• Home
  • About
    • About
    • Policies
  • Submissions
    • Op-eds
    • News / Announcements
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

eJewish Philanthropy

Your Jewish Philanthropy Resource

  • News Bits
  • Jewish Education
  • Readers Forum
  • Research
  • Show Search
Hide Search
You are here: Home / Managing Your Nonprofit / Donor Due Diligence: A Necessary Evil

Donor Due Diligence: A Necessary Evil

April 16, 2012 By eJP

by John F. Young

Charitable organizations have a responsibility to vet donors to ensure that the gifts nonprofits accept do not cause unwanted consequences in the future.

When a nonprofit receives a large contribution from an unexpected source, the natural reaction is one of elation and pride in a job well done.

Unfortunately, charities recently have been subjected to legal action seeking to “claw back” donations allegedly connected with unlawful activities.

These claw-backs almost always result in negative publicity and can impact future fundraising activities.

In today’s environment, it is more important than ever for charities to understand the motivation behind a donor’s gift.

It is crucial to conduct due diligence of the donor, the source of funds and the effect a gift could have on the overall mission of the charity.

The board of directors is responsible for creating an environment that enforces a charity’s mission and forms the basis of the organization’s internal control structure.

At the direction of the board, management can develop a protocol to be executed each and every time a significant donation or pledge is secured. Of course, the definition of “significant” is different for every organization.

A solid “control-environment protocol” consists of procedures that identify red flags present in donor transactions of a specific size or other parameter. These flags will signal the need for enhanced investigative procedures.

A typical protocol could consist of the following:

  • An initial screening of a potential donor based on publicly available information and third-party sources. Conduct searches of the Internet and social-media websites such as Facebook and LinkedIn.
  • Further due diligence should be focused on a potential donor’s financial profile. This would include principal sources of income, investment portfolios, closely held companies and principal residences. Questions about the source of, and motivation for, the donation could uncover clues.
  • The charity also should spend time learning about the potential donor. The goal of this deeper due diligence is to uncover any criminal prosecutions or investigations, and to assess the donor’s reputation for integrity in the business and philanthropic community at large.

Comprehensive searches and inquiries can help ensure that no one affiliated with the donor, or any related entities, are linked to closed or ongoing criminal proceedings.

  • Administrators and fundraising staff also should consider tapping their network of peers in the local community. In Florida, Philadelphia and other states, for example, individuals running Ponzi schemes began making large donations to a broad array of charitable organizations. Typically, those donors had an affinity for a particular type of service and focused on children, healthcare, the arts or some other specific population.

Throwing money all over town, with no personal connection to the organizations funded, could have raised red flags if people had been talking to each other. These charities were subject to claw-backs, some going back several years. In addition to losing critical funds, the ongoing negative media coverage has been a distraction for staff and donors.

Investigating the background of a donor and the source of contributed funds is often looked upon as a necessary evil in the nonprofit world.

Fundraising staffs work very hard in locating and convincing potential contributors of the social worth, accountability and transparency of their organizations.

Following this phase of the fundraising activity by asking difficult questions concerning the sources of one’s income and wealth, and soliciting personal information for background investigations, is uncomfortable but absolutely necessary in today’s environment.

John F. Young is director-in-charge of the audit and attest practice of the accounting and consulting firm Berkowitz Dick Pollack & Brant.

Reprinted with permission of Philanthropy Journal.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Managing Your Nonprofit

Click here to Email This Post Email This Post to friends or colleagues!

Reader Interactions

Primary Sidebar

Join The Conversation

What's the best way to follow important issues affecting the Jewish philanthropic world? Our Daily Update keeps you on top of the latest news, trends and opinions shaping the landscape, providing an invaluable source for inspiration and learning.
Sign Up Now
For Email Marketing you can trust.

Continue The Conversation

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Comments

  • Judy Aron on I Mansplained a Woman Rabbi and I Liked It
  • Avi Rubel on Honeymoon Israel is not an “Interfaith Couples” Trip to Israel
  • Andrea Wasserman on Human Capital in the Age of Amazement:
    Reflections on Ted2018
  • David on Birthright Israel and #MeToo
  • Jordan Goodman on Reinventing the Jewish Public Square: Promoting a Jewish Community Relations Model for the 21st Century

Categories

Archives

Footer

What We Do

eJewish Philanthropy highlights news, resources and thought pieces on issues facing our Jewish philanthropic world in order to create dialogue and advance the conversation. Learn more.

Top 40 Philanthropy Blogs and Websites to Follow in 2018

Copyright © 2018 · eJewish Philanthropy · All Rights Reserved