Insights Article

Written By: Meredith McNabb

Recently, a clergy leader was describing a “perfect” giver they knew: the giver loves the congregation and deeply identifies with its mission, annually gives very large financial gifts, and, perhaps most notably for the clergy person and the board putting those gifts to use, this “perfect” giver gives these gifts without any strings attached. That clergy person was not alone in applauding the generosity of unrestricted gifts; many have positively noted the example of megaphilanthropist Mackenzie Scott’s unusual step of giving very large gifts without restrictions to institutions whose missions she values. 

The freedom of that lack of restriction in a gift carries with it its own challenge of wise discernment on the part of the organizational leaders—a challenge many organizations would perhaps be glad to take on!—but the emphasis on that lack of conditions on the gift calls up the perennial dilemma about designated giving in nonprofit institutions.

The Complexity of a Gift

On the one hand, from the assessments of philosophers and theologians to the edicts of Emily Post, it seems to be a necessary element of a “gift” that, once given, it’s the recipient’s privilege and responsibility to do with it as they see fit. But those same thinkers and etiquette experts each acknowledge that there are complex, culturally-rooted systems around giving and receiving gifts. Does a gift carry with it a future obligation of reciprocity or loyalty? Does it implicitly or explicitly buy influence or advantage? Does it come from a generous heart or a desire to show off—and does it matter? 

In everyday life in congregations and nonprofits, these kinds of questions come to life around conditional gifts—those given “for so long as [blank] does [or does not] take place in this location”, as numerous gifts of land have legally required of the recipients, as well as more common designated gifts—those given to purchase specific items or fund specific efforts. So long as the recipient definitely will (or won’t) do the thing demanded, or wants to have the specific item or accomplish the specific mission, there’s no issue: the gift can be given and accepted with good feeling all around. But if there’s a misalignment, it can lead to significant ill feeling—from resentment about mission creep or unwanted gifts on up to the pain and peril of lawsuits.

Clarity of Mission, Vision, and Values

Some organizations have taken the stance simply that no designated gifts will be accepted, but more have recognized that there are middle paths available to navigate the challenge of accepting gifts with various strings attached. First: clarity of mission, vision, and values helps immensely for the organization to know and share what it exists to do. That clarity can provide a foundation for simple “wish list” plans that can offer potential donors channels into which they could direct their gifts—ranging from pre-set options on a digital giving platform like “scholarships” or “building fund” to the often-advised list of ideas one should have in one’s desk drawer in case someone shows up and unexpectedly wants to give your organization $1M.   

That clarity can also help to build meaningful gift acceptance policies—documents approved by the board to identify what kinds of gifts of land or stock, for instance, can be received, and the process by which gifts of a certain size will be handled and used. These policies can head off some of the ill feeling that could come from a rebuffed gift, and they can prevent some of those lawsuits over gifts used in ways the donor did not intend. 

At its heart, clarity about mission, vision, and values helps congregational and nonprofit leaders know when they need to say “no, thank you” even to generous gifts—perhaps when the gift would lead the organization down paths where it is not prepared to go, or when the gift’s origin is deeply out of alignment with the core values of the organization.

The Perfect Recipient

Most of the time, however, that clarity helps leaders to say “yes!” to gifts. It gives such a firm foundation to the congregational or nonprofit leader that it’s easy to speak from that strong center rather than from a position of trying to chase a gift. It can help launch meaningful conversations about what a donor values, and give insight into their generosity. It offers would-be donors guidance and confidence about what impact their gifts will have—whether (thoughtfully) designated or undesignated. 

The congregational leader describing their “perfect” giver may have emphasized the lack of strings on the donor’s gifts—but that freedom stemmed from the first point in their description: the giver’s love for the congregation and identification with what it’s doing in their community. May we all find such “perfect” donors—and may we all be such “perfect” recipients of their gifts!