Welcome to the Catalyst’s Community Voices platform. We’ve curated community leaders and thinkers from all parts of our great city to speak on issues that affect us all. Visit our Community Voices page for more details.
Recent news stories about alleged financial fraud connected to high-profile charitable donations have raised an uncomfortable question: What responsibility do charities have to vet the people who give them money?
It’s a fair question. When someone accused of wrongdoing has publicly supported nonprofits, people sometimes assume those organizations should have known something was wrong.
The reality is more complicated.
Most charitable organizations operate on trust. The vast majority of donors give in good faith to support work they care about. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those gifts come from people and businesses that are exactly what they appear to be: successful individuals who want to give back.
But charities generally do not have the tools, or the legal authority, to investigate a donor’s business dealings in any deep way. If someone writes a check or completes a wire transfer and the funds clear through the banking system, there is rarely an obvious signal that something may be wrong behind the scenes.
Many donors also prefer privacy. A nonprofit might know a donor’s professional background or the company they represent, but that information usually comes directly from the donor.
Florida has recently put more attention on the origin of certain charitable donations, particularly where money may come from outside the country and from entities that could have strategic or political motives. That concern is real and important. But the kind of risk that most often threatens a charity’s reputation can look very different.
In cases like the one currently making headlines in Central Florida, the concern is not foreign influence. It is the possibility that someone used charitable giving to build credibility and public goodwill while alleged misconduct was happening elsewhere.
That kind of philanthropy can be especially difficult for charities to detect. From the outside, it looks generous. Inside a nonprofit, it can look exactly like any other gift: a pledge, a check, and a donor who appears eager to support the community.
That is what makes these situations so hard.
Charities cannot become forensic investigators, and they should not treat every donor with suspicion. But they also cannot afford to ignore warning signs. Good stewardship requires both gratitude and judgment.
There are a few practical steps nonprofits can take.
First, have a clear gift acceptance policy and actually use it. Too often, policies sit on a shelf and never shape day-to-day decisions. A good policy should help staff and boards think through questions like whether a gift is unusually large, whether it comes with reputational concerns, and when additional review is warranted.
Second, slow down when a new donor appears with a major gift or pledge. Excitement is understandable, especially when resources are tight. But large, unexpected gifts deserve curiosity. That does not mean assuming bad intent. It means asking reasonable questions, doing basic research and making sure the relationship makes sense before moving too quickly.
Third, create a culture where staff and board members can raise concerns without feeling like they are obstructing generosity. Sometimes the biggest risk is not that nobody noticed something. It is that someone noticed but did not feel comfortable speaking up. A healthy organization makes room for thoughtful questions.
These steps will not eliminate every risk. Some bad actors are skilled at appearing credible, and charities are often working with limited information. But basic diligence can help organizations make wiser decisions and protect the trust they hold on behalf of their communities.
That balance matters. Nonprofits exist to advance their missions, and philanthropy makes that work possible. Turning down a significant gift can mean turning down real help for people and communities. At the same time, organizations also have to protect their integrity and the confidence of donors, partners, and the public.
The vast majority of charitable giving is sincere and beneficial. That should remain the starting point. But when large gifts appear quickly or unexpectedly, a little curiosity is not cynicism. It is responsible leadership.
Sometimes the right response to generosity is not just gratitude. It is gratitude paired with a few thoughtful questions.
Duggan Cooley is CEO of Pinellas Community Foundation.