In 2023, following passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies nationwide to better inform you about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky and Georgia as well, and efforts on behalf of this legislation continue in additional states.
This month’s Donor Intent Watch includes a summary of a recent report on multiyear unrestricted gifts, a history of the use of such gifts by conservative donors and a whimsical story about Winston Churchill and his feline companions.
We encourage donors to contact us with any questions about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent we may have missed.
Unrestricted Gifts and Donor Intent
The Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) recently released a report based on three years of research on the impact of large unrestricted gifts from MacKenzie Scott on recipient nonprofit organizations. CEP initiated its research in response to skepticism in the philanthropic sector, with some funders suggesting Scott’s gifts were neither strategic nor effective, and would, in fact, overwhelm her grantees.
What CEP has concluded, however, is quite different.
“Consistently across these three years, recipient organizations have reported that these gifts have been transformational for their organizations,” CEP says. “They report these gifts have increased the impact they are having on communities and fields, strengthened their leadership and their organization’s internal culture and staff and improved their organization’s financial health and fundraising efforts.”
In the face of these findings, one might expect a shift in giving in the foundation world, but CEP reports otherwise.
“While most funders believe that their own foundation should be providing more large (i.e., six-figure), multiyear, unrestricted support than it currently provides,” CEP notes, “many have not yet taken the steps to do so. It could take decades to truly understand the effects these gifts have had on nonprofits and the sector at large.
Maybe not. A significant number of conservative donors have quite successfully adopted this practice over the past six decades, a trend that has not gone unnoticed by others. And although “donor intent” and “unrestricted gifts” may seem more like oil and water than love and marriage, wise donors understand that protecting donor intent hinges on much more than a steady stream of carefully restricted, sharply defined gifts.
Donors also need to consider whether potential recipients share their values and principles, have common missions and goals and employ high-quality leadership and supporting staff. It requires a time commitment on the part of a donor or a donor’s representative to build the mutual trust needed to move a transformative project forward. But it is a fact that in the right circumstances—and excluding gifts to higher education institutions—multiyear, unrestricted gifts can produce outsized results.
Conservative Donors’ Use of Unrestricted Gifts – Then and Now
In July 1997, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) reported on the success of a dozen conservative foundations in transforming the nation’s public policy environment by creating a network of intellectuals and think tanks committed to individual liberty, a free market and limited government. It is an amazing narrative, described in its forward as “an account of a coherent, strategic approach to philanthropy and public policy.”
The list of organizations founded between 1961 and 1995 is itself noteworthy (and includes Philanthropy Roundtable), but even more notable is this excerpt regarding funding between 1992 and 1994:
“The foundations provided substantial support, much of it on an unrestricted basis, to build and sustain strong institutions. Toward this end, they awarded a total of $75.9 million in general operating support from 1992 through 1994, or 36% of the $210 million awarded overall. … If academic grants are excluded on the basis that they tended to be targeted for very specific programs or purposes, the percentage of general operating support grants rises to 48%, or almost half of all grant dollars. The provision of general operating support is significant for the flexibility it gives to grantees to respond to short-term opportunities and concerns. It also provides institutional stability and allows grantees to focus on longer-term objectives without the distraction of developing new programs to attract donor support.”
The 1997 report – Moving a Public Policy Agenda – was followed in 2004 by Axis of Ideology, yet another report on the success (and in NCRP’s opinion, threat) of conservative philanthropy. Again, the report cites conservative donors’ key strategies as central to their accomplishments, noting, “This report has both verified and advanced the findings of previous research on the strategies and successes of conservative philanthropy, including the following:
- Flexible funds – Conservative foundations are more likely to provide their grantees with general operating funds, allowing them to use the money as they see fit, often not requiring arduous evaluations of how the funds have been used. This flexibility allows organizations to respond in a timely manner to current issues and events … [and] remain at the forefront of the policy process without having to wait months for a program-specific grant.
- Long-term funds – Conservative foundations are more likely to create new organizations and fund them for the long haul, sometimes for decades, not just years, allowing the organizations to focus on their program work, rather than having to worry about where next year’s (or month’s) budget will come from.
The lessons behind transformative grantmaking have hardly been a secret, yet NCRP reminded its audience again just last year of the importance of sustained general operating support. The organization has promised another report in 2025 on conservatives’ philanthropic success – what they now call “regressive” philanthropy – noting, “Regressive philanthropy is modeling how effective trusting aligned, grassroots issue-focused leaders can be for conservative funders in achieving right-wing goals,” and asking progressive funders to “model the trust and deep pockets that regressive philanthropists show toward their grantees.”
For conservative donors, the message has been clear for decades. In the right circumstances, and always with robust due diligence and mutual trust-building, donor intent and unrestricted grants can work together to build and strengthen institutions, foster significant change and disseminate values and principles that foster liberty, opportunity and human flourishing.
Winston Churchill: Feline Intent
White House pets inevitably draw a considerable amount of attention to themselves, whether for good or bad behavior. President Franklin Roosevelt’s Scottish Terrier, Fala, accompanied him wherever he traveled, appeared in hundreds of press photos, was once a topic of a presidential speech and has his own bronze statue at Hyde Park. More recently, President Biden’s German Shepherds, Major and Commander, also drew headlines and were both dismissed from the White House for “biting incidents.”
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill – who frequently appeared in the same photos as Fala – was fascinated by many animals but loved his cats most of all. They were always welcome at 10 Downing Street, and cats and kittens roamed at will at Chartwell, his family home in Kent. On Churchill’s 88th birthday, one of his gifts was an orange cat with a white chest and paws. “Jock” quickly became a favorite.
Upon Churchill’s death in January 1965, Chartwell’s ownership passed to the National Trust which planned to open the house to the public. The Churchill family had one request – that the National Trust ensure there would always be “a marmalade cat named Jock, with a white bib and four white socks, in comfortable residence at Chartwell.” Currently in residence is Jock VII.
