to keep secrets from the public? Would you want to donate towards a sanctuary that sugar-coats what really happens to its animals? Here's an example: It came to my attention that In-Sync Exotics has not been posting updates on the serious illnesses or deaths of some of its residents on Facebook anymore. Here is a Facebook thread where one person questioned why the deaths of Bonnie and Kshama were not made public:
Were there posts about Kshama and Bonnie? I don't remember seeing anything.
In-Sync Exotics Wildlife Rescue and Educational Center We didn't necessarily make public posts, but we have been answering anyone's questions about them.
Cynthia Almand What happened to those beautiful tigers?
Like
· August 10 at 8:15pm
 |
| Kshama |
As of this date, there was no response made to Facebook regarding Cynthia's question. So much for answer any one's questions about them, huh? Remember workers/volunteers/donors/visitors...Kshama and Bonnie's death is a secret...sssshhhhh....
Should folks only donate money towards those sanctuaries that are either verified or accredited by Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) or American Sanctuary Association?
Just because a sanctuary receives verification or accreditation status does not mean the sanctuary uses its donations wisely; ensures a safe and secure environment for its animals and staff; or adheres to the philosophy or standards since forth by the accrediting agencies. Let's face it, there are GFAS and/or ASA members whom have violated GFAS and ASA's own criteria and should have been discredited by now. Unfortunately, politics have a way of infiltrating accreditation organizations.
GFAS and ASA, like the IRS, requires interested sanctuaries to fill out an application and be willing to meet with a representative for a scheduled facility visit to verify that the "new" member operates under the GFAS or ASA's established guidelines. I seriously doubt there are annual surprise follow-up visits to ensure the sanctuary maintains the standards set forth by the agencies.
How do I know this? Well, let's look at Wildcat Haven, a GFAS verified and ASA accredited sanctuary, where in 2014 the only employee working that evening, caring for all the big and small exotic cats, died in a cougar enclosure. Did this situation meet GFAS or ASA's worker to animal ratio criteria? How about the actions of "Thieving Thies"? Did her pilfering of the sanctuary's coffers meet accredited GFAS criteria? How about In-Sync Exotic, a sanctuary that allows free roaming public access to the sanctuary and its animals. Granted, there are staff and volunteers cleaning cages during "touring" times, but not enough folks to cover the entire facility.
Several of the ISE board members are very passionate about ordinary people owning and playing with exotic animals, saying that this type of "ownership" should be prohibited, yet their very own executive director is often seen publicly hugging and petting ISE tigers, lions, cougars and other exotic cats as if they were her own pets. This is not a secret as the director is often seen entering animal enclosures, playing with the cats during public events or during "tour" times. It does make me wonder how GFAS and ASA feels about one of its sanctuaries publicly playing with exotic animals since animal interaction is supposed to be a no-no. Now I personally do not have anything against ISE staff and board members petting and playing with its animals. If they do not have a problem with it, then why would I have a problem with it. I do have a problem with GFAS accreditation process though. It's just not, well...credible.
Had GFAS or ASA followed up on these sanctuaries and many more, with no notice, I'm sure they would be very surprised at what they would learn. Of course the excuses would flow--not enough paid workers, not enough volunteers, not enough donations, blah, blah, blah--and I'm sure the inspected facility would get a pass for its good intentions and not actually for its "deeds."
Am I saying there are no good sanctuaries out there? No, I'm not saying that. Nor am I saying ISE is a bad sanctuary because it allows its staff to interact with its animals--it's obvious they care about their animals very much, but it's more on the level of "pet ownership" than a true "sanctuary ownership".
It's always a good idea to thoroughly check out any non-profit before you donate-- and remember...trust but verify. You can't go wrong if you do.
It's always a good idea to thoroughly check out any non-profit before you donate-- and remember...trust but verify. You can't go wrong if you do.
