The
holiday seasons are, if the songs are believed, considered the “most wonderful
time of the year.” For some families, this could not be farther from the truth.
The holidays for the needy are a time of stress and worry as they are for
whatever reason, not able to provide for their families, especially their
children, the way that they would like. For these families, the hopes of giving
their children a new toy, balances between either paying the bills, putting
food on the table or splurging on the toy. All year, commercials bombard the
public with the latest and greatest toy. Every parent wants to be able to make
their children’s Christmas special, whether it means purchasing the big ticket
item such as an Xbox, or something smaller such as a Barbie doll. For some
families, something simple as a Barbie doll is
a big ticket item. Due to the economy, community organizations are struggling
as the demand of more and more families are finding themselves in need.
For
65 years, the United States Marine Corps has helped to alleviate this need
instituting the Toys for Tots Foundation. Major Bill Hendricks created the
organization in 1947 when he wanted to donate a Raggedy Ann doll that his wife
made, but there was not an organization to distribute it. Who has not seen the
huge box with Marines in their dress uniforms accepting donations? Throughout
the months of October, November and December, collections of new, unwrapped
toys are distributed as Christmas gifts to needy children in communities where
Marine Corps Reserve Units are located. If a community does not have a reserve
unit, the campaign can be “conducted by a Marine Corps League Detachment or
group of men and women, generally veteran Marines, authorized by Marine Toys
for Tots Foundation to conduct a local Toys for Tots campaign”
(www.toysfortots.org). From 1947 until 1980, both new and used toys were
distributed as gifts. Used toys were refurbished by Marine Reservists on
weekends. In 1980 it was determined that only new toys would be distributed as
gifts. The change was determined by three factors, the first being, the Total
Force Program implemented by the Secretary of Defense. This program implemented
in the 1970’s gave reservists a greater role in the defense structure. Honing
their combat skills during drills, did not give reservists time to refurbish
toys.
Safety
concerns were another issue as toys manufactured prior to 1970 did not have the
same health and safety regulations as toys manufactured past 1970. To
distribute a toy not up to current standards was legally inadvisable. The third
and most important concern was the idea of giving a child a “hand me down” toy
was not aligned with the goal the Marines were trying to achieve. How is a
“hand me down” toy instrumental in inspiring hope to a needy child? It would
make the child feel as if they were second rate citizens; not good enough for a
new toy, essentially defeating the Marines’ purpose. The goal is to foster hope
and self worth. Having a new toy is instrumental in doing this as every child
deserves a new toy.
A
non-profit organization is described as “organizations, whose main purpose is
to serve the public interest and are noncommercial” (Cameron,Wilcox, Reber,
Shin, 2008). A non-profit is as the words state: the organization cannot make a
profit; although it can generate income. There are regulations on how income is
generated and finances are allocated. A non-profit organization is set up to
serve the public good. The Marines, like the other branches of the military was
considered a federal organization. In the late 1980’s, the Marines Toys for
Tots Foundation believed that they needed non-profit status in order to sustain
the organization. The Secretary of Defense granted the organization non-profit
status in 1991. The organization identified five goals which they attempted to
accomplish. The Foundation could “provide toys to supplement the collections of
local units that had fewer Marines due to military cutbacks of the ‘80s and
‘90s” (www.toysfortots.org). Next, the Foundation could “arrange and pay for
the creation, publication, manufacture and distribution of promotion and
support materials to Toys for Tots coordinators” (www.toysfortots.org). Third,
the Foundation could “enable individual and corporate donors to Toys for Tots
to take a charitable deduction on their income tax returns”
(www.toysfortots.org). Fourth, the Foundation could “enter into contracts with
corporations to conduct promotions, which would produce royalties for Toys for
Tots”(www.toysfortots.org). (Needs three and four were two important elements
of this charitable endeavor that the Marine Corps, as a federal agency, could
not fulfill). Lastly, the Foundation could ensure that the Toys for Tots
program “operates in compliance with IRS regulations, state laws and
regulations and charitable standards” (www.toysfortots.org). The Marines Toys for Tots
Foundation was designated an official Marine Corps activity and an official
mission of the Marine Corps Reserves by the Secretary of Defense in 1995.
Overall,
over 400 million toys have been distributed to over 188 million children.
Although Toys for Tots is a non-profit organization, they do rely on the
donations from others to keep their organization afloat. Ironically enough,
over 70 profit corporate organizations such as Build-a-Bear, Babies-R-Us, Ford
Motor Company, ESPN, Starbucks, Neopets and Big Lots have partnered with Toys
for Tots donating up to $60 million in toys (Biesada, 2012). the goodwill that
the Toys for Tots organization fosters, encourages participation and donations.
After the terrorist attacks in 2001, donations were the second highest at that
time, with over 388 communities across the 50 states donating toys to the organization.
The organization has been awarded numerous awards and accolades over the years.
Unquestionably, the Marines Toys for Tots is considered a successful non-profit
organization.
However
with every organization, there is always the threat of impropriety.
Questionable fundraising practices and glaring bookkeeping errors came to light
in 1994. Of the $9.7 million dollars that was raised from 1992 through 1993,
none of the funds were used to purchase toys. All of the money that was raised
was used to cover direct mail expenses. An audit performed after then president
Jerry L. King was removed uncovered bookkeeping errors such as unaccounted
purchase orders, most notably a $1 million purchase order “sent to Hong Kong in
1993 went undocumented” (Hays, 1994). King was dismissed “after board members
discovered he had been convicted of tax evasion and other crimes, all unrelated
to his foundation work” (Hays, 1994). Red flags were raised as each community
acts independently, soliciting toys and funds. The United States postal
inspector of Newark, NJ looked into the direct marketing campaign based upon
complaints from state residents. “The first set of direct-mail pleas was actually a test to assess the
foundation's fund-raising prospects. But none of the 730,000 letters indicated
that it was a test. The money that came in from the mailing -- $220,000 -- was
put toward the next mailing” (Hays, 1994). In addition to the mismanagement of
funds, in a report released by the Philanthropic Advisory Service, a branch of
the Council of Better Business Bureaus, there was not “a board approved budget
until 1993, four years after the foundation was incorporated with Mr. King at
the helm” (Hays, 1994).
Major Betsy Sweatt, the New Orleans United
States Marine Corps Reserve spokeswoman attempted to do damage control by
quickly separating the Toys for Tots Foundation from the United States Marine
Corps Reserves original organization, advising “the foundation is not really
part of the program…they're a separate and distinct organization. They provide
support in the form of toys and promotional material. They're more at the
national level” (Hays, 1994). Her statement raised further red flags
questioning the need for a “national” level organization. The Toys for Tots
Foundation was revamped, expanding their board from five to ten members,
implementing a budget plan, as well as bylaws to avoid further conflicts of
interest. Even though the Toys for Tots direct marketing campaign both was and
was not successful; in the twenty-first century, there are many different ways
to get the word out in regards to your favorite charity, including Toys for
Tots.
Posting a blog, tweeting about the charity
via Twitter or “liking” the page on Facebook as well as posting a message to
your Facebook friends are ways that one can spread the word about a charity.
The idea is to promote awareness of the charity, prompting individuals to
donate. “Making people aware and getting them involved is a great service for
the cause you support” (Liss, 2009). Joining a charity’s network is another way
to support the cause as the larger the network, the more the word can be
disseminated. Working with organizations implementing a “tweet-up” raises money
for the charity.
Instead of giving away party favors at
weddings, or graduations, one can also donate a certain amount of money to a
favorite charity in honor of their guests. Sites such as the IDo Foundation and
Just Give organization allows for couples to donate through their site to the
charity of their choice. A party favor in the form of a tent card is created
letting the guests know that a donation has been made in their name. These are
given in lieu of traditional favors. My husband and I utilized this option for
our vow renewal ceremony, making a charitable donation to our local humane
society. This also helps in the promotion of awareness of the charity.
These new methods tend to work better than
the old traditional methods of direct marketing campaigns such as direct mail,
telemarketing and even blast emails as most individuals are on Facebook and
Twitter on a regular basis. More individuals are becoming socially responsible
and are receptive to promoting a cause. Who is to know where the next trend of
public relations will lead us. But as an organization continues to grow, the
ways to promote that organization will grow as well.
