Bostonians rushed in to help in the wake of the devastating
explosion that ripped through the festivities at the finish of Boston Marathon
on April 15, 2014. Bystanders aided the wounded, storekeepers offered shelter,
and first responders ran toward the chaos. Others of us simply sat in front of
our TVs, watching in horror as events unfolded.
As the day went on it became clear that many of the injuries were
extremely serious and would require multiple surgeries and long-term
rehabilitation.
The philanthropic response was a model in several ways. Boston
had a 5-term mayor and Massachusetts had a 2-term governor who took quick
action. The next day they announced The One Fund to aid victims. Their names
lent credibility as did the involvement of large Boston firms like John
Hancock. By the end of the week a simple website was up, accepting donations
but warning that the organization had not yet applied for 501(c)(3) status;
that is only now in process. All the publicity surrounding the fund emphasized
that administrative costs would be covered by separate fundraising with all
donations going directly to victim assistance—the 100% model.
Responses have been many and varied—from the Boston Strong t-shirts
sold by Emerson College students to a fund-raising concert to many efforts in
social media. Twenty million dollars was raised within the first week. In July
2013 the fund was able to distribute almost $61 million to victims under the
direction of well-known mediator Kenneth Fineberg. Another distribution is
planned for this July. In the meantime, the first Boston Marathon to be held
since the bombing will include a One Fund charity team. Many private
fundraising events are anticipated.
To the best of my knowledge no whiff of corruption has been
attributed to the fund itself—no mean feat for a hastily assembled effort. Of
course, it brought out the scammers but from an outside perspective it seemed
this was expected and swiftly dealt with. The fund appears to have raised over
$70 million to date.
Writing in the Able Altruist blog Stephanie Kapera lists 5 lessons from this success:
- Act Quickly
- Leverage Online Influencers
- Use a Multi-Channel Approach
- Use Hashtags
- Use Visuals.
Does the success of The One Fund support both the importance
of the 100% model and the speeding up of the fund-raising cycle? Probably. It also
may support the difficulty of maintaining the 100% model. A recent announcement
said that the salary of the new executive director of the fund would be paid from donations.
Any success has imitators and smaller charities can’t match
the personal leverage of Boston’s power structure. This was recently brought
home to me when I donated to a small non-profit. I was asked to add a small
additional percentage to cover administrative costs. The platform was
YouCaring., which says it remains free because administrative costs are
covered by donations.
This was totally transparent and the extra amount was
editable and optional. To me, however, it is not truly an example of the 100%
model.
Thinking about it, I wonder if the lesson is that the model is
best sustained by a single, often charismatic, individual not by a
somewhat-faceless organization. Charity:water remains true to the model, but it
is not clear that many others do.
Does anyone have direct experience with or thoughts on the subject?