Analysis by Cole Boehler
ABL Leader Editor, Publisher
To some, MADD is the very model of what an effective public advocacy group is all about.
To others, it is one of far too many groups that continually scold and nag citizens and lawmakers with heavy-handed media and political pressure while passing out regular report cards--like so many authoritarian elementary school teachers--meant to embarrass errant students.
It is certainly some of both.
MADD claims 600 local chapters and two million members. It is proudly celebrating its 25th anniversary and proclaims its humble beginnings: a small group of California women angered by the death of a teenager at the hands of a drunk driver.
They are a little more reticent when it comes to their $53 million annual budget and senior executives pulling down six-figure salaries, and the fact that they are being panned by a respected charity watchdog for their unusually high and disproportionate expenditures dedicated to raising more funds.
The American Institute of Philanthropy has just reduced the organization's rating to a "D" grade, critical of the group's spending on fund raising activities.
A recent article in
USA Today said 80 percent of the non-profit organizations screened by the Institute earn "C" or better grades. MADD had been earning a "C-" but was being downgraded to a "D" because, the article said, 58 percent of the money MADD raises is spent on raising more money and for organization overhead.
MADD undoubtedly deserves much of the credit it receives for bringing down the number of drunk driving fatalities in the United States, and perhaps more credit than it claims. MADD says it has helped save 300,000 lives since its inception--12,000 per year average.
But some statistics have become so definitionally murky due to "spin" applied by groups like MADD--and the failure of the press to look at the facts behind the numbers--that it is difficult to get a real handle on drunk driving caused death rates and to put them into some meaningful context.
The more jaded observers speculate that it is intentional when the statistics are presented with a biased slant and bereft of con[varchar](max) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL, creating a false picture that a situation is worse--or at least showing less improvement--than is actually the case.
That allows public policy advocates like MADD to keep their issue on the front burner and at full boil, which keeps the group's public profile high and the grants and donations flowing, they would say. Indeed, MADD's annual $53 million budget appears headed ever upward, with the group shooting for $70 million by 2008.
And MADD may actually have been far more successful than they would like to let on.
MADD lays claim to having made the phrase "designated driver" a part of the national lexicon, though some adult beverage businesses and their associations have certainly pushed the concept as hard, or harder than MADD.
In fact, some of the more militant anti-alcohol groups have now begun panning the designated driver concept as one that encourages abuse or "binge drinking" by those no longer responsible for the transportation to and from drinking venues.
MADD also rightly takes credit for--and lauds--the adoption of a national 21 minimum drinking age, a campaign that was enacted, just as were the now universal open container bans and .08 BAC laws, by denying to recalcitrant states tens or hundreds of millions in precious federal highway construction funds.
Many lawmakers at the state and federal levels decried such tactics as "federal blackmail" but eventually the lure of money overcame philosophical qualms regarding states' rights and an increasingly domineering federal government.
MADD's literature sites the 21 drinking age as the perfect case in point for demonstrating how to use federal power to bully states: "Successful federal legislation quickly filters down to the states... States that would otherwise not have adhered to the national age requirement quickly fell in line when their highway funds were threatened."
Candy Lightner used to be known as the founder of MADD, serving as it's first president. She has more lately however distanced herself from the organization she helped launch, proclaiming MADD has become more of an alcohol prohibition organization than one focused on drunk driving deterrence.
Lightner was recently quoted in
USA Today, stating, "I'm proud of the fact that it's still in existence. But I haven't observed much local press or chapter participation. (It's size) has made them so bureaucratic."
Lightner told the
New Orleans Times Picayune, "They've become very neo-prohibitionist in their philosophy. I encouraged them to focus on the hard-drinking driver versus what's commonly known as the social drinker."
Today, MADD's literature simply describes Lightner as "probably the best known of MADD's organizers."
However, in 2000, she was called "MADD's founder" and was described as possessing "charisma" and "unwavering commitment to the organization's mission...(who has a) dynamic emotional appeal and undaunted self confidence... an unusually dedicated and self-sacrificing individual in pursuit of a righteous cause."
But then, curiously, MADD says these characteristics are the same ones that led her to depart from the organization.
Back in Lightner's day, MADD consulted with Disney, Inc. to help assist with its marketing and to develop an easy-to-remember mission statement. It is now: "Stop drunk driving (100 percent preventable, they say), support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking." The last plank was nailed in place in a 1999 change of mission statement.
MADD sites as "invaluable lessons learned along the way" to its becoming one of the most recognized public policy advocacy groups, the need to: "enlist a tireless and charismatic spokesperson; choose a name that is catchy or symbolic; develop a simple mission statement, and enlist a financial and emotional mentor."
Also, "recruit enthusiastic volunteers; cultivate support of national legislators; meet all government and Better Business Bureau requirements; generate visibility and media attention; diversify leadership and diversify fund raising."
While not exactly inventing this successful advocacy group formula, MADD's success and dynamic growth certainly has served as the role model for countless other social reforms organizations.
Editor's note: Next month in the second part of this series, we'll take a closer look at the sources of the $53 million MADD raises and spends, and who are the principals in the organization and what is their interest.Source: ABL Leader, December, 2005, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.