The Charity Sweepstakes

(page 2 of 2)

Like the organizations they fund, community foundations exist as 501(c)(3) public charities under Internal Revenue Service regulations. Nevertheless, community foundations can only exist when they have the capital resources to support and sustain their infrastructure—the mundane realities of rent, salaries, copiers, and utilities. This capital generally comes in the form of administration fees charged to each account, typically around 1.0% of assets (which is in addition to the investment management fee of 0.5%-1%). In addition to supporting the community foundation's operating infrastructure, I would venture that some of these fees also support the marketing activities directed at attracting new donors, attracting new assets, and generating additional fees to fuel the engine.

By contrast, 91% of family foundations have assets under $10 million, according to IRS data from December, 2004, and rarely have a physical office or paid staff. Also, family foundations are precluded from conducting ongoing public fund raising, so they do not have those marketing expenses.

CADRE OF CONSULTANTS.

With so much at stake—literally, tens of billions of dollars flowing annually into private foundations, community foundations, and donor-advised funds—it should come as no surprise that competition for control of those dollars should exist. The competition among commercial donor-advised funds is quite pervasive and very public. Yet a more subtle form of competition exists among community foundations in their struggle for charitable assets.

Faced with the rapid growth of commercial donor-advised funds and the powerful appeal of family foundations, community foundations have been struggling to preserve their donor base and increase their assets. For answers, community foundations have turned to a cadre of consultants and advisers, retuned their marketing messages, and gone on the offensive. Often, the target of their antipathy is the private foundation, for reasons that are not altogether clear—except, perhaps, that private foundations continue to dwarf community foundations in both number and amount of total charitable assets, and thus represent the largest potential source of new donors and new assets.

In a recent review done by Foundation Source of 18 community foundation Web sites, chosen at random, a full 94% underscore the "shortcomings" of private foundations as a basis for considering the "logical alternative"—a community foundation account. As administrator to more than 450 private foundations, we're also seeing an increase in direct-mail campaigns to private foundations urging them to transfer their assets to the local community foundation.

ZERO-SUM GAME?

The Community Foundations of America, a special-interest Web site serving the community foundations community (www.communityfoundations.net), takes an even more aggressive stand, promoting a series of articles and self-help guides for use by community foundations that actively promote the termination of private foundations in favor of a community foundation account. Ironically, the Community Foundations of America Web site is co-sponsored by the Council on Foundations, whose membership includes the very private foundations that the Community Foundations of America wants to terminate.

The clear implication to us is that the community foundation community has concluded that private foundations are a direct competitor for the charitable dollars they seek. As a result, capital and human energy that would otherwise be directed at social programs is instead being redirected into an assault on the private foundation sector—as though this is a zero-sum game with only one survivor.

In reality, Americans benefit greatly from a series of choices to express their philanthropy. Each of the major forms of organized giving (community foundations, commercial donor-advised funds and private foundations) has a different mission, serves a different purpose, and appeals to a different constituency. For the greater public good, all three deserve to survive and thrive. The competition between community foundations and commercial donor-advised funds, and their propensity to diminish private foundations is a terrible waste of time and money. In my opinion, the major players should expend less effort diminishing the value of their perceived competitors in an effort to enhance their own station, and more time raising capital and funding good works.

Daniel M. Schley is chairman and CEO of Foundation Source, a financial services company that provides the back-office infrastructure and support services to more than 450 private charitable foundations and has more than $1.8 billion in assets under administration.