Accepting Contributions

You ask not about the tactical but the strategic. Thank you. While we need robust policies that address the nuts and bolts of accepting gifts, we also need an ideological — and I would say ethical — framework within which to make acceptance determinations. It is not at all heretical to think about not accepting a gift. In a way, this question goes back a while. Hospitals, for example, have dealt with the issue of whether to accept gifts from the tobacco industry. Many health organizations have examined this question, but not all; based on my observations over the years, I'm surprised at how many are still silent on the question. (Then again, I'm surprised at how many organizations don't even have gift acceptance policies and procedures.)

Keep in mind, I say I'm surprised by charities that are "silent on the question" and not by those who pro-actively accept gifts from the tobacco industry. That may initially seem inconsistent with ethical expectations, but the thought speaks directly to your question. It is not a given that it is unethical to accept a gift from an industry that has been determined to be at odds with the organization's mission. I hope that's thought provoking, because at the core of ethical decision-making is the understanding that valid values clash; therein lies the idea of dilemma. It is valid to ask whether the money being given to an organization will further its cause. It's also valid to ask whether it sends the wrong message to accept money from people or companies whose experiences are not consistent with an organization's goals. Will the gift do us harm? Or, has the devil had it long enough? And if both perspectives have substance for a board and senior fundraising staff, which value wins out, at least for now?

The answer is not clear-cut, but the question, along with many others, must, in the end, be answered. (Part of ethical decision-making is to actually do something.)

The goal is to construct an ideological framework within which to make decisions. To do that, boards and senior fundraising staff need to ask difficult questions and then identify the values: Long-term vs. short-term; mercy vs. justice; the newspaper headline vs. knowing you did the right thing — these are all ways to think of dilemmas. That way, for example, when you don't want to act as trustee of a life-income gift that pays out too much, you think of the question not only in financial terms but also on the basis of ensuring that the donor is motivated primarily by a sense of philanthropy. After all, the first of the Model Standards for Charitable Gift Planners implores us to sniff out true charitable intent. That's of course, aspirational, because we can't read donors' minds. But each charity can establish its own vision and principles and then convey them to its donors. And that's just one example.

So, yes — and you put it well — establish a philosophy for evaluating opportunities that will help clarify how to proceed on particular questions that will inevitably arise. Otherwise, you're flying blind. Oh, and be prepared to learn that not everyone will be happy with your decisions.

If you have a question, please feel free to contact Doug White at dwhitepg@gmail.com. While all issues discussed are real, identities are kept confidential.