Donor intent
In
Fidelity to donor intent is sometimes distinguished from grant compliance, and "donor intent" refers to the actions of a grantmaking entity and grant compliance refers to the actions of a grant recipient, but the term donor intent is commonly used to refer to both the guiding principles of a grantmaking entity and the purposes of a specific gift.[2]
There have been many controversies, including litigation, over donor intent at private foundations, universities, and arts organizations.[3][4][5]
Arguments in favor
Donor intent has been defended as a moral obligation between giver and recipient. Defenders of donor intent argue that on a basic ethical level, trustees and gift recipients must do what they have agreed with the original donor to do, explicitly or implicitly: "When donor intent is violated, and particularly when it is egregiously violated, it undermines the bedrock trust on which all charitable giving rests."[2]
Donor intent is thus also defended as necessary to ensure future charitable giving.[2][6] Future donors might not be inclined to leave money to charitable causes if they see that trustees, grant recipients, or policymakers do not respect the stated intent. Peter Frumkin has written that "as s a policy tool for encouraging future giving, protection of a donor's intent is needed to give future philanthropists the confidence they need to pass their wealth on to others to administer."[1] Carl Schramm, former president of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, has said on donor intent, "If we dont recognize it, we discourage wealthy people from creating foundations in the future."[7]
Survey data of Americans indicates that donor intent and grant compliance are valued by the public. When asked by
Finally, respect for donor intent is defended as necessary to preserve pluralism in civil society: "Those who take the idea of donor intent seriously believe that only by protecting the idiosyncratic and at times outlandish ideas of donors will it be possible for philanthropy to innovate and pursue ideas that are either ahead of or behind their time," Frumkin has said.[6][9]
Arguments against
Many arguments against donor intent are made against honoring it in perpetuity.
While not arguing against donor intent per se,
Another argument against donor intent relates to whether limitations may be placed on donors' purposes, either prudential or legal. In
Perpetuating donor intent
Donor intent is considered virtually impossible to be maintained in perpetuity because of changing situations, erosion of capital, and the distance of successor trustees from a donor. In some instances, however, donor intent has been lost only a short time after a donor's death. Waldemar Nielsen has argued that the
Some donors have adopted strategies to prevent philanthropies that they create from drifting from donor intent.[2]
Sunsetting versus perpetuity
Rosenwald cautioned donors against perpetuity: "I am opposed to gifts in perpetuity for any purpose."
Mission statements
Carnegie left the Carnegie Corporation's mission vague and open-ended by instructing his successors to "promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding" but also granting "full authority to change policies or causes hitherto aided, from time to time, when this, in their opinion, has become necessary or desirable. They shall best conform to my wishes by using their own judgment."
Other donors are much narrower.
Trustees and staff
Often, donors select family members, personal business associates, lawyers, or nonprofit leaders to serve on their boards.
See also
References
- ^ ISBN 978-0-300-12184-1.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-9851265-0-6.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-892934-12-3.
- ^ "Resources on Donor Intent". Center for Excellence in Higher Education. Archived from the original on 14 April 2013. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
- ^ "Donor Intent Resource Library". Philanthropy Roundtable. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-226-26626-8.
- ^ Schramm, Carl (November–December 2007). "Examining the Role of Foundations in a Free Society". Philanthropy. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
- ^ "Zogby America Adults 11/20/05 to 11/22/05" (PDF). Zogby International. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 August 2008. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
- ^ Meyerson, Adam (Fall 2009). "How Foundations Should and Should Not Be Held Accountable". Philanthropy. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
- ^ a b c Rosenwald, Julius (May 1929). "Principles of Public Giving". The Atlantic Monthly.
- ISBN 978-0-253-21955-8.
- ^ Ogden, Tim. "The Thorny Problem of Donor Intent". Philanthropy Action. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
- ^ Nielsen, Waldemar (2000). "The Ethics of Philanthropy and Trusteeship; The Carnegie Foundation: A Case Study". In William F. May and A. Lewis Soens Jr. (ed.). The Ethics of Giving and Receiving: Am I My Foolish Brother's Keeper?. Dallas: SMU Press. pp. 96–107.
- ^ a b Sparks, Evan (Fall 2011). "Back to Bill". Philanthropy. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
- ^ Gose, Ben (February 5, 2004). "Changes at Denver's Daniels Fund: Politics or Prudence?". Chronicle of Philanthropy.
- ^ "Turning Passion into Action: Giving While Living" (PDF). Atlantic Reports. Atlantic Philanthropies. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 April 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
- ISBN 1-59403-117-7.
- ^ "Mission and Vision". Carnegie Corporation of New York. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
- ^ a b Sparks, Evan (Winter 2011). "Duke of Carolina". Philanthropy. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
External links
- ProtectingDonorIntent.com - collection of resources on donor intent