Obama's New budget makes it hard(impossible) on Philanthropy

[jwrape]

I "was" involved in a small family foundation, until this week, that was created by my Grandfather with his own money to make it possible for the family to give money to non-profit charities for the benefit of our local and national community.
Our foundation gave to such 501(C3) charities as churches, Food banks, Oceananic organizations, the National Bald Eagle Foundation in Alaska, Childrens Hospital's and so on and so on. Many of these charities depended upon our donations every year to provide such things as Jet fuel for the transport of sick/dieing children, protection services for our Nation's Bird, Food for the hungry, clothes and transportation for the recovering Alcoholic Dad's and their families and so on.
To summarize it was a great thing to be part of and I will miss the feeling of giving to people that we helped for the past 10 years.

Anyways, to the point. Obama's new national budget includes NEW regulations on Private Foundations and Family Foundations that tell them where, how much and what they have to spend their money on and furthermore the budget document proposed states
“Especially now, donors

need to understand that

once the funds have

been placed in a foundation,

it’s not their

money anymore.”

This money was made by my grandfather and he already paid income taxes on it. The government should not be able to tell us where to GIVE the money away to.

The proposed budget regulations state in short that
1) At least 50 percent of its grant dollars to

benefit lower-income communities, communities

of color and other marginalized groups,

broadly defined

2) At least 25 percent of its grant dollars for

advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote

equity, opportunity and justice in our society

3) At least 50 percent of its grant dollars for
general operating support

4) At least 50 percent of its grant dollars as
multi-year grants

5) Pays out at least 6 percent of its assets annually in
grants (Currently at 5%)

6) Invests at least 25 percent of its assets in ways that
support its mission

And finally, Family foundations cannot get over a certain pre-determined size without being closed within 10-15 years AND a large slap in the face to family foundations, they are requiring that family foundations have a majority of NON-Family member board members on the board of trustees.
If that is made a requirement it pretty much demenishes the reasons behind having a "Family" foundation.

Obama is a Socialist and it shows.

This country is going to hell in a hand basket when a man that worked his entire life to make this money is TOLD to whom he has to give it to. That is a Damn shame.


So just in-case I wasn't clear, our Family foundation and many others like it have been recently forced to shut down and liquidate all assets. It is the end of an era of good people and good money going to needy people and good causes.

Way to go Obama, you just removed Millions if not Billions of dollars from the economy by telling good hearted people how to give away their money.... Amazing!


If you want to read more about this you can go hear and read "Philanthropy at it's best"
http://www.ncrp.org/

[ahabion]

Well if he continues on his hot streak, then we'll be unemployed but still making a wage with socialism around the corner. Those who continue to work will work for us, those who make more and have more will give to those who don't, and those who have dreams of the American dream of "having it good"... well that's out the window. You work for us now...

I'm serious when I say all things point to socialism at its core, values and all.

Capitalism will be but a distant memory. Oh and say goodbye to all the highly paid intellectuals like doctors and scientists because they'll be moving out of the country so they can get paid their due.

[jwrape]

Well if he continues on his hot streak, then we'll be unemployed but still making a wage with socialism around the corner. Those who continue to work will work for us, those who make more and have more will give to those who don't, and those who have dreams of the American dream of "having it good"... well that's out the window. You work for us now...

I'm serious when I say all things point to socialism at its core, values and all.

Capitalism will be but a distant memory. Oh and say goodbye to all the highly paid intellectuals like doctors and scientists because they'll be moving out of the country so they can get paid their due.

Well Said!

[Total_Blender]

Do you have a source for this other than the link to NCRP's "philanthropy at it's best"?

"Philanthropy at it best" seems to be a set of guidelines more than a legal document. Reading it, I did not see where it explicitly said that a family foundation could not have a board composed entirely of family members. I also did see where it explicitly mandated how foundation funds should be distributed. Just seems like a list of guidelines for foundations to me.

Furthermore, I really don't see a connection to Obama here. He wasn't mentioned in the report at all.

[ahabion]

Do you have a source for this other than the link to NCRP's "philanthropy at it's best"?

"Philanthropy at it best" seems to be a set of guidelines more than a legal document. Reading it, I did not see where it explicitly said that a family foundation could not have a board composed entirely of family members. I also did see where it explicitly mandated how foundation funds should be distributed. Just seems like a list of guidelines for foundations to me.

Furthermore, I really don't see a connection to Obama here. He wasn't mentioned in the report at all.

http://www.ncrp.org/news-room/press-...new-guidelines

(had to click on the "realease" link) But of course they don't want to come out an say that it was Obama directly. They're not a political figure nor do I think they want to strike controversy. I'm sure that their following lay on all sides of the fence, so they don't want to point fingers and potentially turn off their audience.

[jwrape]

There was also an article in the Southeastern Foundation Councels newsletter that indicates the part about the board being made up of mostly non-family and the article also indicates the regulations being stuffed in the middle of the budget spending bill that Obama is set to sign into law.

[Total_Blender]

There was also an article in the Southeastern Foundation Councels newsletter that indicates the part about the board being made up of mostly non-family and the article also indicates the regulations being stuffed in the middle of the budget spending bill that Obama is set to sign into law.

Have you got a link you can post to that article? Everything provided by the NCRP just says the criteria are guidelines. I still don't see a connection to Obama specifically. This all seems to be a project that has been in the works since the studies were done in 2007.

[jwrape]

Have you got a link you can post to that article? Everything provided by the NCRP just says the criteria are guidelines. I still don't see a connection to Obama specifically. This all seems to be a project that has been in the works since the studies were done in 2007.

Sorry, I don't have a link, the newsletter comes to us in the mail. At this time they are guidelines in certain states and regulations in others. California is one of the states where it has passed and is enforced, one of the Family Foundations we are friends with through the SEFC had to move their headquarters from Cali to AZ to get away from the regulations but if the budget passes then it will become regulation in the rest of the states. The NCRP was designed to regulate the private foundations and has slowly been imposing more and more regulations to restrict or direct funds to what the Governments causes are. It has been a long battle between the SEFC and the NCRP for years now and it seems they are beginning to win and take over the funding direction for private foundations.
Maybe I can scan the article if my wife still has it.

[jwrape]

Here is an article on the SEFC site about it. I pulled a few quotes as I read
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/ncr...lanthropy.html

"What the "ethical" section is really about is board structure and management practices, starting with an antipathy for family control--which was stated in the initial summary but more couched in the final report. Whether a foundation is "ethical" is measured not by the integrity and practices of the trustee and staff, but by whether there are at least five people on the board (of sufficiently disparate non-family and socioeconomic status)."

"In the NCRP worldview, philanthropic freedom is not only at risk, it's an oxymoron. Foundations aren't free to make their own judgments about efficacy, best practices and ethical behavior: It must be NCRP's way and only their way."

"They get to the "public money" claim through the magic of semantic transubstantiation: Tax exemption is redefined as "economic benefit," which then slips into "subsidy" (a sacramental term), which--poof!--they claim transforms private money into public money that ought to serve a public purpose. "

I think I found the article, I am re-reading it now and will add quotes below. This is the article that mentions Obama's Budget
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604548985015461.html

"President Barack Obama's proposed budget would limit tax deductions on charitable contributions "

"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."

I like this statement "This same coalition of groups has argued that because foundations are tax-exempt organizations, they should yield to pressure to serve public interests. But by this logic, the public has a right to tell you what to do with your house because you took a mortgage deduction on your income taxes last year."


Another good one
"If foundations are supposed to align their funding with public preferences, then why should they give grants at all? Why not just direct donor checks to the IRS? Indeed, if every foundation adhered to NCRP's recommendations, the world of philanthropy would look curiously monolithic. The diversity among foundations is not measurable by simplistic racial and gender head counts.

What makes Americans give billions each year is not pressure from activists or government mandates. It is a diversity of interests, freely chosen and passionately pursued."

[jwrape]

Here is another artcle about it
http://www.secf.org/s_secf/bin.asp?C...2&DOC=FILE.PDF

"In fact, the natural consequence of these

benchmarks will be to reduce the scope and diversity of the foundation sector to one

that serves a more narrow set of highly politicized interests.

“On average, foundation assets have dropped 20-40% and

The New York Times

reports an unusual number of charities filing for bankruptcy. It is incomprehensible

that the NCRP is proposing criteria that could further ravage the charitable sector,”

"If they get to impose their standards, a multitude of organizations could

lose funding because each fails to meet NCRP’s criteria for “high value”

grantmaking. These organizations include St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital,

National Public Radio, The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation and Make-AWish

Foundation, to name a few."

[jwrape]

More Articles on the subject
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-b..._b_172086.html


You gotta love this articel
Charities get offer they can't refuse

"
Dress it up as they do in the politically correct language of insuring “diversity” and helping “vulnerable populations,” the inescapable fact is the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) and its allies is making the philanthropic community an offer they think can’t be refused.

The heart of the NCRP criteria are demands that private philanthropies and charities direct at least half of their funding to disadvantaged communities and another quarter to “advocacy, organizing and civic engagement to promote equity, opportunity and justice.”

There are also demands that private philanthropies and charities make their grants for “general operating support” and to fund “multi-year”periods. Finally, the NCRP critieria includes a demand that at least five people representing “a diversity of perspectives” be on governing boards."

WOW!

"Those private philanthropies and charities that resist or that fail to measure up to NCRP’s idea of how they should spend their funds can expect the opprobrium of being branded in a hundred different ways, some subtle and some not, as anti-poor, anti-black, anti-immigrant, etc. etc."



http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/co...-40838117.html

http://www.secf.org/s_secf/bin.asp?C...0&DOC=FILE.PDF

"according to NCRP’s criteria, St. Jude and theTarget House do not serve the public good."

Charities left out

by NCRP’s criteria*:

•

11,762 Amateur Sports Competitions

• 7,514 charities that protect Water Resources, Conserve and Manage Wetlands

• 3,685 charities that promote Arts Education

• 2,991 charities that help treat Alcohol and Drug Abuse

• 1,671 Community Recreational Centers

• 1,542 charities that address Interfaith Issues

• 1,228 Boy Scout Troops and Organizations

• 1,096 Adoption Organizations

• 1,059 charities that Promote International Understanding

• 680 charities that support Wildlife Sanctuaries and Refuges

• 663 charities that support Recycling

• 636 charities that support Children’s Museums

• 592 charities that support research and treatment of Autism

• 438 charities that Protect Endangered Species

• 246 Organ and Tissue Banks

• 134 charities that support research and treatment of Epilepsy


http://www.secf.org/s_secf/bin.asp?C...8&DOC=FILE.PDF

http://www.secf.org/s_secf/bin.asp?C...4&DOC=FILE.PDF


There is so much on this topic. It all points to a bad turn in the way Philanthropy will be structured int he future.