New guidance on donor influence warns against ‘quid pro quo’

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education (Case) has published a new set of standards for reporting philanthropy activities, including new guidance on donor influence.

The Case Global Reporting Standards, which are an updated version of the organisation’s previous guidelines, also include new metrics for funds received and new funds committed to enable global benchmarking, as well as new supplements for several countries. The standards were first published in 1982 and were last updated more than a decade ago.

The new guidance on donor influence states that philanthropy “in no way should be executed or perceived as an act of quid pro quo”, adding that “tangible benefits may negate or reduce gift value”.

“In addition to the prohibitions on donor control after a gift is made, a history of donor support and/or potential must not be permitted to have undue influence on decisions made by the administration,” the guidance states.

“Examples of areas where donor influence must be guarded against and/or prohibited are conflicts of interest, faculty appointments, admissions decisions, coach selections, program priorities and policies, investment policies and strategies, architect selections, search committee participation or candidate selection and institutional decision-making or priority setting.”

However, it adds that “exceptions include instances where an institution may choose to avail itself of a donor’s expertise and such involvement is consistent with institutional guidance”.

There have been increasing concerns about donor influence on campuses in recent years, particularly in the US and Australia.

The guidance also states that if donors are given preferential seating for arts or athletic events, the value of their gifts will be counted after the known value of tangible donor benefits have been deducted. Previously, 80 per cent of the gift value was counted in these instances.

A new definition for educational philanthropy, included in the standards, states that the financial support “must be provided for the sole purpose of benefiting the institution’s mission and its social impact, without the expressed or implied expectation that the donor will receive anything more than recognition and stewardship as the result of such support”.

The guidance also says that philanthropic research funds should only be counted if the recipient institution or staff members own the intellectual property generated from the research or can use the results for public good and benefit.

Sue Cunningham, Case’s president and chief executive, said that the updated standards were more “globally relevant” and the new statement on donor influence provided more clarity for institutional leaders and donors “about what is reasonable to expect”.

ellie.bothwell@timeshighereducation.com