A Lesson for Nonprofits about Public Perception from the Crisis Text Line Controversy [SUBSCRIBERS-ONLY]
A controversy involving the nonprofit organization Crisis Text Line’s sharing of anonymized data with a related for-profit entity has been a major topic of conversation recently following a lengthy report by Politico. While the specifics of this situation may be unique, this story is a lesson to all nonprofits that public perception should always be considered as one of the main factors in any decision, and this public perception can be just as important as legal formalities.
Crisis Text Line (CTL) is a tech-driven nonprofit founded in 2013 that trains volunteers to provide mental health support and crisis intervention via text message conversations. CTL’s approach to training and counseling is informed by analysis of the data generated from the many text message conversations that take place on its platform, the privacy of which CTL has reportedly made significant efforts to protect. Recognizing that the expertise CTL has developed could have a commercial use, CTL decided to spin off a for-profit subsidiary called Loris in 2018 which would sell artificial intelligence software to help companies provide more empathetic customer service support. CTL holds an ownership stake in the company, along with private investors. CTL Board members saw this as an opportunity to generate additional revenue while also furthering the organization’s mission by “put[ting] more empathy into the world.”
The crux of the controversy is that CTL had entered into an agreement to share anonymized data from its text conversations with Loris to aid the development of the for-profit services. This sparked an intense public backlash, prompting CTL to end the arrangement a few days after the first Politico report (after initially defending its practices). The criticisms mainly focused on concerns that even anonymized data could potentially be traced back to specific individuals, and that persons texting in a moment of crisis could not be expected to give meaningful, fully informed consent to this use of their data.
An interesting aspect of this story is that it appears CTL followed what many would consider standard practices in dealing with its for-profit entity.
