How Fundraising and Service Provision Approaches among

Disability Non-profit Organizations Influence Social

Attitudes Towards the Beneficiaries

Shatha Abusrour

December 7th 2014

2

Introduction

“…The singers croon. The eyelids droop. The money pours in. The firefighters, the Boy

Scouts, the business executives, the neighborhood kids, all tiredly smiling proud

smiles, carry in their collected funds, in jars, in boots, in oversized checks. The

camera rolls. The host smiles. The money pours in. The Poster Child gives awkward

answers to inane questions. The host smiles. The Poster Child smiles. The host cries.

The money pours in…You have to keep thinking about the money,

because as everyone freely admits, that's what this is all

about…” (Hershey, 1993, pp 1).

This is almost the first part of an article written by

Hershey, a disability activist, writer and poet in the US. She

was one of the most prominent voices of the disability rights

movement. She used to believe that telethons as a fundraising

tool promotes the message that the life of people who have

muscular dystrophy is not worth living (Ingold, 2010).

This is the best way to start this paper, relating to the

voice of disability activists themselves. In the previous

part, there are several pictures the writer was describing,

when she was young used for fundraising tools that she noticed

she did not like when she got older. Also she wrote that it is

3

all about money. Which leads to different questions,

observations and areas that require further attention by

researchers. Also it requires many considerations by

fundraisers in the disability organizations. Especially that

Hershey is not alone in her voice, there are also other

activists who express dissatisfaction of fundraising, where

money does go and who is benefiting from those donations. For

example, here is another disability advocate who states: “In

2008, 2.6 percent of total grant dollars went to disability

organizations. Regretfully, the bulk of these funds go to

either fixing or caring for us. With the notable exception of

the Carnegie Corporation of New York, very little goes to

protecting our civil rights and ultimately integrating us into

mainstream American life” (Dickson, 2011, pp 2).

This quote indicates that the service provision approach

focuses on fixing, changing and taking care of individuals

with disability and disregarding all other aspects, systems

and programs that are not designed inclusively and accessibly

for all citizens in the society including persons with

disabilities.

Unfortunately, those two opinions are not the only ones.

4

They represent the majority of persons with disability in the

world who are not the key players in their own lives and third

or fourth class citizens in their communities. Fundraising and

service provision methodologies may not be the only reason for

this fact, but they are absolutely a very important one, given

that most of those approaches contain images and messages

which reflect charitable models and reinforce negative

stereotypes and stigma in the society.

The research paper objectives and topic (problem)

This paper aims at exploring and identifying the

relationship between social attitudes towards persons with

disabilities and fundraising and service provision methods

used by nonprofit organizations working in the field of

disability. Also it looks forward to come up with research

questions and areas that lead to recommendations on how those

approaches should be more sensitive to human beings’ dignity

and compatible with developmental and human rights based

perspective. It includes an over view on fundraising and

services run by a random selection of national and local

nonprofit organizations in the US, through visiting their

5

websites. It will focus on terminology, image and service

provision approach and fundraising one. Furthermore, this

paper will provide brief summary on previous similar studies

which were conducted in developed countries during the last

four decades, due to the lack of more recent studies in this

field.

The main problem that will be tackled in this paper is

based on the hypotheses that stigma, stereotypes and negative

attitudes towards people with disability are resulted from

disability nonprofit organizations which portray persons with

disability in ways that evoke sympathy and emotions among

donors in order to receive funds. Also the programs and

services they run and offer focus on individuals, require

complex procedures and lack policy and systematic changes or

achievements. Those two issues play a prominent role not only

in reinforcing negative attitudes towards persons with

disability, but also in enforcing segregation based systems

and programs which prohibit opportunities for holistic,

mainstreamed and comprehensive approaches.

Overview of main disability models and frameworks

6

This part of the paper will focus on the issues relevant

to its objectives. In general, there is a large number of

national, state and local nonprofit organizations working on

disability related issues in the US running different kinds of

programs and offering various services such as; advocacy,

educational services, entertainment programs, psychological

interventions, rehabilitation, sports, international

development and empowerment.

Those organizations are driven by different disability

models and perspectives that shape their theoretical,

identical, conceptual, organizational and practical

philosophies and actions. Literature, history and disability

movements reflect different definitions and classifications of

those models and explain how each of them affects policies,

societies and individuals with disability themselves.

First of all, there is the personal tragedy model of

disability (the individual model) which locates the problem of

disability within the individuals themselves and it sees the

functional and psychological losses as main reasons that cause

the problem of disability. This theory or model suggests that

disability is a sort of misfortune that happens to an

7

individual (Oliver, 1990). Such model puts persons with

disability in two frames. The first frame represents the

emotional aspects surrounding disability, in which pity,

charity and the willingness to help are the dominant actions.

The second frame suggests that people with disability are sick

and lack the ability to do several activities due to the

disability they have. In this case nonprofit organizations

would choose to offer medical interventions and services only.

The other disability model that is taking place at

different policy and practice levels is the social model of

disability. This model suggests that disability is a result

of the negative interaction between individuals who have

different types of disabilities and the surrounding

environment. This negativity is caused by policy,

communicational, physical, attitudinal and procedural barriers

that hinder persons with disability full participation and

limit or prohibit their access to rights and services on an

equal basis with others (Oliver, 1990; Pledger, 2003). Most

of the interventions driven by this model focus on making

specific changes and accommodations in the physical

environment, in which persons with disability can enjoy

8

freedom of movement independently. In addition, this model

encompasses the responsiveness and inclusiveness of the

institutional programs, culture and procedures.

The last model or framework this paper will discuss is

the rights-based perspective. This perspective recognizes

that the rights of persons with disability are not different

or separate from all categories of human rights; civil,

political, economic, social and cultural. According to this

perspective, all states’ agencies, nonprofit organizations and

private sector organizations should consider designing their

services and programs in an inclusive manner, taking into

account all reasonable accommodations that safeguard

accessibility by persons with disability. Additionally, this

perspective is based on a group of core values and principles

that enhance persons with disability involvement in their

issues and recognize their dignity and diversity. Besides, it

is built on the fact that disability is a cross-sectoral

issue, which means that persons with disability should be

mainstreamed in all projects and programs and exclusion on the

basis of disability is a discriminatory action. (UN

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, 2007)

9

Previous relevant studies

It was challenging to find previous studies tackling the

exact topic. However, below are some previous studies which

were conducted on similar and close areas. The first

study was conducted in the UK in 1996 to understand to what

extent branding was used in the sector by different charities,

what possibilities existed for using commercial branding

techniques in the charities, and the limitations of those

practices. This was a qualitative research which utilized the

interview methodology targeting fundraising managers and

directors of eleven UK charities, three of which were

disability charities. The working definition of brand in this

study is ’A brand is defined as the complete collection of

images of the charity, its products and/or the cause that are

contained in the donor’s mind.’

The main topics discussed the following views:

fundraisers’ perspectives on how charities manage their

brands; fundraisers’ views on how charities could use brands

to maximize funds.

The main relevant results of this study reflect the fact

10

that donors relate to messages that evoke pity and raise

emotions. They are more likely to help or support charities

using those kinds of messages which show people with

disability needy and helpless. Clients usually are not

satisfied with this approach, on the contrary, they want to be

seen as effective rather than helpless. Also this approach

focuses on the problems and does not tackle methods that will

facilitate solving those problems and how charities will work

on them. In addition, the study showed that respondents find

themselves in an intellectual and emotional dilemma where they

believe that pity messages are against public education on

disability issues on one hand, and they have to use them in

order to attract donors on the other hand (Tapp,1996).

Another study was conducted in the U.S. in 1991 aimed at

investigating a hypotheses that assumed that respondents who

will be exposed to scenarios where people with disability are

independent and capable to meet the personal and environmental

challenges successfully ‘coping appeal’ will have more

willingness to donate and will have better attitudes towards

people with disability, in comparison to them being exposed to

scenarios where people with disability will be helpless,

11

dependent, passive and incapable ‘succumbing appeal’. This

study had targeted 148 undergraduate students using a couple

of tools such as videos, cases and three questionnaires. This

set of tools included different messages or pictures of

persons with disability and couple of the fundraising methods

and expressions.

In general, the results of this study had shown no

difference in the willingness of donation among respondents on

the basis of the two scenarios they were subjected to.

However, the study results indicated that those scenarios

stimulate different attitudes, thoughts and reactions.

Participants who were exposed to the ‘coping appeal’ expressed

positive attitudes and believes towards people with

disabilities’ capabilities to live independently, participate

fully in all aspects of life and adjust. Also they supported

their human rights and expressed more acceptance and hope

towards people with disability (Adler, Wright and Ulicny,

1991).

Here is another study that was published in the UK in

1995. It aimed at examining the relationship between attitudes

towards charitable giving and attitudes towards people with

12

disability, based on an assumption that those two are related

because attitudes towards charitable giving and attitudes

towards people with disability belong to similar thoughts,

perceptions and feelings. This study had targeted 184

participants who were given questionnaires, each of them had

filled three kinds of questionnaires. The first one assessed

interactions with persons with disability. The second one

examined attitudes to charity. And the third one investigated

“Just World” beliefs. (The Just World Belief is the tendency

of people to blame victims of misfortune for their own fate -

Lerner, 1965).

In general, the outcomes of the study showed that people

who held just world beliefs had discomfort towards people with

disabilities. Also the study revealed that unjust world

beliefs believe that there is corruption in charity

distribution, as it is both inefficient on one hand and does

not distinguish between those who deserve and those who do not

on the other hand. Although, both respondents who have the

just world beliefs and the ones who do not have the just world

beliefs believe that there should be no need for charities.

Overall, the relationship between just world beliefs and

13

disability attitudes were stronger than just world beliefs and

charitable giving (Furnham, 1995).

In 1997 a study was conducted in the UK, aimed at

measuring emotional and empathetic responses towards the use

of facial disfigured people in charity advertisement. The

study had mainly targeted university students by using a

complex methodology which included different tools. One of

those tools was exposing four groups to different

advertisements. Those advertisements included young man who

have (as written in the study) facial disfigurement alone, the

same man with an attractive announcer, the man with an

unattractive nurse and the attractive announcer alone. Those

advertisements had contained a short message as an appeal to

donate a charity that works with people who have facial

disfigurement. The message was written in several ways but all

of them expressed that persons with facial disfigurement have

less chances to work, get married and being included in the

society and they need help from the public. Each group was

exposed to two different advertisements. Questionnaires were

another tool. Groups had also filled questionnaires that

contained effective, cognitive and conative items.

14

Results had shown that the conative, cognitive and

effective scores were improved among respondents who were

exposed to the advertisement that contained the man who have

facial disfigurements and the attractive announcer then there

were better attitudes towards the one with the unattractive

nurse in comparison to the one which had the man alone. Also,

in further analysis in the study it is mentioned that the

advertisement that includes the man with the attractive

announcer creates kind of a balance among donors between the

discomfort towards seeing the facial disfigurement and the

attraction of the announcer. This balance brings sympathy and

compassion on one hand and leads them to think that offering

help in such case is normal, proper and the right thing to do

on the other hand (Bennett, 1997).

There are different thoughts and judgments regarding the

use of imagery by nonprofit organizations in the fundraising

and marketing methods. Regardless of the fact that using

imagery might be subject to suspicion, yet nonprofit

organizations use them because of their effectiveness (Fenton

et al., 1993). Unfortunately, this use of imagery does not

often take into consideration that nonprofit organizations and

15

all other socio-cultural organizations produce, reinforce and

institutionalize certain beliefs, stereotypes and mindsets

through the images they use. Also the frequent use of images

in the fundraising appeals shows the importance of visual

images in those activities (Dogra, 2007). This importance

could be reflected in different ways, yet the biggest concern

would be how to use those images for the financial benefit of

the nonprofit organization. Attitudes towards Beneficiaries

who receive charitable services as well as donation can be

affected by the ways they are portrayed (Sargenant and Jay,

2014). Also research shows that the public is more responsive

to imageries of beneficiaries who suffer than positive

imageries that portray them in an equal manner (Eayrs and

Elllis, 1990). The public are not different than donors in

this way. The perceptions of a cause and the efficacy of the

organization are both important to donors, yet the short sharp

shock is the simplicity of charitable images or advertising

(Bendapudi et al. 1996; Small and Verrochi, 2009). Barnett

and Hammond, (1999) argued that steps should be taken to

improve the representation of disadvantaged groups through

changing cultural imagery. Also they think that more research

16

should be conducted to examine how this representation is

accepted.

In general, donors of and foundations for disability

nonprofit organizations are the same who donate to other

nonprofits which work in many fields such as: USAID, Open

Society Institute, The Safeway Foundation and MercyCorps.

Although it is important to mention that most of such

foundations and agencies support disability specific programs

and services. In other words, disability is not a cross-

cutting issue in all their programs and funds. At the same

time, there are other foundations and even nonprofit

organizations that support disability programs, services and

activities only, such as: the Disability Rights Fund, Handicap

International and Disability Funders Network. According to

the Foundation Center, only 2.9% of grant dollars awarded in

2002 was directed to programs serving people with

disabilities. In addition, 38,000 disability specific grants

were issued between 2001 and 2007. In addition, an estimated

54 million people in the United States (about 20% of the total

population), and 1.1 billion people world-wide have a

17

disability but less than 3 percent of all private philanthropy

targets people with disabilities (Disability Funders Network

and Foundation Center Project, n.d. retrieved from

www.disabilityfunders.org/foundation-center).

The studies above are not the only ones that can be

included in this paper, but they are the most relevant to the

purpose of the topic. It is highly important to shed the light

on the following observations.

The first study was the only one that targeted different

charities and a few of them were working on disability related

issues. The other studies had targeted university students to

investigate or examine their hypotheses. This indicates the

importance of undertaking more research on disability

nonprofit organizations from a closer position in order to

learn more deeply about the relationship between fundraising

and service provision and social attitudes towards persons

with disability. Although the first study shows this ethical

dilemma among fundraisers in charities working in the field of

disability, where they are between how persons with disability

want to be portrayed and the fact that emotional images and

even messages evoke donors and strengthen the chance of their

18

support.

Some of those studies use discriminatory language when

they describe persons with disability. For example, the last

study utilized the description disfigurement and facially

disfigured, as a term to explain facial differences. This

terminology especially in academia may play a negative role

formulating attitudes and knowledge in this regard. As it is

known, language is the frame of thoughts. It represents how

people think of a specific group and how they perceive this

group which reflects itself in interactions negatively or

positively.

Most of the results reflect a strong relationship

between persons with disability and a group of thoughts and

attitudes that undermine people with disability and put them

in circles of pity, helplessness and neediness. Also it is

clear that there is a strong relationship between those images

and the willingness among nonprofit organizations to approach

donors and gain their support. Most of those organizations do

not recognize the association between images they use in their

fundraising and marketing materials and the negative impact of

those images on social attitudes towards persons with

19

disability.

Those observations lead to many questions such as: 1) How

persons with disability are portrayed in fundraising and

marketing materials of nonprofit organizations working on the

field of disability? 2) Which model of disability is used the

most among those organizations and why? 3) Where do service

provision methodologies belong and what do they present?

4) How are fundraising and service provision methodologies

used by disability nonprofit organizations perceived by the

public and how do they influence their attitudes?

Methodology

In order to address the questions above, it was decided

to do the following steps:

interviews with three nonprofit organizations working on the

field of disability in Grand Rapids, Michigan, aimed at

discussing (1) what is behind the development of the contents

they design and publish on their website regarding their work,

(2) what is the basic approach they are careful to be in line

20

with when designing the contents of their proposals, and (3)

what are the decisions behind this content; conducting a focus

group with students at GVSU which aimed at assessing their

attitudes towards varying content posted on websites of local

and national disability nonprofit organizations, and to

explore the relationship between contents and the willingness

to donate those organizations.

Unfortunately, nonprofit organizations that received the

request for an interview did not respond or did not have the

willingness to participate. Also the delay that resulted from

different reasons including nonprofit organizations responses

caused lacking logistical competencies to hold the focus

group.

Consequently, the questions above will be addressed by

analyzing the material posted in several websites of nonprofit

organizations working in the field of disability in the US.

This analysis will focus on two main contents: the

organizations’ donate page; and the services provided by the

organizations including their missions. Analysis will aim to

apply those contents to four models of disability: the

charitable model, the medical model, the social model, and the

21

rights-based model or approach. Analysis will tackle and

recognize any noticeable relevant issues regarding the

followings: imagery; terminology; messages beyond the written

content; and reflection on the types of provided services.

Analysis

As noted above, models of disability are the framework

upon which this analysis will be built. Accordingly, this

research will rely on materials posted on the websites of

nonprofit organizations that work on disability related issues

directly and indirectly. It will apply those materials to the

four models and approaches of disability mentioned above. It

will compare between images, terminology and services posted

and offered by those organizations and how they could differ

or be alike from a model to another.

The individual model of disability

Literature shows that this model includes the personal

tragedy model/the charitable one and the medical model.

The charitable model

There are many nonprofit organizations that work for

22

people with disability use the charitable model in their

content and service provision. This model can be noticed

through the use of specific expressions organizations write in

their websites aiming at reflecting their work in ways that

bring feelings of pity among readers. Also this model can be

obviously noticed because of its focus on individuals through

service provision, the fact that it does not recognize the

individuals’ roles in their own lives and issues and it

portrays persons with disability as objects. For example, the

Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living (CIL) has the

following text on their website regarding who they are: “Every

day, we impact the lives of individuals with disabilities

living in our community.  We help them to achieve fuller, more

successful, and more meaningful lives, and we foster a true

place of community and belonging….we are a recognized leader

in improving the ways people with disabilities live their

lives” (http://www.annarborcil.org). As it is noticed, most

of the previous text put persons with disability in images and

frames that do not portray them as key players in their own

lives. It views them as people who need the organization’s

and other people help in order to improve their lives and

23

achieve their independency. In fact, all human beings need

each other help and support but, at the organizational level,

it is important for each organization to recognize that it is

a chance that facilitates someone’s empowerment, instead of a

path that decides someone’s future. Consequently, regardless

of diverse services an organization may offer, persons with

disability will not enjoy their rights and will not achieve

their full participation in different aspects as long as this

recognition is absent.

The medical model

This model is another individual approach in dealing

with issues related to persons with disability. As

mentioned previously, this model focuses on the functional

losses and views them as main factors that hinder persons

with disability access to rights and limits their

participation in different aspects of life. This model does

not see disability as a natural type of diversity. It puts

persons with disability in frames of sickness and the

neediness to be cured or fixed. This model is used often in

materials used by nonprofit organizations working in the

24

field of disability. Surprisingly, sometimes it is used by

those who offer services that are designed to improve their

independence at different levels. On the home page of the

Association of the Blind and Visually Impaired (ABVI), there

is a story that expresses someone’s experience with this

organization. This story concentrates on highlighting the

medical part of this experience. “With ABVI's low vision

testing, examinations and equipment, I eventually met the

needed requirements to have my license restrictions lifted.

I also benefited by setting and achieving goals...a return

to semi-normalcy of life” (Nolan, n.d.,

http://www.abvimichigan.org). Those are some parts of the

story at this organization’s website. In those parts there

are several indicators that tell the disability model this

organization does adopt. This experience focuses on

different medical issues and interventions. Also it brings

questions on what does normal life mean? And who decides who

is normal and who is not normal? Those observations and

others are associated to the medical model of disability,

which views this experience as sort of abnormality.

Fundraising

25

There are several noticeable messages in the fundraising

materials of nonprofit organizations working on disability.

Some organizations associate donation with helping persons

with disability to overcome such as Hope Network. This

organization has on its donate page the following message:

“For some, each day is a challenge. Donating shouldn’t be.

Overcoming. It’s what we do. And your donation helps us do it.

When you give to Hope Network, you’re supporting programs that

empower individuals with disabilities and disadvantages to

overcome amazing odds” (http://hopenetwork.org/ways-give).

This message perpetuates the image of disability to be seen as

a miserable experience that puts persons with disability down

where they need someone’s hand continuously.

Another noticeable message in this model is seen in the

use of imagery. In this case, it is not easy to decide which

image belongs to this model or that one. Also it is not

accurate to say that this specific picture evokes the public

emotions and that does not. Actually, reaction to images is

different from someone to another, as it has to do with how

each person thinks of persons with disability and what kind of

expectations and prejudices people have towards them in this

26

case. Accordingly, it could be true that sad images posted by

several organizations belong to the individual model and

contribute in reinforcing thoughts among the public such as

the ones that associate disability with psychological

difficulties, helplessness and suffering. On the other hand,

the use of images that show persons with disability expressing

optimistic and hopeful feelings and the ones that show them

successful in doing specific things, those images do not mean

necessarily that they belong to the social or the rights-based

models and approaches. Also such use does not guarantee the

reinforcement of positive attitudes towards persons with

disability, because lower and higher expectations are

reflection of negative attitudes.

Service provision

In general, the individual model of disability including

the charitable and medical models or frameworks encompasses

specific type of services such as financial assistance,

rehabilitation, health care services and counseling. For

example, The Muscular Dystrophy Association is a nonprofit

health agency. Their website states: “The Muscular Dystrophy

27

Association is the world’s leading nonprofit health agency

dedicated to finding treatments and cures for muscular

dystrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other

neuromuscular diseases. We do so by funding worldwide

research; by providing comprehensive health care services and

support to MDA families nationwide; and by rallying

communities to fight back through advocacy, fundraising and

local engagement. It’s special work powered by special people

who give generously” (http://mda.org/about).

This set of services as noticed is individual and medical

based service. Usually such services are not comprehensive and

holistic in ways that support adaptation and tackle other

external barriers targeted in the coming disability models.

In this matter it is important to gain deeper understanding on

how those services are perceived by the public on one hand and

how they do influence persons with disability on the other

hand.

The social model of disability

During the last two decades many nonprofit organizations

started building their missions, visions and approaches based

28

on the social model of disability. In this case, those

organizations started shifting their efforts from focusing on

individuals with disability to approaching other players in

the society who affect persons with disability lives at

different aspects.

Fundraising

Based on this model, organizations do consider changing

their terminology to approach donors and other people who may

volunteer in whatever ways they can. They choose words and

expressions that do not individualize the issue of disability.

On the contrary, the use of their words makes this issue seen

as one of those issues that affect the whole society.

National Organization on Disability works on employment for

persons with disability, they write the following expression

on the donation page “your contribution will help us change

the way America works”. In other words, better employment

opportunities for persons with disability bring positive

change to the whole society not to those individuals only.

Actually, it is how this group will be able to move from

dependency on welfare system to contribute in building

29

societies. The American Council of the Blind is another

example on how a fundraising message could be based on this

model. As it is written on their website: “Your support will

help to develop a nationwide network of peer support and will

help to increase public awareness of the capabilities of

people who are blind and visually impaired as well as help to

remove the barriers that prevent an equitable level of

inclusion into our society” (http://www.acb.org). As it is

noticed, this message highlights the link between whichever

support which might be offered to the organization and the

impact of this support on a wide range of aspects and social

concepts and processes such as inclusion and public awareness.

Service provision

There are several examples on service delivery methods

that apply to the social model. The National Organization on

Disability (NOD) works on increasing employment opportunities

for persons with disability who are in the working age and

unemployed. NOD aims at achieving this mission through

partnering with employers, schools, service providers and

disability advocates. Services offered by this organization

30

are consultation to employers who seek to hire persons with

disability and public agencies and conducting research on

employment related issues (http://nod.org). Another example

on services that belong to the social model of disability can

be noticed through visiting the website of Disability

Advocates of Kent County (DAC). In general, services they

offer are the following: accessibility, independent living,

housing, employment, advocacy and transportation. These kinds

of services represent different aspects and needs on one hand

and it offers resources for other organizations in the

community on disability mainstreaming on the other hand. This

example shows how an organization could have different

identities in terms of the disability models it may adopt

consciously or unconsciously.

The rights based approach

As mentioned in the literature, this approach started to

take place among disability activists, nonprofit organizations

working on disability related issues, state agencies and

donors during the last decade especially after the

ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons

31

with Disability 2008. This event represented a defining

moment among those groups and parties in terms of how the

issue of disability should be tackled and how it can be more

associated with sociopolitical issues and developmental

approaches.

As a result, foundations made changes on terminology they

use in the calls for proposals, the objectives and types of

programs and projects they look forward to donate. This

change affected many nonprofit organizations who do not have

the organizational culture that embraces this approach. Also

it pushed other nonprofit organizations to change their

terminology, some of their objectives and areas of interest to

some extent in order to catch up with this movement.

Fundraising

It was so challenging to find an organization that

believes in and practices the rights-based approach in its

mission, vision, programs and services. There are many

nonprofit organizations that may think they are based on this

approach, but the truth is that most of them are not. The

difference between this approach and the others could be

32

evident in one program, one sentence or even one word. The

only organization identified that represented the rights-based

approach is the Disability Funders Network. On the page For

grant makers, they write the following: “The basic needs of

people with disabilities are not very different from those of

other groups: they include employment, health care, education,

family services, housing, transportation and participation in

the arts and community activities….. When disability funding

is awarded, it is often in the health arena — reflecting a

common perspective that sees people with disabilities as

invalids who need to be ‘made well.’

If you are a funder, it is not necessary to have a designated

disability program area to make a difference. You can have a

positive impact on this underserved community by the simple

act of making sure that your organization's working definition

of ‘diversity’ and its thinking on social issues include

disability” (http://www.disabilityfunders.org).

This quote includes different messages such as: rights of

persons with disability are not different than others’ rights,

needs and wants; the interest to donate disability issues does

not mean that money should go to disability specific programs;

33

disability is like any other social issue and disability

should be mainstreamed at the intellectual, programmatic and

procedural levels.

In this regard, it is important to mention that service

provision based on this approach does not differ from

fundraising in terms of terminology, areas of intervention and

comprehensiveness. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight

that the rights-based approach is usually more careful to take

into consideration persons’ dignities, own involvement and

diversity.

Conclusions

In general, there are many similarities between how

persons with disability are portrayed on the websites of so

many nonprofit organizations working on the field of

disability and stereotypes associated with disability among

most of community members. Although it is not known yet if

those organizations are aware of those similarities or not and

whether they have the readiness to face and challenge the fact

that they are contributing negatively in reinforcing those

stereotypes.

34

There are many nonprofit organizations that belong to the

individual model of disability. Consequently, there are

strong possibilities that those nonprofit organizations are

perpetuating negative attitudes towards persons with

disability among their employees, communities and the general

public.

There is a fine line between the adoption of this

disability model or another by nonprofit organizations, in

which it is difficult for them to be consistent especially

with the social and the rights-based models.

Many nonprofit organizations are mixing several disability

models in their terminology, fundraising content and service

provision methodology. Although many of them are working hard

to use the terminology that is closer to the rights-based

approach, yet their services and images are not aligned.

Nonprofit organizations including most of the ones that

work to practice the social model of disability and the

rights-based approach post images that show individuals with

disability more than images that show changes they make in

their communities or images that suggest and teach how

disability is a cross-sectoral and sociopolitical issue.

35

Foundations can play a prominent role on creating a

positive environment among nonprofit organizations in which

they can be closer to the social and the rights-based

approach. Although it is very important for those foundations

to be aware themselves on how to make those changes in ways

that address and respond to nonprofit organizations’ needs and

requirements.

Recommendations

It is extremely important for researchers interested in

disability to undertake deeper research on the relationship

between attitudes towards persons with disability among

community members and fundraising and service provision

methodologies used by disability nonprofit organizations.

This kind of research can be very powerful educational tool

and mirror for nonprofit organizations, in which it may help

them to better see themselves, their impact and improve their

approaches for the benefit of the whole society on one hand

and beneficiaries with disability on the other hand. This

research should seek to explore the role of nonprofit

organizations in shaping the public attitudes and it should

36

come up with recommendations on how nonprofit organizations

can be better players in this regard. This research should be

conducted in cooperation with persons with disability

themselves, nonprofit organizations and foundations that

donate disability and interested in this field.

In general, it is important for nonprofit organizations

to start building the organizational culture that embrace,

believe and practice the rights-based disability approach.

This approach is the vehicle that will lead persons with

disability and the whole world to places where diversity is

perceived as a chance to more creative and different thoughts

and capabilities.

It is very important for persons with disability to carry

out an advocacy campaign targeting nonprofit organizations

working on the field of disability, aiming at achieving

nonprofit environment that offer services in ways that

recognize and respect persons’ dignities on one hand and work

towards disability mainstreaming on the other hand.

Foundations and donors interested in human rights and

sociopolitical issues such disability should set a code of

conduct that reinforce embracing diversity and disability

37

mainstreaming among all nonprofit organizations they donate.

38

References

Adler, A., Wright, B., Ulicny, G. (1991). Fundraising

portrayals of people with disabilities: Donations and

attitudes, Rehabilitation Psychology, 36(4), 231-240.

Barnett J., Hammond S. (1999). Representing disability in

charity promotions. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 9,

309–314.

Bendapudi, N., Singh, S., Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing

Helping behavior: an Integrative Framework for promotion

Planning. Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 33-49.

Bennett, R. (1997). ‘They shouldn’t let them out for us to

see’: Empathy and affect intensity as determinants of

responses to representations of the facially disfigured in

charity advertising’, Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,

2(3), 260-232.

Dickson, J. (2011). Philanthropy’s Blind Spot: the Disability

39

Rights movement, Responsive Philanthropy, Spring, 1-3.

Dogra, N. (2007). Reading NGOs Visually/Implications of Visual

Images for NGO Management. Journal of International Development, 19,

161-171.

Eayrs CB, Ellis N. (1990). Charity advertising: for or against

people with a mental handicap? The British Journal of Social Psychology,

29, 349–360.

Fenton, N., Golding, P., Radley, A. (1993). Charities, Media

and Public Opinion. Final Report on Home Office Project,

Reference RP89/76/301/1. University of Loughborough:

Loughborough, UK.

Furnham, A. (1995). The Just World, Charitable Giving and

Attitudes to Disability. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences,

19(4), 577-523.

Hershey, L. (1993). From Poster Child to Protester,

40

Burlington: Pachanga Press, Issue 5

Ingold, J. (2010, November). Laura Hershey, 48, championed

disability rights, The Denver Post, Retrieved from

http://www.denverpost.com

Oliver, m. (1990, July). The Individual and Social Models of

Disability. Paper presented at Joint Workshop of the Living

Options Groups and the Research Unit of the Royal College of

Physicians

Pledger, C. (2003). Discourse on Disability and Rehabilitation

issues: Opportunities for Psychology. American Psychologist, 58(4),

279-284.

Sargeant, A., Jay, E. (2004). Fundraising Management:

Analysis, Planning and Practice. Routledge: London and New

York

Small, D., Verrochi, N. (2009). The face of need: facial

emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing

41

Research, 46(December), 777–787.

Tapp, A. (1996). Charity brands: A qualitative study of

current practice. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,

1(4), 327-335.

UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly,

24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106, available at:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html [accessed 6

December 2014]

42

43