Quotas Come To Charities

It’s not enough that more of rich people’s income will, thanks to President Yes-We-Can!, be given to the IRS and that the deductions allowed for giving to charity will now be reduced, starving charities of funds they would formerly have received. Now, according to this disturbing article by Naomi Schaefer Riley in the Wall Street Journal (HatTip to InstaPundit), the “diversity” police are demanding that private “public interest” organizations, i.e., charities, philanthropic foundations, etc., toe the new mandatory “diversity” line.

Typical of this effort, Ms. Riley argues, is a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy whose “real aim is to push philanthropic organizations into ignoring donor intent and instead giving grants based on political considerations.”

The report, titled “Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best,” advises foundations to “provide at least 50 percent of grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color, and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.” The committee looked at 809 of the largest foundations in the country, whose combined three-year grants totaled almost $15 billion, and concluded that the majority of foundations are “eschewing the needs of the most vulnerable in our society” by neglecting “marginalized groups.”

The NCRP, alas, is not alone.

Two years ago, an advocacy group in San Francisco called Greenlining began releasing similar reports. Greenlining’s aim then was to pass legislation in California mandating that foundations report to the public the percentage of their dollars given to “minority-led” organizations and the percentage of their boards and staffs made up by racial and ethnic minorities. The legislation was dropped when several foundations promised to donate money to causes Greenlining favored.

Now Greenlining has put out reports in Florida, Pennsylvania and New York trying to shame foundations into distributing grants differently, as well as pressure them into recruiting more “diverse” board and staff members. The NCRP report picks up on this theme to suggest that foundation boards and staffs should include people with a “diversity of perspectives.”

There a number of problems with this effort to dictate the composition of philanthropic boards and the direction of their giving, not the least of which is the nettlesome issue of donor intent. One of the NCRP’s recommentations, for example, is that at least 25% of grant funds be devoted to grants promoting “advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice in our society.” As Ms. Riley notes, “[t]his might be a worthy mission,”

but whose mission is it? Philanthropists give money to foundations with a particular cause in mind. And promoting “justice in our society” may not have anything to do with it. Indeed, foundations that redirect funding to match the NCRP criteria may have to violate donor intent in order to do so.

The best way for a donor to make sure that his money is given for the purposes he wants is to choose people for his board who agree with him. Whether these people are family members, co-religionists or old college buddies, what is important is that they share his philanthropic vision.

As we’ve seen in other arenas, however, those determined to do good with other people’s money are seldom slowed down by the inconvenient issue of a conflicting intent, whether expressed by legislators, Constitution-drafters or adopters, or, in this case, charitable donors. (For discussion of other recent examples, see here and here.)