Once again, the Israeli nonprofit organization Magan David Adom (MDA) and it’s American supporting charity, American Friends of Magen David Adom (AFMDA), are in the news after all five members of AFMDA’s executive board resigned, stating that they “refuse to abdicate or compromise in any way our fiduciary duty to AFMDA and its donors.”

Second, which side is right or wrong is of secondary importance.  Regardless how the situation plays out in the near or distant future, organizations can learn RIGHT NOW from the very public debates raging between the American and Israeli arms.

Specifically, the core issues — defining roles, trust, and independence — are the same faced by all international organizations, and, as such, can provide a constructive case-study for nonprofits, their board members, and their donors.

(While I generally refrain from talking about specific groups so as to avoid accidentally tarnishing an organization’s reputation, in this case, after articles in the Forward, The Jewish Week and eJewish Philanthropy, I think it’s safe to say that the cat is out of the bag.)

1. DEFINING ROLES

The resigning board members argue that Israel’s MDA views AFMDA as purely a fundraising arm. – Forward

Let’s be very clear: establishing a “Friends of” Charity is not just about creating a PO Box in the United States. Rather, a “Friends of” Organization is about finding like-minded individuals that share a similar passion for a charity’s mission and believe that Charity X is the best way to address this particular issue.

Said somewhat differently, creating a supporting charity abroad is about empowering individuals outside of the organizational framework and arming them with the appropriate tools so they can promote your cause; hopefully, raising a heck-of-a-lot of money in the process.

The relationship a foreign charity has with its American Friends is similar to the relationship any nonprofit has with its Board Members.  This point is addressed most excellently in an articleby Hildy Gottlieb. The following short excerpt doesn’t do it justice:

Board Members and FriendRaising:

The point of engaging the community (which is really what FriendRaising is all about) is an engaged community…Friends will not let anything bad happen to your work. They will help in ways you never dreamed possible. They will want to see good things happen, and will work like the devil to be sure nothing bad happens.

Friends share all their gifts with the organization, and are thrilled that the organization sees value in those gifts! They give what they have, whatever that is – and yes, quite often, it is even money. But it is not only money. It is usually far more.

The only road to sustainability is to engage the community in your work, to turn that community into an army of friends achieving something amazing together, spreading the roots of ownership of your mission and vision throughout the community, so the community would not dream of letting that mission die.

When two sides do not agree on their particular roles there will undoubtedly be tension. It is best to address these issues early on so as to avoid them becoming a much larger issue in the future.

2. TRUST

The Israeli group has argued that AFMDA is holding a huge cache of money that donors believe is going directly and immediately to Israel, while in actuality is it waiting — at times, for years — for approval by the American body…Another factor contributing to the mistrust that some AFMDA officials harbored toward their Israeli counterparts is an ongoing criminal investigation in Israel against the CEO of MDA. – Forward

And, of course, a cornerstone for a good friendship is trust.  And the trust should flow in two directions:

• The American Friends should trust that the beneficiary (a.k.a. the foreign charity) is using the money wisely and responsibly to forward the common mission in the best way possible.
• The Foreign Charity should trust that its American Friends are supporting it — especially monetarily — in the best way possible.  This means that the foreign nonprofit trusts the methods used by the American charity to fundraise, hire staff, and publicize/market the organization etc.

If either of these trusts breakdown, a situation like what MDA is experiencing now is the inevitable result.

3. INDEPENDENCE (AND COMPLIANCE)

But on January 19, all five members of AFMDA’s executive committee resigned, warning that the renewed partnership could come at the heavy price of lost independence and possible abdication of the American group’s legal responsibilities as a charity certified in the United States. - Forward

…The leadership of Magen David Adom (MDA), and some of the members of AFMDA’s Board of Directors, do not appear to share our commitment to our roles as responsible and independent fiduciaries, exercising sound judgment in full compliance with the letter and spirit of American laws and donor expectations. – eJewishPhilanthropy

An American nonprofit’s need to be independent stems primarily from the I.R.S..

As such, foreign organizations looking to establish an American Friends of Organization in the States need to understand that the American charity must demonstrate control and financial accountability. If the U.S. nonprofit is thought to be a simple puppet of the foreign organization, the I.R.S. can remove tax-exempt status and/or levy fines.

Two key points from a previous post exemplify the level of control the U.S. Government is expecting:

• Grants should be reduced to a written agreement signed by both the charity and the grantee. In addition to requiring periodic reports, charities should perform routine, on-site audits of grantees.
• The I.R.S. insists that charities must demonstrate that it exercised an independent decision about the use of its donations and that the funds sent abroad further the charities’ own purposes.

It is important to note that the due diligence done by a “Friends Of” is not a reflection of distrust as mentioned above, rather its inherent responsibility to the government scrutinizing the charity and to its donors.

A foreign nonprofit looking to establish a “Friends of” charity in America must realize that it is not opening a branch or satellite, rather a separate entity.  If the parent organization cannot appreciate this distinction, a “Friends of” Organization  might not be the best solution for the charity; there are, after all, other types of entities that can help transfer donations abroad.

IN CONCLUSION

Let us not be naive and think that Magen David Adom is the only organization to have problems of control, independence, and fiduciary responsibility. Just the opposite, many international nonprofits have similar issues but will continue to avoid addressing them because they are “fortunate” enough not to be in the limelight. (And this, by the way, is the real danger, though, not the subject of this post.)

As I mentioned above, this piece isn’t about blame or deciding which side is right. As far as I’m concerned, both sides — and especially the charity’s beneficiaries — come out behind.

I heard Martin Brookes, CEO of New Philanthropy Capital in the UK, explain at a recent conference that he can only offer people the lessons he’s learned from the mistakes he has made.  It is my sincere hope — and perhaps the only silver lining in this whole mess — that other organizations take note of MDA’s recent struggles and learn from them.  (From my mouth to God’s ears.)

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer: This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only — not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.

Israeli charities (amutot in Hebrew) rely on donations from overseas – no secret there.  Many foreign-based charities choose to create an American based nonprofit, more commonly referred to as a “Friends of” organization so donations can be tax-deductible vis-a-vis the American Federal Government. (In a previous post, I spoke about IRS trends when a “Friends of Organization” is applying for tax-exempt status.)

However, it could be that establishing a “Friends of” organization is not in your charity’s best interest. The following are some considerations that elaborate on:

Why not to establish a U.S. registered “Friends of” Organization to help fundraise?

1. Fees and Costs

Setup Costs: Experts estimate the fees associated with opening and registering a nonprofit organization in the United States at $5,000. With a complicated request, this number could increase. The organization has to answer to itself and to its donors if this cost is worth it. (More on startup fees can be found on the Social Citizen, “Want to Start a Nonprofit — Think Again.”)

Ongoing Administrative Costs: An American charity requires a presence in America. The government and private donors will expect a local address to handle their needs. Office space, supplies, travel, and salary are just a few of the ongoing expenses that can be expected for an American-based charity to support its ongoing costs.

2. Double the Regulatory Headache

On both sides of the ocean, international charity has become more complex in the last decade. A nonprofit that wishes to operate in two countries must, therefore, also adhere to two separate sets of relevant regulations, on issues ranging from philanthropy, tax, and law (too name but a few). Operating in accordance with one country’s regulations can be trying, let alone two countries (which by the way, can sometimes contradict one another). This is not to say that it is impossible. But an organization needs to understand from the outset that additional paperwork, manpower, and money might be required to ensure that both organizations are operating as they should.

3. Independence

Charities that want to register abroad (in this case the United States) need to understand and appreciate that for all intents and purposes, they are creating a new, separate entity there. The attempt by an Israeli institution to control, force, or participate in the American “Friends of” organization is not looked upon favorably by the I.R.S. (to put it mildly). The US government has hinted – and sometimes stated outright – that no charity shall be subservient to the control of another party; including but not limited to, donors, foundations, and other charities (local or abroad).  (For more, see my article on international charity.)

An Israeli charity might not by ready or willing to relinquish control over its fundraising efforts and branding to a separate entity – even one committed to helping raise funds. One only needs to examine the recent cases of American Friends of Magen David Adom and others to understand the potential clashes that can occur.

4. No Monopoly on Raising Money

Nowadays it is possible to issue US tax-deductible receipts to donors without actually being registered in America, namely through a Middleman Organization. Also known as Conduit Organizations, these charities’ by-laws allow them to give financial support to other worthy charities that forward similar goals. While the PEF is the most famous, many other 501(c)3 tax-exempt organizations offer similar services. Recently, some online donation portals have also joined the ranks. This is even assuming that all donors want a tax-deductible receipt, which not all donors do.

What should my organization do? Register as “Friends of” or not bother?

Only the organization – through its staff and board – can know the answer to this question; it shouldn’t hire a consulting firm or be pushed around by a big donor. Like everything else, it is about strategy and purpose.

However, there are some universal factors. The following are some considerations that might influence a decision:

Cost – It takes a buck to make a buck. Do the setup and ongoing expenses outweigh the benefits?

Volunteers – Does the organization have supporters living in the States that are willing (or unwilling) to take on the responsibilities for running a nonprofit?

Board Members – The IRS, among others, has frowned upon overlapping board members between American organizations and the foreign charities they support (see same post on international charity mentioned above). Does the organization have the fresh faces to help found an independent American charity?

Ongoing Fundraising Efforts – Will the organization be engaged in ongoing fundraising efforts in the United States throughout the year or just infrequent fundraising campaigns?

Donor Relations – One of the main reasons for creating a “Friends of” organization is to communicate, recruit, and retain donors. Can the organization accomplish these goals from Israel? (Remember that for the same job, an Israeli’s salaried employee will cost less than an American’s salary.) Will an American living in America but employed by the Israeli charity suffice?

Control – Never forget that an American charity (whether its actual called a “Friends of” or not) must be independent. Is the foreign-based charity willing and able to give up control to a group of supporters and like-minded individuals? (And yes, this consideration is so important that I mentioned it twice.)

Conclusion

I want to stress that I am not advocating one over the other – there is no objectively better option. However, I will say this: the instinctive, gut-reaction for an Israeli charity to automatically setup a “Friends of” organization, regardless of whether or not it fits into the strategy of the organization is, in my opinion, premature and incorrect. Simply put, money and time might be better spent elsewhere.

What’s your experience? Why not share a story that might help another organization out…

Tizku Lemitzvot,

Shuey

Disclaimer: This blog houses my personal opinions and is for informational purposes only – not advice. As charity laws can be quite complex, please refer all questions to qualified and licensed professionals. Read the full disclaimer.