[Senate Hearing 117-811]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-811

                    EXAMINING CHARITABLE GIVING AND 
                     TRENDS IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                             MARCH 17, 2022

                               __________

                                     
                                     



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







            Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

54-579 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024










                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

                      RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      BEN SASSE, Nebraska
                                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming

                    Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director

                Gregg Richard, Republican Staff Director

                                  (II)









                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee 
  on Finance.....................................................     1
Lankford, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma...............     3

                               WITNESSES

Cardinali, Daniel, president and CEO, Independent Sector, 
  Washington, DC.................................................     5
Morgan, Susannah, CEO, Oregon Food Bank, Portland, OR............     6
Osili, Una, Ph.D., Efroymson chair in philanthropy and economics, 
  and associate dean for research and international programs, 
  Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University, 
  Indianapolis, IN...............................................     8
Steuerle, C. Eugene, Ph.D., co-founder, Urban-Brookings Tax 
  Policy Center; Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, Urban 
  Institute; and ACT for Alexandria, a community foundation, 
  Washington, DC.................................................    10

               ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L.:
    Letter from Apra Maryland....................................    35
Cardinali, Daniel:
    Testimony....................................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Responses to questions from committee members................    41
Crapo, Hon. Mike:
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
Lankford, Hon. James:
    Opening statement............................................     3
    Submissions for the record...................................    48
Morgan, Susannah:
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    60
    Responses to questions from committee members................    61
Osili, Una, Ph.D.:
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    64
    Responses to questions from committee members................    68
Steuerle, C. Eugene, Ph.D.:
    Testimony....................................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    78
    Responses to questions from committee members................    87
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening statement............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................    93

                             Communications

American Alliance of Museums.....................................    95
American Heart Association.......................................    97
Anthony, Melanie.................................................   101
Association of Art Museum Directors..............................   102
Association of Fundraising Professionals.........................   103
Beugen, Paula J..................................................   107
BIPOC Executive Directors Coalition of Washington................   108
Business Coalition for Fair Competition..........................   108
California Association of Nonprofits.............................   115
Center for Fiscal Equity.........................................   116
Colorado Nonprofit Association...................................   120
Community Foundation Public Awareness Initiative.................   122
Council for Advancement and Support of Education.................   128
Council on Foundations...........................................   130
Food Donation Connection.........................................   133
Girl Scouts of the USA...........................................   134
Heymann, Jon.....................................................   135
Horvath, Aaron, Ph.D. and Jean Lin, Ph.D.........................   136
Idaho Nonprofit Center...........................................   138
Indiana Philanthropy Alliance....................................   142
Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving.......................   144
Iowa Council of Foundations and United Ways of Iowa..............   145
Jewish Federations of North America..............................   145
League of American Orchestras....................................   151
Michigan Nonprofit Association...................................   154
National Council of Nonprofits...................................   157
National Health Council..........................................   163
National Taxpayers Union.........................................   165
NH Center for Nonprofits.........................................   168
Nonprofit Alliance...............................................   170
Philanthropy Colorado............................................   171
Snape, William J., III...........................................   172
Theatre Communications Group.....................................   177
United Philanthropy Forum........................................   179
United Way.......................................................   181
Vanguard Charitable..............................................   193
YMCA of the USA..................................................   195









 
                    EXAMINING CHARITABLE GIVING AND 
                     TRENDS IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

                               ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                                      Committee on Finance,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 
a.m., via Webex, in Room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office 
Building, Hon. Ron Wyden (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Cantwell, Carper, Cardin, Brown, Bennet, 
Casey, Warner, Whitehouse, Cortez Masto, Grassley, Thune, 
Cassidy, Lankford, Daines, and Young.
    Also present: Democratic staff: Chris Arneson, Tax Policy 
Advisor; Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director; and Tiffany Smith, 
Chief Tax Counsel. Republican staff: Jamie Cummins, Tax 
Counsel; and Jeffrey Wrase, Deputy Staff Director and Chief 
Economist.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
             OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

    The Chairman. The Finance Committee will come to order. We 
meet this morning to discuss ways to look at promoting 
charitable giving in America. Our people are generous, and 
that's why charity is one of the key incentives that's right at 
the heart of the American tax code, and it is a top priority 
for Democrats and Republicans on this committee.
    My own view is that the charitable tax deduction is a 
lifeline and not a loophole. There has never been more accuracy 
in that than there was in early 2020 when the pandemic arrived 
in the United States. Over the course of a few weeks in March, 
the pandemic wiped out a quarter-million jobs in my home State 
of Oregon. Our State has a workforce of just over 2 million 
people. In a flash, Oregon's unemployment rate jumped by 10 
percentage points.
    As terrible as those figures are, other States had it even 
worse. More than 22 million Americans lost their jobs or had 
their hours reduced to zero. The unemployment rate hit 14.8 
percent, the highest ever recorded. That economic devastation, 
added to a hunger crisis, has been causing pain for American 
families for far too long. According to the Children's Defense 
Fund, prior to the pandemic more than 10 million American kids 
grew up in households where they just did not have enough to 
eat. Black and Latino families were twice as likely to be short 
on food. And again, that was the situation before anybody had 
heard of COVID-19.
    The crisis exploded in 2020. Everybody remembers the images 
of cars stacked up for miles outside of food pantries. My good 
friend Susannah Morgan is here, a long-time leader of the 
Oregon Food Bank. I was out there with her at those food 
pantries where we were putting boxes of food into those cars 
one after another for just, it seemed like forever.
    There was an added challenge of feeding vulnerable kids, 
many of whom were unable to get the free lunches they rely on 
in school for nutrition. So, as you have probably picked up, I 
think we are very fortunate to have my Portland neighbor 
Susannah Morgan, the CEO of the Oregon Food Bank, with us. She 
will describe how the crisis hit Oregon families like a 
wrecking ball, as well as how her terrific organization was 
able to respond to the 1,400 pantries across Oregon and in 
southwest Washington.
    The record shows that in 2020 in Oregon and across the 
country, Americans stepped up again and again when their 
neighbors needed help, when charitable giving reached new 
highs. The Federal and State Governments stepped up. Now there 
are some important lessons this committee ought to consider as 
we go forward, because there are still millions and millions of 
people across the country who need support.
    Organizations like the Oregon Food Bank are still seeing 
demand at higher levels than they did in 2019. Two quick 
examples: first, the CARES Act, which the Congress passed in 
March of 2020, included a tax deduction for charitable 
donations of up to $300 for the vast majority of taxpayers who 
do not itemize their tax returns. The 2017 tax law took some of 
the punch out of the existing charitable deduction by greatly 
reducing the number of taxpayers who itemize. So the new $300 
deduction helped to correct a big flaw in the 2017 law, and it 
helped promote giving in 2020. It was extended and expanded in 
2021, but it expired on January 1st. I believe there is going 
to be bipartisan interest in reviving it and expanding it to 
promote even more giving.
    Second, in addition to promoting donations, the Senate also 
ought to be looking at ways to help our nonprofits operate. 
Let's help them keep their doors open, and help keep their 
workers on the job. The CARES Act created an Employee Retention 
Tax Credit that saved a lot of jobs nationwide. It was extended 
and expanded in 2021. The credit was designed with parity for 
nonprofits in mind so that these nonprofits and their workers 
could certify and benefit, just like other employers.
    Last year, with Senator Brown, Senator Klobuchar, and 
Senator Schatz, I also introduced a bill called the WORK Now 
Act. That would also help nonprofits grow and hire. It would 
create a new grant program to help nonprofits retain staff, 
hire the unemployed, while also supporting efforts to scale up 
the services that are offered.
    Let me just close by saying organizations like the Oregon 
Food Bank--and we are lucky to have them in virtually every 
nook and cranny of our country--those organizations are the 
backbone of America. In addition to promoting charitable 
giving, it is a no-brainer that the Congress ought to find 
smart ways to help our nonprofits do their essential work as 
well. There is lots for the committee to discuss.
    I want to thank our witnesses for joining the committee, 
and I also want to express my appreciation to members of the 
Finance Committee. This will be the close of what amounts to a 
triple header for the committee this week. We began the week 
with a very important hearing looking at security and trade 
issues relating to the Indo-Pacific. Yesterday we dealt with 
the enormously important question of finally getting relief to 
Americans who are just getting crushed by these prescription 
drug bills. And today we are going to look at how to promote 
charitable giving.
    So I want to thank my colleagues. That is a pretty big 
load. There is a lot going on this week in the United States 
Senate.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Let me recognize Senator Lankford.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD, 
                  A U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thanks for 
holding this hearing. It is an extremely important issue to be 
able to discuss the health of our nonprofit sector and how we 
can support and encourage their continued work. This is an 
issue that is very near and dear to me. I served for more than 
20 years with nonprofits. I am very passionate about the work 
of nonprofits. And this is also a policy issue for our Nation 
as well.
    Let me first say ``thank you'' to those who serve in the 
nonprofit sector, both who are here and who are all over the 
country. You do remarkable work and are the real safety net in 
times of need. I tell people all the time, we really have three 
safety nets in America. While most folks look at government and 
say, that is the safety net, we really have three different 
safety nets. The first one is the family. The second one is the 
community that is dominated by churches, nonprofits--both 
secular and faith-based nonprofits that are out there--and then 
the third is government.
    If the family fails, and if the local community and the 
nonprofits are not able to meet the need, then government is 
the third option there. So the key aspect is to be able to make 
sure all three of those safety nets stay healthy and stay able 
to do their task. That is what happened during COVID-19, quite 
frankly.
    Our charities and our nonprofits rose to the occasion. They 
served countless Americans facing uncertainty and difficulty 
all across the country. But they were not immune, either, from 
the effects of COVID-19, based on their workforce, their 
operations, their organizational structure itself.
    According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society 
Studies' 2020 Nonprofit Employment Report, during the first 3 
months of the pandemic, from March through May of 2020, the 
nonprofit sector lost an estimated 1.6 million jobs, reducing 
the nonprofit sector by over 13 percent. As of the end of last 
year, the sector is still down nearly half a million jobs.
    We know that encouraging more Americans to give will help 
direct additional resources to nonprofits to ensure they can 
continue to provide vital services to our communities. In 2020, 
in the CARES Act, we included a provision to allow taxpayers to 
take a deduction of up to $300 for charitable gifts they make. 
Then in December of 2020, we extended that provision so that 
taxpayers could deduct $300, or $600 for joint filers, for 
gifts given in 2021.
    As a result of that, in 2020 we had a record amount of 
giving to nonprofits. Unfortunately, this provision expired at 
the end of last year. This provision is a non-itemizer 
charitable deduction and acts as both a lifeline to a nonprofit 
sector that felt the effects of COVID-19, and it also answers 
the call to service. It is an incentive for people to be able 
to give.
    Now again we are reminded of how crucial these 
organizations are, both in local communities and 
internationally, as we see the nonprofit community respond to 
the devastating crisis in Ukraine currently. They are 
supporting Ukrainian citizens with care, housing, and food, and 
that is being done by a tremendous number of nonprofits.
    Having the charitable deduction in place can incentivize 
even more giving at critical times like these. This provision 
is something I am very passionate about and have worked on for 
several years with a great group of partners through the 
introduction of the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and 
Recovery Act last year.
    I have folks who catch me all the time and say that 
Americans are very generous. They will give without the tax 
deduction, so the tax deduction is not necessary to encourage 
Americans to give. I always smile at them and say, go to any 
nonprofit in America, pick any one of them, and ask what their 
highest month of giving is, and they will always smile at you 
and say ``December.'' That is not because of the Christmas 
spirit; it is because that is the end of the tax year, and they 
know if they are going to get the deduction, they have to do it 
right now, which is also why for many nonprofits in 2020 and 
2021, they had a very large number of gifts the last week of 
December of $300, the exact amount of that tax incentive.
    I thank nonprofits for their work, and I want to make sure 
that we continue to be able to encourage their work as the 
safety net in our society. For all of you who are experts on 
this panel today, thank you for giving your time and your 
effort, both in your written testimony and the oral testimony 
you will give. I thank you for your steadfast dedication to 
your work.
    Mr. Chairman, I also ask that Ranking Member Crapo's 
prepared statement be included in the record
    The Chairman. Absolutely, we will do that. And we are all 
going to work, as we have done on a bipartisan basis, on these 
issues.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Crapo appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. You know, Senator Lankford--we are going to 
the witnesses in a moment--touches on an important point. 
People say, ``Why do we need anything in the tax code? We are a 
good people. We are going to give. We are going to help.''
    I share that view. We are going to help, and there is no 
question about it. But as I indicated, I think the charitable 
tax deduction is a lifeline. And based on everything I have 
seen, it does affect the number of gifts someone can make, and 
the size of the gift. So that is what this debate is all about, 
and this committee has a strong history of being supportive of 
charities, and we are going to continue that.
    Let me introduce our witnesses, and then we will go right 
to them. Our first witness is Dan Cardinali, the president and 
CEO of the Independent Sector, a national organization and 
nonprofit. Our second witness is Susannah Morgan, the 
inimitable CEO of the Oregon Food Bank. Our third witness is 
Una Osili, who holds the Efroymson chair in philanthropy and is 
associate dean for research and international programs with the 
Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Our 
fourth witness is well-known to many on this committee, Gene 
Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center 
of the Urban Institute's Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, 
and co-founder of ACT for Alexandria.
    Thank you all for coming. We will make your prepared 
statements a part of the record.
    Mr. Cardinali, lead us off.

 STATEMENT OF DANIEL CARDINALI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INDEPENDENT 
                     SECTOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Cardinali. Thank you very much. Chairman Wyden, Senator 
Lankford, and members of the committee, thank you for holding 
this hearing, and for the opportunity to share our perspective 
today. I serve as president and CEO of Independent Sector, a 
national membership organization made up of nonprofits, 
foundations, and corporate giving programs nationwide. Our 
members and their networks reach into every State and district 
and touch every life in America.
    I have spent my entire professional life working and 
volunteering in the charitable sector. It is clear to me that, 
despite the tectonic shifts we are living through, our Nation's 
charitable spirit is alive and well. It is also evident to me 
that that spirit is not fully unleashed. The charitable sector 
is the foundation on which our democracy is built and continues 
to evolve. When its foundation is weak, so is our Nation. The 
charitable sector is also the engine of our collective 
flourishing, a place where people come together to solve 
problems, a trusted partner for community and government 
leaders, and our economy's third largest employer.
    For generations, policymakers have recognized the 
importance of this sector by providing a tax deduction for 
donations made to charity. I understand that by incentivizing 
Americans to support the charitable sector, the Nation can do 
more collectively beyond government and individuals going 
alone.
    Today the charitable sector is made up of about 1.8 million 
organizations, 12 million professional staff, and nearly 70 
million volunteers. But despite that strength, it is not immune 
to the ravages of domestic and global challenges. With the loss 
of over 1.6 million jobs during the pandemic, the sector is 
still struggling to recover. It lags well behind the for-profit 
recovery and is still down almost half a million jobs. At the 
same time, organizations have had to adapt to new operational 
challenges while facing increased demand for services.
    With that, let me discuss how Congress and the charitable 
sector can work together to strengthen civil society and help 
people thrive. In 2020, Congress created a temporary charitable 
deduction for non-itemizers, but allowed it to expire at the 
end of last year. Every day that this lifeline remains expired, 
it is a blow to our charitable recovery and a missed 
opportunity for those in need. I urge you in the strongest 
possible terms to restore the non-itemizer charitable deduction 
quickly, and to significantly increase or eliminate the cap.
    We are grateful to the members and the leaders of this 
committee who worked for the creation of that deduction and who 
continue to work for its restoration and expansion. Restoring 
and expanding the itemizer charitable deduction is essential to 
generating giving at a scale that our Nation actually needs. 
However, this is not just a conversation about dollars. The 
non-itemizer deduction also sends a powerful message to combat 
the decade-long decline in the number of Americans who give to 
charity at all. A charitable sector that is funded by the 
wealthy will look very differently and will serve America very 
differently.
    I hope you will keep in mind the unique nature of the 
charitable deduction. By definition, a donor receives no direct 
benefit for their gift. The charitable deduction simply 
encourages taxpayers to give away a portion of their income to 
benefit others.
    In addition to restoring and expanding the non-itemizer 
charitable deduction, I also urge you to take action on four 
key priorities that are addressed in my written testimony. 
First, I urge you to restore the Employee Retention Tax Credit, 
which is critical in helping nonprofits keep people employed 
and serving their communities. Second, I ask you to pass the 
Legacy IRA Act, which would expand the opportunity for seniors 
to make contributions to charity through their retirement 
accounts. Third, I ask you to increase the charitable mileage 
rate to be on par with the business rate, at least temporarily, 
which can bolster our diminishing volunteer force. Lastly, I 
ask you to consider a set of policy solutions that are needed 
to strengthen the partnership between nonprofits and the 
Federal Government as a whole. I would welcome the opportunity 
to discuss these solutions, which we call the ``seat at the 
table'' initiative, either today or in the future weeks ahead.
    So, I want to thank you for your support and the 
opportunity to testify today. The charitable sector will 
continue to step up to respond to the needs of society and, 
with your support, will build upon this work to ensure that all 
people thrive.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cardinali appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Cardinali.
    Ms. Morgan, welcome.

              STATEMENT OF SUSANNAH MORGAN, CEO, 
                 OREGON FOOD BANK, PORTLAND, OR

    Ms. Morgan. Good morning. Chairman Wyden, members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my on-the-
ground perspective regarding charitable giving in the nonprofit 
sector. My name is Susannah Morgan, and I am the CEO of Oregon 
Food Bank. Our network is among the largest in the country, 
with a central warehouse that provides resources to 21 regional 
food banks, which then support over 1,400 pantries, free-food 
markets, and meal sites across Oregon and southwest Washington.
    Our mission is to end hunger and its root causes. To build 
communities that never know hunger, we need living-wage jobs, 
affordable housing and child care, and protection from 
discrimination. When we hit tough times, we need government 
safety nets like SNAP to ensure everyone has access to food. 
Food banks should be the last resort when other systems have 
failed, and food alone will never solve hunger.
    I have worked in anti-hunger efforts for 26 years across 
several States, and the past 2 years have been the most 
challenging of my career. More than 865,000 people sought 
emergency food assistance through the Oregon Food Bank network 
in 2019, nearly one in five of our neighbors. In 2020, this 
number rose like a tsunami to a jaw-dropping height of 1.7 
million people, and in 2021 remains painfully high at over a 
million of our neighbors. Even with the outpouring of community 
support, we could not have kept food flowing without 
significant State and Federal action.
    As we began to run out of food due to the enormous increase 
in demand, Governor Kate Brown came through with $1 million a 
week for food purchases until USDA commodities arrived through 
the CARES Act. Congressional aid reached communities directly 
through enhanced unemployment and SNAP benefits, relief 
payments to families, and more. The Child Tax Credit alone 
drove down child poverty by an incredible 41 percent and 
reduced food insecurity by 26 percent. Combined, these actions 
helped us to meet the crisis head-on and ensure that hunger did 
not spiral out of control.
    Charitable giving incentives are an important piece of this 
equation as well. Let me share one extraordinary week I had, 
tied to decisions made by this committee. On a Monday, early in 
the pandemic, my colleague in The Dalles, OR called me over the 
moon excited because she had just located the perfect building 
for a regional food bank. The purchase price was $750,000. On 
Wednesday, a local philanthropist expressed interest in making 
a $1-million donation, thanks in part to tax law changes that 
allowed 100-percent deduction of her adjusted gross income. On 
Friday, she committed to fund the purchase of the building in 
what is surely the shortest capital campaign ever.
    The work of this committee clearly influences expressions 
of love and generosity in our communities. And from where I 
sit, it is incredibly important that you consider how future 
tax policy changes may impact Federal revenue. Even at our 
scale in Oregon, for every meal we provide, SNAP provides ten. 
Charity organizations simply cannot replace Federal funding for 
the programs and resources our families need to thrive.
    So, I humbly ask you to act to strengthen Federal revenue 
and advance policies that prevent hunger from happening. The 
best thing Congress can do to reduce hunger is to invest in 
proven solutions that support families directly. Reinstate the 
Child Tax Credit. Modernize SNAP to reflect the true cost of 
healthy food. Invest in housing and child care. Raise revenue 
by requiring the wealthiest corporations, individuals, and 
estates to pay what they owe.
    And it is important that any new incentives are designed to 
encourage charitable giving that helps our communities now. 
Hunger is a crisis today. And charitable support is needed now, 
not tucked away for some hypothetical future. Sustain the 100-
percent adjusted gross income deduction. Increase the amount 
private foundations must grant annually. Ensure donor-advised 
funds have minimal annual distributions and spend-down 
timelines.
    As we speak, our communities face uncertainty around the 
impact of global events, the cost of living, and whether a new 
variant might emerge. Hunger remains an epidemic. This is not 
over. We need Congress to continue supporting our neighbors 
through proven policies, and I believe that together we can 
still emerge stronger.
    It has been an honor to be with you today. Thank you for 
your time and attention.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Morgan appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Morgan, and I was 
smiling about a couple of things. One, on the ground I have 
seen you in action, getting all those boxes of food out. I 
think you gave us the theme that everybody can connect with, 
and that is ``never know hungry.'' It says it all. Thank you 
for all your work.
    Now the third witness, Dr. Una Osili, chair in philanthropy 
at the Indiana University. Thanks for coming.

STATEMENT OF UNA OSILI, Ph.D., EFROYMSON CHAIR IN PHILANTHROPY 
      AND ECONOMICS, AND ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH AND 
 INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, LILLY FAMILY SCHOOL OF PHILANTHROPY, 
              INDIANA UNIVERSITY, INDIANAPOLIS, IN

    Dr. Osili. Chairman Wyden, distinguished members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about 
how the pandemic is influencing charitable giving. Philanthropy 
has long been a cornerstone of our Nation. Even before we were 
a Nation, many early Native American giving traditions were 
rooted in mutual responsibility and reciprocity. Philanthropy, 
both formal and informal, has played a visible role in 
responding to the pandemic.
    During the COVID-19 era, philanthropy has been 
unprecedented in size, scale, and scope. Religious 
congregations, grassroots organizations, community foundations, 
and nonprofits in areas such as housing and food insecurity 
have demonstrated resilience and creativity in meeting urgent 
needs.
    It is important to emphasize that charitable giving grew 
during the first year of the global pandemic, with 2020 being 
the highest year of charitable giving on record at $471 
billion. Total philanthropy increased by 3.8 percent in 
inflation-adjusted terms. Sixty-nine percent of this total was 
contributed by living individuals, foundations, and charitable 
bequests; corporations account for the remaining 31 percent.
    Research has long established that charitable giving is 
linked with key economic, financial, and social factors. In 
2020, giving was influenced by robust end-of-the-year financial 
markets, increased need, and a heightened awareness of racial 
inequity that was fueled by the racial justice movements. 
Furthermore, with rising economic and health insecurity, the 
philanthropic sector is facing greater demand for services, and 
nonprofit organizations are adapting to new technology, 
staffing shortages, and virtual modes of engagement. In 2020, 
online giving increased by 21 percent.
    Philanthropy also plays a vital and increasingly visible 
role in the global economy. The outpouring of cross-border 
generosity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been 
tremendous, and private donors are addressing global needs 
using new vehicles, including crowdfunding, cryptocurrency, and 
collective giving. Despite this progress, addressing 
humanitarian issues, including the war in Ukraine, will require 
an acceleration of efforts to harness private-sector resources. 
The 2022 Global Philanthropy Environment Index identifies 
obstacles to expanding these cross-border philanthropic flows. 
In particular, the Index found more than a third of the 91 
economies that are included reported restrictive policies on 
cross-border giving.
    While it is true that total charitable giving has been 
increasing during the global pandemic, the racial justice 
movement, and the unfolding humanitarian crisis, we must also 
be concerned about post-pandemic giving patterns by Americans 
of all income backgrounds. Despite the economic upheaval 
produced by COVID-19, recent data show that affluent households 
remain committed to charitable organizations, with 88 percent 
giving to charity in 2020, consistent with the 90-percent rate 
measured in 2017. However, recent data from the Philanthropy 
Panel Study, the most comprehensive study of American giving, 
showed that the fraction of low- and middle-income American 
households that contribute to charity decreased from two-thirds 
to half, a decline of 17 percentage points between 2000 and 
2018. For younger Americans, declines in giving rates have been 
particularly significant.
    Looking ahead, we have an opportunity to address issues of 
equity and efficiency among donors and nonprofits, since giving 
is becoming more concentrated among high-income households. A 
growing body of work has examined the effects of extending the 
charitable deduction to non-itemizers. This work indicates that 
a non-itemizer charitable deduction could increase both the 
size of charitable donations as well as induce an expansion of 
the number of households that give.
    There are many issues to consider when investigating the 
impact of tax policy. Nonprofit leaders and policymakers will 
need to consider the effect of tax policy on charitable giving 
dollars, the number of households that donate, Treasury 
revenue, and issues of donor equity and efficiency. Making 
timely decisions about policies that support and enhance the 
longstanding norms and traditions of American generosity can 
help us strengthen the role of philanthropy now and in the 
future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am 
happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Osili appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. We will have some momentarily.
    Dr. Steuerle?

   STATEMENT OF C. EUGENE STEUERLE, Ph.D., CO-FOUNDER, URBAN-
     BROOKINGS TAX POLICY CENTER; CENTER ON NONPROFITS AND 
   PHILANTHROPY, URBAN INSTITUTE; AND ACT FOR ALEXANDRIA, A 
              COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Steuerle. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it 
is an honor again to testify before you. The views I express in 
my testimony are my own and should not be attributed to the 
Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center, its trustees, or its 
funders.
    While a temporary increase in the standard deduction 
substantially benefited many taxpayers, it contributed to a 
reduction in charitable tax subsidies by about 30 percent and 
left only about one-tenth of households taking a charitable 
deduction. I doubt that Congress or the public will long 
support such a narrowly targeted lifeline, in your own words, 
Senator Wyden. I view this as a great opportunity to reform 
incentives that strengthen the communal efforts that have long 
defined our Nation. And my job, as I have been requested, is to 
talk about some of the tradeoffs for the amount of money that 
Congress might be willing to put forward. You will be getting 
many suggestions for reforms, including mine, but my primary 
suggestion is to pick among them only after comparing options 
under a cost-effective rubric, and put gains for the community, 
for the charitable beneficiaries, as the major objective of the 
effort.
    The classic distribution in revenue tables that we get when 
we do tax analysis does not actually measure directly what goes 
to the charitable beneficiaries. And there are three parties, 
as you said, Senator Lankford, to this transaction: the 
householder taxpayer, the community, and the Treasury. That is, 
whether you decide in favor of the $50 billion of current 
annual subsidies that go to charities under current law or the 
$70 billion that was available under current law, you need to 
compare options on a cost-neutral basis. Then you have your 
talented Joint Committee staff show the net amount of giving 
going to the charitable beneficiaries under different 
combinations. Finally, when shown any particular option, always 
consider alternatives that would generate more gains for the 
community and for charitable beneficiaries and fewer windfalls 
for taxpayers.
    The rest of my testimony focuses primarily on four issues.
    First, relative to cost, gains for charitable beneficiaries 
will be greatly limited by caps on deductions, and they will be 
enhanced through floors that limit the amount of giving to the 
excess of something like over 1 percent or more of AGI.
    Secondly, almost all proposals for an expanded deduction 
provide windfalls to a group we call ``switchers,'' those 
itemizers who switch to the standard deduction and then take 
the new charitable deduction. There is often no gain for 
charitable beneficiaries at all from those switches.
    Third, gains for charitable beneficiaries can be further 
enhanced by exchanging improved compliance for a stronger 
incentive.
    And fourth, many of the most cost-effective reforms--such 
as allowing deductions at the time of tax filing--take 
advantage of insights from behavioral science. Senator 
Lankford, you referred to this when you referred to people 
thinking about giving at the end of December. They also think 
about giving when they file their tax returns.
    So why do caps and ceilings matter? Caps concentrate 
incentives onto giving that would occur anyway, while floors 
concentrate them among giving beyond what one would do in the 
absence of a tax subsidy. As one example, compare a universal 
deduction with and without a 1-percent floor. Using research 
methods commonly applied, failure to provide a floor cost 
Treasury $17 billion, while generating only $2 billion extra 
for charitable recipients and $15 billion in windfalls for 
taxpayers, simply because of not accepting that type of floor.
    Any reform should also account for IRS's limited ability to 
administer hundreds of millions of charitable transactions 
under current outdated systems of reporting. Fortunately, this 
is an opportune time for Congress to create a system of 
electronic filing for charitable contributions. I have little 
doubt that third-party intermediaries can create an efficient 
system of reporting to IRS, and we could use the revenues that 
would be picked up from improved compliance to provide a higher 
and better incentive for charities and for the recipients of 
their output of goods and services.
    Finally, behavioral science suggests that high bang for 
buck reforms that allow deductions at the time of tax filing 
simplify life for donors of their lottery winnings and provide 
matching grants to charities.
    In sum, charitable deduction reform can strengthen our 
Nation's longstanding tradition of giving and working together 
to provide maximum gains for charitable beneficiaries in the 
community, at whatever level of subsidy Congress decides. 
Consider how caps significantly weaken and floors significantly 
strengthen the incentive provided. At the same time, we need to 
decrease rather than add to compliance burdens for IRS and 
consider how making incentives more salient can add to 
charitable giving.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you, and I 
would be glad to work with you on these issues in the future.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Steuerle appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. Let me see if I can do a couple of 
points quickly.
    Is it correct that we are now seeing a need for assistance 
exceeding 2020 levels, and that each of you expect that to 
continue? Is that correct? Is there any dissent at the table? 
Does everybody agree with that? You are free to dissent. That 
is why we have hearings.
    Mr. Cardinali. I am not sure that I disagree. But one point 
that I would add to that is, that if you dig into the numbers, 
there have been a number of extraordinarily wealthy people 
making enormous gifts that have perhaps distorted the number 
slightly around the amount of giving. So it would be worth 
digging into the numbers and seeing the impact of some very 
large philanthropic gifts which seem atypical. And whether they 
will be sustained or not is a question I think we are all 
wondering about.
    The Chairman. But on the basic proposition that the need 
for assistance exceeding 2020 levels, you expect that to 
continue with some possible ramifications for very large gifts?
    Mr. Cardinali. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay. So the second question stems from the 
first. Do you believe that the current donations and grants, 
for the most part--and let's take Mr. Cardinali's point--do you 
think current donations and grants are sufficient to meet the 
needs?
    I am pretty sure you all said ``no.'' Does anybody disagree 
with that?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Okay, we will put that one down as a ``no.'' 
Don't be bashful, because I am absorbing your very important 
points.
    Dr. Steuerle. Senator, with Dr. Osili's numbers, you know, 
charitable giving, even at 2020 levels, is not at past peak 
levels as a share of our income. And as our economy has grown 
sixfold over the last century, our ability to increase giving--
that share of giving--has not really occurred. So I think all 
of us believe that we could do much more as a Nation on this 
front.
    The Chairman. Very good. So it is always important to look 
at both the past, because it is a guide to prologue, and to 
kind of weigh, as Dr. Steuerle did, the tradeoffs.
    Which programs--let's just go right down the line here. We 
have passed novel programs to respond to the pandemic. Which 
programs were the most successful, based on your hard evidence? 
We will start with you, Mr. Cardinali.
    Mr. Cardinali. I think many of them were very effective, 
but I would mention three that come to mind. The first would be 
the Paycheck Protection Program, which protected 4.1 million 
jobs, according to the Johnson Center on Philanthropy, keeping 
front-line workers engaged during a pandemic. The second, of 
course, would have been the CARES Act and incentivizing giving 
that enabled people to reach into their pocket and 
incentivizing everybody to do that. Whether or not they could 
get out the door and volunteer, they could certainly write a 
check and donate. And third would be what Ms. Morgan mentioned, 
and what I would also agree with: the Employment Retention Tax 
Credit that kept employees.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    Programs most effective, Ms. Morgan?
    Ms. Morgan. The Child Tax Credit, Senator Wyden, which 
drove down child poverty and child hunger to rates I have not 
seen in 26 years. I have been in anti-hunger work for 26 years, 
and we have not ended hunger yet, and we are not stopping until 
we do. And so, yes, we need the charitable incentives, and we 
need Federal responses. This is a ``both and.''
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Professor?
    Dr. Osili. Yes, I would agree that the CARES Act overall, 
the PPP program, and the direct stimulus payments to households 
really strengthened the country's ability to withstand the 
pandemic. In particular, the Penn Wharton budget models 
estimate that the impact of these stimulus packages boosted GDP 
5.5 percent.
    When we think about what drives charitable giving, 
incentives certainly affect not just the amount that people 
give, but the vehicles they use and the timing of those gifts. 
In addition, economic factors affect their ability to give in 
the first place. So American households give when they have the 
resources, the means to give. The charitable deduction and the 
incentives provide that boost you could see around the timing, 
the amount, and the vehicle.
    The Chairman. Dr. Steuerle?
    Dr. Steuerle. I would include Paycheck Protection. As a 
founder of the community foundation in Alexandria, I would also 
say even the support that went to the cities that actually came 
back out through our community foundation and through all the 
charities in Alexandria, right across the river, to support 
many of the efforts to provide food, shelter, clothing, and 
other items that have been made possible.
    So it actually extends far beyond just given what is in the 
tax code. I suppose my one exception, Senator Wyden, is I think 
most of these provisions were good as temporary provisions, but 
such items as the $300 deduction--I think most estimates 
suggest that it does not provide much of an incentive in the 
long run because it is not applied at the margin. People give 
more than $300; it is a windfall in the form of a tax break. I 
think it was a good symbol during the crisis, but as a long-
term project, just like Paycheck Protection, I think we have to 
look further.
    The Chairman. I have long watched your scholarship on this 
and share much of your thinking. This was particularly 
important because we wanted to give more people an opportunity 
to be involved. That was the point.
    The 2017 tax bill said, yes, you've got opportunities if 
you are really up at the top of the economic system. The whole 
point of the $300 effort was to get more people mobilized at 
the grassroots and talking about why they were helping our 
wonderful Oregon Food Bank. We will continue this discussion.
    Also, Dr. Steuerle, I would like you to flesh out for the 
Finance staff how you envision this set of electronic 
improvements as it relates to charitable giving. Because we 
know the IRS is in the Dark Ages with respect to technology. 
The comprehensive budget that passed last week is going to give 
them hundreds of millions of dollars more. So we are moving in 
the right direction. But if you have some ideas that are doable 
and cost-effective, I am all ears.
    Thank you all, and let's go to Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you. As I mentioned before, and 
several of you have mentioned, this is something that I think 
is extremely important that we deal with--the non-itemizer 
charitable deduction--to incentivize more donations on the 
lower end and to be able to keep that going. The data, I think, 
also supports this, and we have talked a little bit about this, 
but I want to raise a couple of things in some stories here.
    Compared to 2019, after the $300 deduction was enacted in 
the CARES Act, gifts of less than $250 grew by 15 percent in 
2020. So, contrary to most examples of growth in giving during 
the times of crisis typically, the growth in these small gifts 
outpaced the growth in the larger contributions by 1.5 times.
    When compared to 2019, there was a 28-percent increase in 
$300 donations on the final day of 2020. That is the exact 
amount of actually what the donation amount was. So there is 
obviously some connection there, and I wonder what that would 
have been if the number would have been higher for that time 
period as well.
    According to the Fundraising Effectiveness Project 
comparing 2019 to 2020, the overall number of donors grew by 7 
percent in 2020. New donors increased by 18 percent, and 
overall giving increased by over 10 percent. On top of that, 
based on their analysis of over $46 billion in charitable 
giving, the Blackbaud Institute estimates that charitable 
giving in the U.S. grew by 9 percent in 2021.
    So how do we keep this going? And how do we continue to be 
able to fan the flame of this? I will tell you, it is 
significant, and we have seen it be significant. Let me just 
give you a few stories from my State of Oklahoma.
    Amy from Family and Children's Services was writing in and 
said, ``When the new tax laws were amended during the pandemic, 
it actually gave me more incentive to dig deeper because I knew 
that not only would the nonprofit organizations get the 
proceeds they needed, but I also got something in return to 
help my spending that was not available to me prior to this. It 
was a win/win.''
    Tom, who is the Chief Development Officer at Family and 
Children's Services in Tulsa said, ``I often get asked as a 
fundraiser for nonprofit, `How is annual giving going? And have 
we seen a decline since we were not able to do in-person 
events?' '' He said, ``In fact, we saw a 17-percent increase in 
first-time donors, and amongst donors 40 years or younger. A 
few of them said that the tax deduction made them more 
generous, and they were able to do something even more than 
what they thought they could before because of that 
advantage.''
    Melissa, who is the director of community engagement at 
ReMerge in Oklahoma City, said, ``Last year we had 10 gifts of 
$300. Three of those donors were new donors who stated that the 
tax credit had impacted their decision and the size of their 
gift.''
    Angie, who is the chief development and marketing officer 
at Sunbeam Family Services, great group, said, ``When universal 
tax deduction was enacted, Sunbeam experienced an increase both 
in total donations and the average donation amount.''
    So we have seen not only just those stories, but a lot of 
other evidence. I have worked to be able to expand this. And I 
think we can further support our nonprofits. Several colleagues 
and I have joined together to expand this. Under our bill, 
taxpayers would be able to do a charitable deduction of a third 
of the standard deduction--just over $4,000 for single filers 
and $8,000 for joint filers.
    This bill ensures that every American who gives--not just 
those with high incomes and those who itemize on their tax 
returns--but others are able to give and to be able to give at 
larger amounts, and they are incentivized to do that.
    I do want to thank my fellow sponsors--Senators Coons, Lee, 
Shaheen, Tim Scott, Klobuchar, Collins, Cortez Masto--as well 
as other members of this committee who have co-sponsored the 
bill--Senators Stabenow, Hassan, and Brown--for their support.
    We do have a lot of support from the community on this bill 
as well. I have letters here with me today representing 
thousands of organizations, in every State. We have one letter 
that a coalition has signed with 1,500 nonprofits that have 
signed on, and another with hundreds of local United Ways.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe these letters and others have 
already been submitted for the record, but I would ask that a 
few other letters that have also come in today be included in 
the record as well. The Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits, Faith 
and Giving, the Jewish Federations of North America, the 
National Philanthropic Trust, the National Council on 
Nonprofits, the Philanthropy Roundtable, and Philanthropy 
Southwest have all written in in addition to that.
    The Chairman. Without objection, they will go into the 
record now.
    [The letters appear in the appendix beginning on p. 48.]
    Senator Lankford. So now that I have completely spoiled all 
of my time for questions making a statement, I would love to be 
able to visit with all of you at great length on this, but the 
chairman is an ogre on time, so I am going to have to be 
attentive on this.
    Mr. Cardinali, I do want to talk about how the deduction 
influences the behavior of non-itemizers. What have you seen on 
that?
    Mr. Cardinali. Well, first of all, thank you for your 
leadership. And I think Independent Sector stands squarely 
behind pretty much everything you just said.
    The one additional item that is important is, by expanding 
the non-itemizer deduction, we actually incentivized people to 
participate in their community. It expands the number of 
donors. And we know once a donor starts, there is a high 
probability that they will continue to give. So we will build 
out a pipeline, and it links to volunteerism. It gets them out 
into their community, so they are donating, they are 
volunteering, and that builds civic trust.
    So, 100 percent behind your points.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you. I would only mention one other 
thing. Mr. Cardinali earlier said that, by definition, when you 
are giving like this, it cannot be beneficial to you. I would 
say, when people give to nonprofits, it is very beneficial to 
them and the community, and to them personally. The old ``it's 
better to give than to receive'' definitely kicks in when you 
are giving.
    The Chairman. It lifts the spirits and makes you feel you 
are helping the community. Well said.
    Senator Grassley?
    Senator Grassley. I thought you had a Democrat to go ahead 
of me.
    The Chairman. We have you up at this time. Go ahead.
    Senator Grassley. I am very happy to go.
    Ms. Morgan, I am going to start with you. This is a quote 
from your testimony: ``Hunger is a crisis today, and charitable 
support is needed now, not tucked away for some hypothetical 
future,'' end of quote. I am sure that is a statement working 
charities in Iowa and across our country would agree with.
    Today there are over a trillion dollars sitting in private 
foundations and assets held by donor-advised funds totaling 
$160 billion, a 360-percent increase since 2006.
    Senator King and I have introduced the Accelerating 
Charitable Efforts Act, which is focused on ensuring that tax-
deductible contributions to a foundation, or a donor-advised 
fund, reach their ultimate charitable destination within a 
reasonable period of time.
    Could you elaborate on why it is important for working 
charities like yours not to have hundreds of billions of 
dollars of charity money effectively sitting on the sidelines?
    Ms. Morgan. Thank you for the opportunity, Senator 
Grassley. The Oregon Food Bank has been greatly impacted by 
supply chain disruptions during the pandemic. So, prior to the 
pandemic, 865,000 people--that is one in five people in Oregon 
and southwest Washington--asked for assistance, and we relied 
heavily on donations from growers, food distributors, and food 
manufacturers to meet the need. Supply chain disruptions have 
meant that donations are down well over 50 percent, because 
they cannot give us what they do not have in excess. So we are 
purchasing food at a higher rate than we have ever purchased 
before.
    So, we have more people who need food assistance, and fewer 
resources in order to meet that food assistance. So, when I 
hear of wealthy folks tucking money away in hopes that it will 
make the future better, my response is, make the future better 
right now for my neighbors who are struggling to put food on 
the table.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you.
    Mr. Cardinali, I have a good history of working with your 
organization, probably a long time before you ever got involved 
in it, but they have helped me a lot during the early part of 
this century with a lot of investigations and reforms that I 
have done. We passed some legislation, but I also recall from 
the 2005-2007 era that you put out some good work that helped 
us do probably even more than what we had intended to do by 
legislation. So I appreciate the Independent Sector's attention 
to the importance of robust self-regulation and oversight in 
fostering a healthy nonprofit sector. As I indicated before--I 
want to repeat--it was a pleasure working with your 
organization during my tenure as chairman of this committee in 
the 2000s to improve nonprofit governance and accountability.
    Could you elaborate on what the Independent Sector has been 
doing to foster good governance and self-regulation of the 
nonprofit sector since the release of that report, ``Report on 
Good Governance and Ethical Practices''?
    Mr. Cardinali. Thank you for the partnership, and it has 
been transformative in striking a balance. We think that is 
very healthy for a sector that has two components, one being 
self-regulation, where those principles that you referred to 
are still an extremely downloaded and used resource across the 
sector--setting a standard of good behavior, ethical 
governance, use of appropriate fund raising--and a set of tools 
that allow people and boards to make good decisions about 
difficult challenges in a changing and dynamic world. But as 
you may recall well, that was also designed with appropriate 
government oversight. So it is actually a two-part tension: 
self-regulation and government.
    So we, of course, denounce bad actors that take advantage 
of the sector, but that is a minority of folks that often make 
the news. But we do need appropriate support from the IRS and 
the exempt organizations office there to be able to lean into 
when there are bad actors, so that we do not diminish public 
trust in America.
    We know that right now, every year we measure the trust 
that the general population has for nonprofits, and it is quite 
high--higher than government or business. So protecting that 
trust through striking the tension of appropriate self-
regulation and appropriate government oversight is important.
    I do want to be clear. I am not calling for additional 
government oversight, just appropriate government oversight.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
    I believe next is Senator Carper.
    Senator Carper. Senator Carper is here. Good morning, Mr. 
Chairman. Good morning, colleagues and witnesses.
    The Chairman. Senator Carper, turn the power up. Is it at 
our end?
    Senator Carper. I think it is at your end.
    The Chairman. That is perfect.
    Senator Carper. Can you hear me?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Carper. All right; thank you. First of all, thank 
you for holding this very, very important hearing, and a timely 
hearing. My wife and I are getting ready to submit all kind of 
tax-related materials to our CPA, so we are reminded that we 
should be looking into our charitable giving. So this is 
actually something that is very, very real in our lives, and I 
know others' too. But I want to thank each of our witnesses for 
your willingness to testify before the committee today.
    Nonprofit organizations and charities are an invaluable 
part of the communities in Delaware, and I know that is true 
across the country. They provide critical support for some of 
the most vulnerable among us. Throughout the coronavirus 
pandemic, nonprofits in Delaware and the other 49 States 
throughout America have risen to the occasion to help their 
neighbors keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, 
get vaccinated, and a whole lot more.
    When we support our local nonprofits, we show our 
commitment to building a strong community. Having said that, 
research has found that as time goes by, fewer households are 
giving to charity. I think that has been mentioned a time or 
two already today. In fact, studies have shown that only about 
half of Americans are donating to charities these days. That is 
down from about two out of three a couple of decades ago. And 
since then--as I understand it--donations from lower- and 
middle-income households have declined. Charitable giving 
overall remains pretty much stable, but the increases are 
concentrated among higher-income households, which is where you 
would hope we would find most of the giving that takes place.
    A question--this will be for everybody on the panel--but 
could you take a couple of minutes to share your thoughts with 
us on why we are witnessing this decline in widespread 
charitable giving, what steps we ought to consider taking in 
order to reverse this trend, at the same time making sure that 
those who are capable of giving continue to do so? Please, in 
any order you would like to go.
    Dr. Osili. I can start. At the IU Lilly Family School of 
Philanthropy, we've been tracking the share of Americans who 
give to charitable organizations for many years. At the 
beginning of the 21st century, two-thirds of Americans gave, 
and this was consistent over time, until the time of the Great 
Recession of 2008. At that time we saw that number begin to 
decline. It's important to note that when the economy 
recovered, following the Great Recession, we did not see that 
number go up again. In fact, it has continued to decline, and 
in the most recent analysis in 2018, for the very first time, 
less than half of Americans gave. It's also worth noting that 
among younger Americans, that decline has been even more 
pronounced. In fact, for the overall public--that figure 
declined 17 percentage points--but for young Americans it's 
more than a 20-percent decline at the time of the Great 
Recession. So, with that concept----
    Senator Carper. How do you explain that?
    Dr. Osili. How do we explain that?
    Senator Carper. Yes.
    Dr. Osili. I'm sorry. There are several factors to look at. 
We have investigated the world of economic factors, that 
changes in income, employment, and wealth, account for about a 
third of that decline. The other half or so of the change is 
due to a number of other factors. First, we have already heard 
about trust levels: declining levels of trust, social capital. 
But also religious participation has been shown to be linked, 
and not just to religious congregations, but also to giving 
more broadly. So, looking ahead, as we continue to build this 
strong tradition of American generosity, we need to make sure 
that it's broad-based across income and age groups. It's 
important to recognize that economic factors play a role, and 
certainly looking at the role that the charitable deduction 
plays, not just in providing an incentive and sending a strong 
signal about the government's commitment to the private 
provision of public goods, but also the other factors. We've 
heard about what role trust plays, but also what the charitable 
sector can do to continue to build the relationships and 
engagements and the sense of commitment that Americans have.
    Senator Carper. Dr. Osili, I am about to run out of time. I 
want to be able to hear from at least one other witness. Thank 
you for all that you shared with us.
    Susannah Morgan, just a few thoughts for us from the Oregon 
Food Bank. The Delaware Food Bank sends their best to you and 
your team. Go ahead, Susannah.
    Ms. Morgan. Thank you. I do not have academic data, but 
what I will tell you is, the Oregon Food Bank had 40,000 new 
donors in the last 2 years. So we have gone from a database of 
30,000 to a database of 70,000 donors in the last 2 years.
    So a combination of the environmental factors in which one 
in four people in Oregon were experiencing hunger, so everyone 
knew someone who was needing food assistance--this was not 
``them,'' this was ``us.'' And hunger was impacting ``us.'' A 
combination of an outpouring of love--because that is really 
what community donations are, it is love in the form of a check 
for our community--and what the Federal Government did to 
support trust and to authorize and provide credibility to the 
nonprofit community through the tax code.
    Senator Carper. Well, that is great. I think my time has 
expired. I wish I had time to ask others, but thank you all for 
joining us today.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Cortez Masto?
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to 
say ``thank you'' to the Ranking Member and Senator Lankford 
for co-chairing this important committee with you. I also 
cannot thank you enough for just calling the hearing today to 
highlight what we see here: the good bipartisan work that 
Congress can do when we work together to be able to deliver for 
all Americans, including many of the nonprofits across the 
country and here today.
    As we know, the CARES Act established that charitable 
deduction for non-itemizers in 2020, and the COVID relief 
package passed in December of 2020 added an extension of the 
$300 charitable deduction for 2021. So I am proud to have 
worked with my colleagues on this committee, Senators Lankford 
and Scott, to co-lead the bipartisan Universal Giving Pandemic 
Response Recovery Act to expand and extend a tax deduction for 
charitable giving. The bill would build on the bipartisan work 
and ensure that Nevadans who donate to charities, religious 
organizations, and other nonprofits are able to deduct their 
contributions from their Federal taxes.
    This legislation recognizes the generous donations many 
Americans have given to these lifesaving organizations, and 
incentivizes further charitable giving during the coronavirus 
pandemic. I know firsthand that during the height of the 
challenging time of COVID-19, nonprofits, community 
organizations, and religious organizations have provided 
immeasurable relief and support to struggling families in 
Nevada. Places like Betty's Village, an inclusive residential 
housing community for people of diverse abilities, was opened 
by Opportunity Village at the height of the pandemic. And I 
fought for the ability of nonprofits to qualify for the PPP 
loans during the pandemic. And because of that, my office was 
able to help them secure that loan and help provide housing in 
the community for people of diverse abilities.
    By passing the Universal Giving Pandemic Response Recovery 
Act, we can ensure that nonprofits like Betty's Village can 
sustain the critical services they provide beyond the pandemic. 
So, thank you again to our bipartisan partners in the Finance 
Committee--Senators Lankford, Scott, Brown, Hassan, and 
Stabenow--for working on this important legislation.
    Let me start with Ms. Morgan. I so appreciate what you do. 
I am a big supporter of our Northern Nevada Food Bank in Reno, 
and Three Square, and all of the food pantries across the 
country, so thank you for your commitment there. I also know--I 
just recently had a roundtable discussion in Reno, and it 
included many of our community's leaders, including members of 
the Northern Nevada Food Bank, to talk about the crisis parents 
are dealing with right now with the lack of access to 
affordable child care. And I am curious.
    You highlighted in your testimony how important Federal 
response was in addressing that tremendous need during the 
pandemic. It has since stopped, and can you discuss how 
critical support like the CTC was in meeting the overwhelming 
need, and how much harder it will be for organizations like 
yours to meet the community needs when you see an increase in 
that need over the last couple of years?
    Ms. Morgan. Thank you so much, Senator, and so much love to 
our colleagues in Nevada doing food bank work. The numbers tell 
the story, right? For us in Oregon in 2019, it was 860,000. In 
2020, it was 1.7 million people asking for food assistance. And 
in 2021, it was just over 1 million.
    What is the difference between 2020 and 2021? The Federal 
response, and in some cases, the reopening of economies as we 
became more accustomed to the pandemic. But from my analysis on 
the ground, it is primarily the Federal response. It was the 
increased unemployment compensation. It was the direct payments 
to families. It was the Child Tax Credit that made the 
difference, so that folks did not have to show up at a food 
pantry and ask for a box of food.
    We want to live in a world where no one has to ask for 
food, where everybody can get all the food they need for their 
families, and we think that, in partnership with the Federal 
Government, we can get there.
    So yes, I am scared about this year ahead as the provisions 
of the CARES Act and other Federal provisions sunset. What then 
will happen? Are we going to see another tsunami of need? Are 
we going to see mothers crying in line because they are worried 
about feeding their babies? So thank you, Senator, and the 
entire committee, for everything you can do to help us help our 
communities.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I yield the remainder of 
my time, although little it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague. Important points, as 
always.
    I think Senator Thune is either online or----
    Senator Thune. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am online.
    The Chairman. Great. Terrific. Senator Thune?
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's 
hearing on charitable giving, and thanks to our panelists for 
your testimony on behalf of the nonprofit and charity sectors.
    Charitable giving is critical for local communities in 
South Dakota, and we need to continue to encourage this 
bipartisan priority in a fair and effective manner. In 2020, 
during the first year of the pandemic, charitable giving in the 
United States by individuals, bequests, foundations, and 
corporations, reached a record high of $471 billion. Overall 
charitable giving in the country in 2020 increased by 5.1 
percent over 2019, and when adjusted for inflation, the total 
amount increased 3.8 percent.
    So my question, Dr. Osili, is, can you tell us which 
categories of charitable giving saw the biggest increases in 
2020? And how do you think the pandemic has changed Americans' 
charitable giving patterns?
    Dr. Osili. Thank you for that very insightful question. 
There were three factors that contributed to the growth in 
charitable giving. Certainly, number one was the recovery of 
the economy, especially the strong financial markets at the end 
of 2020. We also had increased need, as we have heard from my 
colleague from Oregon. And in addition to that, we had the 
racial and social justice movements in 2020. So all those 
factors combined, led to what we saw in terms of charitable 
giving.
    As we unpack the data, there were three areas that stood 
out in terms of increases, in particular, what we call public 
society benefit, which is the sector that includes the umbrella 
of causes such as donor and side funds, the national funds, and 
also United Way, United Jewish Appeals, and civil rights 
organizations that are leaders in terms of charitable giving 
growth. We also saw strong growth in education and in basic 
needs charities, which include organizations like the Oregon 
Food Bank. In terms of areas that did not perform as well in 
2020, it is worth noting that arts and culture organizations 
were severely impacted by the pandemic because many of them 
were not able to hold in-person events--
income-generating and fundraising events that usually involve a 
face-to-face gathering.
    So overall, the charitable sector grew, but not all 
organizations benefited, and certainly not all subsectors 
experienced the growth that we saw.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. So, since the increase in the 
standard deduction, overall charitable giving amounts have gone 
up. The number of individual itemized deductions claimed for 
charitable giving has gone down. And to put that another way, 
overall giving amounts have increased while the number of 
itemized donations has decreased.
    Dr. Steuerle, given the significant increase in the 
standard deduction, which resulted in fewer individual 
taxpayers itemizing deductions than in 2018, are the estimates 
of non-itemizer giving before and after 2018 necessarily 
comparable? And could you speak to any current data that 
directly measures the magnitude of charitable giving by non-
itemizers?
    Dr. Steuerle. So we know in the years after 2017, in point 
of fact, giving did increase a bit. However, what also happened 
during that period was, we were at the end of a long period of 
economic growth.
    We also had income actually increasing, surprisingly, in 
2020 because of the Federal subsidies that flowed through. So, 
as Dr. Osili mentioned, we are not quite sure what is going to 
happen as we move forward into the future. In fact, there are a 
number of projections that say giving will decline. When you 
reduced the charitable incentive as much as happened in 2017, 
you essentially took 6 cents out of every dollar that was given 
to charity away from those charities. That is, the Federal 
Government used to provide about 21 cents on the dollar for 
charitable giving and dropped it to about 15 cents.
    So we think that that probably led to some decline; maybe 
it was not 6 cents, but it certainly was not zero, in terms of 
the effect. There is something we do not measure well as 
economists. We are actually not good at measuring long-term 
effects of different provisions. And I think the symbolism and 
the signals provided by giving a deduction only to about one-
tenth of taxpayers is pretty powerful, and it speaks to the 
earlier questions you and some other Senators have had about 
what we can expect for the future in terms of community 
participation. I think it sends a very bad signal, and I think 
I am sure all the people at this table agree that we need to 
have a more universal set of incentives, partly just as a 
signal. I cannot tell you what the full effect of that signal 
would be, but I think it would be quite powerful.
    Senator Thune. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but let me just say how 
important it is that we encourage and incentivize charitable 
giving in this country. I do not think there is anything that 
we do as a matter of public policy that contributes more to 
meeting the needs of Americans in so many different areas of 
our economy, but certainly what happened during the pandemic is 
a reminder of the effectiveness of charitable giving and the 
need for us to encourage it. So, thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Thune, thank you. And you and I have 
been fortunate enough to be able to lead a number of these 
bipartisan efforts to promote charity, and I look forward to 
continuing to work with you.
    We are happy to have Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin, just one quick point before 
you proceed. I would just say to colleagues, we are getting 
down to wrapping up, and if colleagues on either side of the 
aisle would like to either come in person or be available to 
make their presentation online, now is the time to do it.
    Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for 
holding this hearing. I appreciate it very much. I think it is 
very important that we highlight what we can do in this 
committee's jurisdiction in regards to the nonprofit 
communities. So, thank you all very much. And I would ask 
consent that the statement from Apra, Maryland Chapter, be made 
part of the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The statement appears in the appendix on. p. 35.]
    Senator Cardin. I understand there has been a good deal of 
discussion about some of the tools that were made available 
during the coronavirus that affected the nonprofit community. 
As chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, 
I appreciate the references to the Paycheck Protection Program 
particularly. I just really want to make an observation first.
    In the early stages of that negotiation, it was not certain 
at all that the nonprofit community was going to be included, 
because the Small Business Administration does not include the 
nonprofit community in many of its programs. The 7(a) program 
did not include this. This was a real expansion of the efforts 
on behalf of nonprofits.
    And it was clearly the right thing to do. The nonprofit 
community--there are so many small entities that have all the 
challenges of a small business. And during the pandemic, they 
were really hurt badly from the point of view of their 
financial resources, but as well their mission, in order to 
carry it out. So I am pleased that it was able to keep active 
and alive the nonprofit community, the tools that were made 
available from the Small Business Administration in the 
bipartisan effort here in the United States Senate.
    And I want to compliment the chair on the Employee 
Retention Tax Credit, which has also been mentioned. Senator 
Wyden was the leader on that particular initiative, and we 
thank him. And there was a moment where we were having 
challenges as to whether smaller entities were going to be able 
to participate, and Senator Wyden was our hero in keeping that 
there.
    I am distressed, Mr. Chairman, to learn that you are having 
challenges in getting that process through the IRS. And one of 
the things I think we could do as a committee is recognize that 
smaller entities, including nonprofits, do not have the 
financial wherewithal to be able to take on the bureaucracy as 
larger companies can. We should really work, in the 
administration of the IRS, for the sensitivity of smaller 
entities, whether they are for-profit or nonprofit. And I know 
from the nonprofit community in Maryland, so many of them 
really need that particular help.
    And then lastly, I just really want to underscore the 
efforts that--when we talk about the non-itemizers, the smaller 
contributors, those who are giving to their community, again it 
is usually--many of those dollars go to the smaller of the 
nonprofits.
    So once again, I think we need to have a sensitivity to 
smaller entities. I am very happy about all the nonprofit 
community, believe me. But I do think we need to be able to 
help the smaller nonprofits deal with a lot of the bureaucratic 
issues we have, as well as the financial issues in the tax code 
itself.
    And I have asked the chairman--he has been cooperative 
here--I hope we will have an opportunity to look at the 
Internal Revenue Code from the eyes of smaller entities and 
have policies that help deal with their realities in the tax 
code itself.
    Would any of you want to respond to that? Mr. Cardinali, I 
know you have been engaged with the smaller entities. Your 
comments?
    Mr. Cardinali. So first of all, thank you, Senator, for 
your comments. I agree. The ERTC has been game-changing. I 
appreciate the committee's leadership there. The Paycheck 
Protection Program saved 4.1 million jobs by the Johnson 
Center's estimates, which kept people employed and able to take 
care of our community during the pandemic.
    And this last point you made regarding strategies for the 
sector to actually fully be able to partner with government in 
a way that will allow it to best serve government, both as a 
resource as well as an implementer--we have been working on a 
piece of legislation that Representative McCollum is about to 
drop, we hope, called the Nonprofit Sector Strength and 
Partnership Act of 2022, which would basically establish 
permanently an office of nonprofits in the White House. It 
would set up an interagency council coordinated by that office, 
and then a Federal group of bipartisan nonprofit leaders, so 
that we would not run the risk of having something like the 
Paycheck Protection Program be left to just advocates on the 
outside. There would be people in government who would have a 
knowledge of how the sector needs to be supported.
    Thank you for your leadership.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin, let me just follow up on the 
thoughtful points you made. And I think there may be an 
opportunity, given the extra money that is going to the IRS 
that you and I and this committee strongly supported because, 
to a great extent, one of the areas we agree on is that they 
are kind of in the Dark Ages on some of these issues relating 
to technology and having skilled individuals, and their being 
able to recruit--and because we found that Amazon was paying 
more than the IRS.
    I would be very interested in working with you on trying to 
make sure that some of that extra money that was just signed 
into law last week was for small business-focused efforts as it 
relates to these issues. I would be interested in your 
reaction. We are waiting for Senator Brown, but Senator Cardin, 
as is usually the case, is out in front with respect to being 
innovative. He has ideas for making reforms in the entire 
agency, with Senator Portman, that we are looking forward to.
    But what about moving right now, given the fact that that 
money was just increased here in the last couple of days, to 
address some small business concerns you are talking about?
    Senator Cardin. Well, I can tell you, having as my partner 
the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee will give me a 
much better opportunity to get some results with the IRS. So I 
accept.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague. And with that bold 
explanation Senator Cardin has made, we can now have Senator 
Brown, a great friend of charity. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    Senator Brown?
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Morgan, I would like to start with you. You told us in 
your testimony that charity organizations simply cannot replace 
Federal funding for the programs and resources our families 
need to thrive. I would do a really quick shout-out to the work 
that United Ways all over Ohio have done in terms of getting 
people connected to the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax 
Credit.
    I know Chairman Wyden is not giving up on the importance of 
those and extending them. But put that aside for a second.
    The very first thing you said Congress should do to reduce 
hunger is reinstate the Child Tax Credit expansion. That makes 
sense, given we saw a significant drop in hunger levels. We saw 
a 40-
percent drop in poverty. We know it relieves anxiety for 
families, particularly at the end of the month. And it gives 
them, as someone said, the joy of a little bit of breathing 
room in their personal finances, especially when rent is due at 
the end of the month.
    There are a number of us on this committee--let me just 
back up for a second. So, Ms. Morgan, if you would, just tell 
us about your experience with the Child Tax Credit and how the 
lapse in advance payments strained nonprofits like yours?
    Ms. Morgan. Thank you very much, Senator. As I have said 
before, we saw a huge tsunami of need in 2020, and that dropped 
in 2021. So what we were finding was our neighbors--and 70 
percent of the people who work at Oregon Food Bank have 
experienced hunger. So it was our neighbors who were facing 
hunger who had the choice to not have to go to a food pantry or 
a meal site, but could instead go to a grocery store and ensure 
that they could put meals on the table for themselves and their 
families.
    And as you can imagine, as all of you can imagine, if you 
are hungry, nothing else matters. So there is the Chinese 
proverb that says, ``The man who has food has many problems. 
The man who does not have food has one.'' Because it is a basic 
need. We need to eat three times a day.
    We know that when Congress, when the philanthropists invest 
in basic needs, it creates opportunity and space for all the 
other things: better parenting, better education, better work 
habits. We have the opportunity to participate civically. So we 
need our basic needs met in order so that we can be fully human 
and fully American. And this is a great opportunity for 
Congress to continue to participate in that work.
    Senator Brown. Thank you very much, Ms. Morgan.
    My next question is for Mr. Cardinali. I have heard all 
around my State from nonprofits like the YMCA that the early 
termination of the Employee Retention Tax Credit really hurt. 
Many nonprofits relied on that credit when budgeting and 
planning for workforce needs. That is why I am co-sponsoring 
Senator Hassan's bill to reinstate it.
    Give us a few examples, if you would, Mr. Cardinali, of how 
the early termination of ERTC actually hurt nonprofits.
    Mr. Cardinali. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 
leadership in Ohio and nationally. I can give you a very 
concrete example about not just the early termination but 
actually something that was mentioned earlier regarding the IRS 
and their slowness in being able to actually provide these 
reimbursements.
    So specifically, an example out of Maryland that was 
received just this week--I think it was submitted by one of the 
Senators--that in 2021 they have received their credit, but 
they have not received either payment from 2020. So not only 
are we looking at the importance of it, the ERTC, as a way of 
nonprofits keeping themselves employed, which was a great 
innovation--I want to thank the committee again for it; it was 
a game changer--but now, having it being repealed in the last 
quarter really threw off planning. Anybody who has run a 
nonprofit knows that you have to plan very carefully on cash 
flows, and you rely on both public and private sources. And 
when you get a massive disruption, it not only throws off the 
individual employees that you may not be able to pay, but your 
operations, and it destabilizes your culture internally.
    So I would just encourage this committee to double down on 
reinstating the ERTC and ensuring that the IRS is able to have 
the resources necessary to be able to get those reimbursements 
out in a timely manner.
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Cardinali.
    I will just make a closing comment. I don't want to go over 
the time. I know you know we are diligent on this committee, 
and the chair is really leaning into this to make sure the IRS 
has the resources and workforce it needs to carry out its 
mission after years of underfunding. It was so impressive, even 
with that shrunk staff, if you will. We passed the Child Tax 
Credit; Senator Bennet especially, on this committee, and I 
worked together with the chairman and passed it in March and 
immediately talked to the Secretary of the Treasury, and those 
checks were out the door July 15th, August 15th, September 
15th, October 15th. And in my State, literally the families of 
2.2 million children have benefited from that. And we know the 
difference it made, in not just cutting the rate of poverty, 
but the difference it made in how it just made people's lives 
better and a little bit easier.
    So it is really important that the overworked and 
underresourced IRS gets the help that it needs. And I thank all 
of you for that.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Brown. And Susannah Morgan 
spoke for a lot of Oregonians when she said right out of the 
gate how much she appreciates the Child Tax Credit. And you and 
Senator Bennet on this committee, supported by Senator Casey as 
well, have been the ring leaders on one of the things I am 
proudest that this committee has done. Dollar-for-dollar, it is 
making a huge difference for kids. And we know in our home 
town, you know this, Ms. Morgan, when I go out and ask people, 
``What did you spend the Child Tax Credit on?'', they say 
things like ``shoes for kids.'' We hear shoes. In our part of 
the world, it rains once in a while. Shoes are really 
important. So, thank you, Senator Brown, and Senator Bennet, 
and Senator Casey, for all the leadership on it.
    Now we are going to go to, in order of appearance, Senator 
Young then Senator Casey.
    Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing. And I want to welcome our witnesses, in particular Dr. 
Osili, a fellow Hoosier. I am grateful for your presence here 
today.
    I would like to begin by asking a couple of questions about 
community foundations. We take great pride in our community 
foundations in the State of Indiana, and, Dr. Osili, as you 
know, beginning in 1990, the Lilly Endowment began an 
initiative known as GIFT, or Giving Indiana Funds for Tomorrow. 
This is a way to help establish and strengthen community 
foundations across the State of Indiana. When GIFT began, there 
were fewer than 12 community foundations, and today there are 
94 community foundations. We have 92 counties, so of course 
that is more than one per county. Indiana is the only State in 
the country with a community foundation in every single county. 
And we have the country's highest concentration of community 
foundations.
    Dr. Osili, how does this structure--the only State in the 
country with a community foundation in every single county--
enable our State to better serve local communities?
    Dr. Osili. Thank you, Senator Young, for your leadership. 
Indiana is unique. We have, as you noted, a community 
foundation in every single county, probably the highest 
concentration of any State in the country.
    There are over 700 community foundations nationwide. We 
have seen in this crisis that community foundations have played 
a vital role not just in collaborating and coordinating, but 
also avoiding duplication and connecting donors to need. One 
takeaway from the work in Indiana is the idea that every single 
American is a philanthropist. You do not have to have millions 
of dollars. People of all different backgrounds can 
participate.
    And in this crisis, in our communities, community 
foundations have been the conveners, the collaborators, and 
also the catalysts for innovation, bringing new ideas to the 
forefront and helping donors to better understand those local 
communities. I think there are some important examples and 
models that other States and other communities can learn from. 
So, thank you for mentioning that.
    Senator Young. Well, that was an excellent segue, Dr. 
Osili, because it begs the question. Since we are in 
Washington, DC, and I know my colleagues and their staff are 
watching attentively, are there major barriers that you might 
speak to regarding establishing more community foundations 
around the country?
    Dr. Osili. We have an endowed chair in community 
philanthropy at the Indiana University Lilly Family School, 
under Dr. Laurie Paarlberg. And one point she has noted is that 
in every State there is the potential, of course, to expand the 
work of community foundations, but every State is different, 
and we have to look at what those barriers are at a State 
level. What we have seen that has really worked in Indiana is 
having foundations that are willing to help support through 
matching grants programs. But in other States, we have had 
incentives for contributions to community foundations. I think 
Kansas is one of them where there is an incentive.
    So as we look at how to support community foundations, I 
think what we have learned so far is just the role that they 
play. And I think my colleague, Dr. Gene Steuerle, can also 
share his example here in Virginia. They can really help 
support that sort of leadership and innovation that is often 
lacking in a crisis.
    Senator Young. Well, thank you, Doctor. And I will be 
submitting for the record some questions to the other 
witnesses. If you have thoughts on barriers that we can 
eliminate to ensure there is greater uptake in community 
foundations that you can learn from, what I will take some 
liberties with and call the Indiana model, that would be 
fantastic.
    So, in my remaining bit of time here, Dr. Osili, I would 
like to highlight a column you wrote recently for the 
Indianapolis Business Journal. You stated that the pace of 
technological innovation in the philanthropic sector is 
increasing, and it is going to need to accelerate this year and 
in future years. We have had some really notable examples where 
the Central Indiana Community Foundation has partnered with an 
Indianapolis-based tech company, Selflessly, and met with some 
success in ensuring that companies have the tools to track and 
manage their charitable giving.
    In short, Dr. Osili--I will, again, submit some questions 
to you to ask in greater detail about this topic, but why is it 
so important for organizations in the charitable giving space 
to embrace technological innovation?
    [The questions appear in the appendix.]
    Dr. Osili. An excellent question, Senator Young. Just to 
put this in perspective, online giving grew by double digits 
over the last year. And today, online giving accounts for 10 
percent of charitable giving overall, the highest ever on 
record. What this means is nonprofits have had to shift a lot 
of their engagements, service delivery, and even just their 
day-to-day operations online. And many nonprofits were not in a 
position to do so; they did not have the resources or the 
capability.
    When we look at workplace giving--a very important channel, 
since about $6 billion is given through workplace giving--
companies also face this challenge of shifting online because, 
in the past, workplace giving was done in person. They've had 
to quickly shift this giving opportunity online. So what we are 
looking at is an acceleration in innovation, and a need for 
greater reliance on technology for giving. And we are also 
seeing many nonprofits pivot, in other words, take advantage of 
these new technologies. But there is a lot more work that needs 
to be done, and I think as we look ahead, we are also going to 
need to think about some of the smaller organizations that have 
not necessarily adapted at such a rapid rate. What do they 
need? And religious congregations, we should also remember, 
many of them have had to start receiving donations online and 
may not have done so before.
    So what this highlights is just a gap in the need itself 
and where the organizations are in their move towards making it 
easy to give online.
    The Chairman. We are going to have to move on----
    Senator Young. Thank you, Doctor.
    The Chairman. I will tell Senator Young that his interest 
here is very welcome, because we are seeing something of a tech 
boomlet here as it relates to ways in which we can bring more 
value out of these incredibly important charitable deductions. 
So, good point.
    Senator Casey, and then we will go with Senator Daines.
    Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
panel. I apologize that I was not here for your testimony 
today. I had to chair the Aging Committee hearing and was not 
able to move between hearings. But I really appreciate you 
being here today.
    Like so many Senators, I have been a supporter of the 
nonprofit sector and policies that facilitate responsible 
charitable giving. I also want to commend the nonprofit sector 
for their work, especially through the past couple of years of 
this pandemic, as they continued to serve during both an 
economic crisis and a health crisis. Sixty-three thousands 
nonprofits in Pennsylvania employ 15 percent of the 
Commonwealth's workforce. So, in my home State, I can only 
extend my gratitude and respect for their work and their 
contributions.
    I just have two questions, one for Mr. Cardinali and one 
for Ms. Morgan. But I will start with you, Mr. Cardinali. You 
reference in your testimony the changing profile of charitable 
giving, mentioning that the share of individual contributions 
would have declined if it were not for the donations of a few 
wealthy individuals. In my home State of Pennsylvania, 
households give 2.7 percent of their income to charities, but 
charitable contributions and their associated subsidies are 
disproportionately skewing to top earners.
    We know that the ability to deduct charitable contributions 
from your taxable income serves as a real incentive to give. 
What are the forces behind this changing profile of giving?
    Mr. Cardinali. Thank you, Senator, for your leadership and 
support of the nonprofit sector. I have spent a lot of time in 
Pennsylvania in my years with communities and schools, and you 
and your colleagues have been remarkable.
    There are a couple of things that I want to mention about 
your question. I think if we think about the incentive--and I 
mentioned this earlier in my testimony, that the charitable 
deduction is giving your money away for somebody else, not 
buying a home, or being subsidized in any other way. So from a 
policy point of view, we believe that extending that incentive 
to everybody paying taxes is just good for community and good 
for America.
    Secondly, when the tax structure incentivizes those who are 
disproportionately economically better off, they will have a 
set of interests that might not be representative of the entire 
community. They might privilege organizations like 
universities, which I hold in high regard, or arts 
institutions, which are critically important to community. But 
they might not be in touch with or connected to organizations 
like food banks that could benefit immensely. And Ms. Morgan 
and I had breakfast yesterday morning, and she was talking 
about the number of donors that she had, and they are primarily 
small donors who are not currently incentivized by the tax 
code.
    So I think if we just think at a basic level regarding a 
tax code that could really pull this altruism into community, 
how could we not benefit from it?
    There is a second piece that I would like to mention about 
this point, and that is that when folks are incentivized to 
give, we know that they are then incentivized to volunteer. I 
ran an organization, Communities in Schools, with 4,000 staff 
and 40,000 to 60,000 volunteers. So without volunteers, we 
could not have developed an evidence-based intervention that 
mitigated the effects of poverty for K-12 students.
    So donations are directly related to supporting volunteers, 
which then is this public good that partners with government.
    Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
    Ms. Morgan, I am going to ask you my final question. You 
had, in your testimony, talked about the way the Federal 
Government can act to help organizations like the Oregon Food 
Bank to achieve your mission. And one statement in your 
testimony just leaped out at me, and I am quoting here: ``The 
Child Tax Credit alone drove down child poverty by an 
incredible 41 percent and reduced food insecurity by 26 
percent.''
    I think the first part of that, we have heard a lot of. A 
lot of people know because of the good work of Senator Brown, 
Senator Bennet. Working with the Finance chair, your home State 
Senator, Senator Wyden, the Child Tax Credit, the enhanced 
version of it, became a reality. We know it reduced poverty by 
that much, but we did not hear nearly enough about the 
reduction in food insecurity by 26 percent. So that is a 
positive action the Federal Government took in the passage of 
the Rescue Plan.
    We also know that in addition to the positive impact it 
had, it reminded us how much of someone's income can be spent 
on food. We are told that 60 percent of low-income families who 
receive the Child Tax Credit, the enhanced version, spent it on 
food; 16 percent spent it on child care. We have one more 
opportunity to take full advantage of the Rescue Plan in the 
next couple of weeks, and that is to make people aware of 
another, a separate tax credit, the Child and Dependent Care 
Tax Credit, which will allow families to get up to $4,000 per 
child, and up to $8,000 per household, to pay for child care.
    Anything else other than those? I know there are others you 
can mention, but I know we are out of time, so if you could 
just mention one or two things in addition that the Federal 
Government could invest in, and then I am done.
    Ms. Morgan. Thank you, Senator. I am not going to cite 
legislation for you because that is not my area of expertise, 
but I do want to say that you have amazing food banks in 
Pennsylvania--Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Harrisburg--that are 
wonderful partners. And I would like to just drive home the 
fact that hunger is a symptom. Its cause is poverty. And 
poverty itself has a cause, which is systemic inequities. It is 
not an accident that our communities of color are more likely 
to be hungry. It is not an accident that single moms are more 
likely to be hungry. It is because we have designed systems to 
prevent prosperity and allowed those to happen.
    And so I would say that actions like the ones that you have 
suggested, where we distribute wealth and tear down barriers to 
prosperity, are exactly what we need our Federal Government to 
do.
    Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague for all his good work.
    Dr. Steuerle. Can I just add one quick footnote?
    The Chairman. Very briefly. We still have Senator Daines 
and Senator Whitehouse, but go ahead, Doctor.
    Dr. Steuerle. This is just very brief, Senator. For 10 
years now I have sponsored at the Urban Institute an effort to 
put out something called Kids Share, and we measure what goes 
to kids in all these programs in the budget. So I would be glad 
to provide that to you. I should add as a footnote to that, 
that almost all programs for children are scheduled to decline 
relative to GDP over time in the budget by the way that they 
are structured.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    Senator Daines and then Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to first 
start off by thanking our nonprofits in Montana and across our 
country for truly their tireless work they have done serving 
our communities during the past 2 years, a couple of tough 
years. Needless to say there were a lot challenges, and I am 
grateful our nonprofits stepped up, and it is good to see.
    Montanans and Americans also stepped up to the plate. These 
nonprofits would not be having a better year without the fact 
that we had people who were very generous, contributing a total 
of $324 billion in 2020. That is a 2.2-percent increase from 
2019, and the highest total dollar amount ever. When including 
bequests, foundations, corporations, a total of $471 billion 
was donated to charity in 2020 in the middle of a pandemic. And 
the enactment of legislation like the Legacy IRA Act, which was 
introduced by Senators Cramer, Stabenow, Rosen, Cornyn, and 
myself, I believe would further boost charitable giving by 
expanding the amount that our seniors can give to charity tax-
free from their IRAs. The philanthropy of Americans certainly 
warms my heart and yours, but unfortunately Congress is not 
doing enough to police some bad actors out there who are 
abusing the charitable sections of the tax code.
    One area that comes to mind are the fraudulent, syndicated 
conservation easement transactions that we have seen accelerate 
over the past several years. In fact, just 2 weeks ago a grand 
jury returned an indictment against seven defendants for their 
role in an abusive syndicated conservation easement scheme. 
According to the indictment, the defendants and their co-
conspirators sold over $1.3 billion in false and fraudulent 
charitable contributions. I should have said ``deductions'' and 
not contributions there. These were essentially cookie-cutter 
deals in which investors were promised a 4 to 1 return on that 
money they invested within a matter of months. As explained in 
marketing material that accompanied the deal, an investor who 
contributed $100,000 to the scheme could receive $170,000 back 
within months of purchasing their syndication unit by claiming 
a $400,000 charitable deduction.
    The government has known about this very specific tax 
shelter for years, and yet it continues. According to the IRS, 
syndicators claimed nearly $36 billion in unwarranted 
deductions alone between 2010 and 2018, with $9.2 billion 
claimed in 2018.
    Senator Stabenow and I have legislation to put an end to 
these shady deals, which also has the support of the chairman, 
former chairman Grassley, and other members of the Finance 
Committee and the Senate. I believe Congress needs to pass our 
bill this year. The abuse needs to end. And just to be very 
clear, I am very much pro-conservation easements. In fact, 
Montana is one of the leading States. It is a great way to 
incentivize the private sector, private landowners in the 
realms of conservation. It is the abuse of these syndicates 
that is the issue.
    Dr. Steuerle, this is just one example of a few bad actors 
unlawfully profiting under the guise of philanthropy. My 
question for you is, what could be done to better protect the 
integrity of charitable laws, which I fully support?
    Dr. Steuerle. Senator, this is really a tough issue, but 
tax administration is something, as everyone on this committee 
knows, that does not get well funded. So one thing is just 
simply to increase the money that goes into tax administration.
    But another, which is really tough I think--and my 
testimony is largely about making tradeoffs--is, if we are 
willing to put in some tighter rules with respect to charitable 
contributions, how they are recognized, what can get by, we can 
use those resources to fund the types of incentives that 
members of this committee want to provide, as you yourself have 
talked about.
    I think that is a way to corral the charitable community to 
join with you in this effort. I think one of the dilemmas--and 
I am being quite blunt about it--is it is very hard for the 
community as a whole to speak out against, particularly, their 
members. They might speak out against the greatest abuses, but 
when it comes to some simplification, say we are only going to 
allow easements when they meet certain tough criteria, you will 
get feedback from those who are probably good actors who say, 
``Well, I don't want to bear the additional administrative 
costs.''
    So the way to win this battle is to offer a higher 
incentive, say put that money towards a better charitable 
incentive, and that way we can get the members of the 
charitable community to join with you in this effort. 
Otherwise, I think it is often a losing battle to just pretend 
that we can just hope that maybe a couple more dollars to IRS 
are going to solve the problem. IRS should have more resources, 
but that is not enough. You really have to get the charitable 
community behind the type of effort you are talking about.
    And I will mention some tradeoffs here in terms of 
reporting as well. It is also an issue with 990 reporting, 
which IRS delays getting out. The individual taxpayer is one of 
your best sources for information on what is going on. The 
better we get 990 reporting put out to the public as it is 
required to be, and on a timely basis, the better the 
individual taxpayer, the households out there, can join in your 
effort to create a stronger community.
    Senator Daines. I am out of time, but I will just end with 
a comment on good actors and bad actors. Again, there are many, 
many, many more good actors on conservation easements----
    Dr. Steuerle. I fully agree.
    Senator Daines. And they are fully behind this legislation, 
because it is a few bad actors here who are tainting the good 
efforts of our land trusts, and they are very supportive and 
would love to see this passed here, and I hope we can. We have 
a good bipartisan start here, and I hope we can get this signed 
into law. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, and I 
want him to know, as we have talked about this issue so often, 
I am in very strong support of this, as you know. Chairman 
Grassley and I led efforts to look into these kinds of abuses. 
So there have been four of us on this committee, two Democrats, 
two Republicans, and, Senator Daines, your point that you just 
explored here a minute ago is spot-on in the sense that we know 
how important these are in the West, where the Federal 
Government owns so much of our land, and we are talking about a 
small minority that unfortunately is really abusing a very 
valuable tool for the vast majority of folks, particularly 
Westerners, who use it in a thoughtful way.
    So I just want you to know, we are in this battle until we 
get it done. This a chance for the two of us to send a message 
to all the scofflaws out there, the people who are not willing 
to be in the majority and comply with the rules. And we are 
going to stay at it until we have fixed it.
    Senator Daines. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your 
support. I think I sense a movement.
    The Chairman. Not just a movement. You see a grassroots 
mobilization. And as you know, we have a lot of businesses with 
us--environmental folks, businesses, community leaders. So we 
are on it. Thank you.
    Senator Whitehouse, we have a vote on, and you may actually 
be at the vote.
    Senator Whitehouse. No, I am here.
    The Chairman. There you are. We are going to have Senator 
Whitehouse, and then we are going to finish up. After Senator 
Whitehouse is done, I will give a lengthy closing address of 
about 2 minutes.
    Senator Whitehouse?
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    My question has to do with donor-advised funds, and it is 
for Ms. Morgan. As you know, the connection between a 
charitable donation and the tax deduction for it is to 
encourage people for the benefit the public receives. With 
donor-advised funds, you have the predicament that the donor 
gets the deduction now, but the charitable benefit may not 
happen for years. And depending on a variety of circumstances, 
it may not happen actually ever.
    There is an estimated $140 billion set aside for future 
gifts in donor-advised funds with no requirements for the funds 
to actually be distributed to charities. And one study taking a 
look at donor-advised funds found that 35 percent of them did 
not make a single distribution in 2020, which was kind of a 
high-need year for charitable giving.
    So I am working with a number of my colleagues on trying to 
have a reform of donor-advised funds. I would like your 
thoughts on the importance of that. One of the pieces of 
pushback that we have gotten is that it creates a very 
significant administrative burden for the donor-advised funds, 
particularly ones that persist through time, where donations 
come in on year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4, year 5, and then 
donations are going out year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4, year 5, 
and you get into a very complicated piece of logistical 
tracking to try to identify when each dollar came in so you can 
find out when it went out, and whether it met the distribution 
requirements.
    So if I could ask for your thoughts generally on whether 
this is an area that you think needs attention, and 
specifically if you have ideas on ways to grapple with the 
tracking of timing of individual dollars, sort of an accounting 
predicament, I would be grateful to hear from you about that. 
And if anybody else cares to chime in, please--I do not want to 
extend the hearing, but please do feel free to send in 
responses if I have asked you a question for the record. Send 
in a written response.
    So with that, Ms. Morgan?
    Ms. Morgan. Thank you very much, Senator. I am sure that my 
colleagues at Independent Sector have a wealth of research on 
some very specific policy recommendations on this. From where I 
sit on the ground, we track our inventory like that. We get a 
donation of a truckload of oranges, we have to know when they 
show up and when they go out, and who they go to. So I am not 
particularly sympathetic to complex tracking requirements, 
because I live with them every day.
    Our sense is that hunger is a crisis right now. Before the 
pandemic, it was one in five Oregonians; it has gone up to as 
close to one in four during the pandemic. The idea that money 
is getting tucked away, that is not benefiting our neighbors, 
our communities, ourselves, right now is anathema to me. 
Philanthropy means the love of humankind. And the act of 
philanthropy is the act of showing love. Should there be 
charitable incentives to encourage them? Well, of course there 
should, like giving ice cream to a kid for getting a good grade 
on an exam. But the getting a good grade is a reward in itself, 
and participating in the community is a reward in itself.
    I believe that, in general, charities are with you, 
Senator, on the idea of the need for reform for donor-advised 
funds, and that it needs to be crafted carefully so that it 
does not have unintended consequences.
    Senator Whitehouse. Good. Well, thank you. I will use the 
last 30 seconds of my time to support what the chairman said 
about our common interest in making sure that conservation 
easements are used properly and honestly. My father is no 
longer with us, but he spent his retirement as chairman of the 
Piedmont Environmental Council, which at one point had the most 
dense array of conservation easements anywhere in the country, 
and he did an outstanding job of preserving that historic 
countryside. So I am a firm believer in the value of 
conservation easements and happy to be a part of Team Wyden and 
Team Daines on that.
    Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for all your 
leadership on environmental issues. Terrific panel. Thank you 
all so much.
    I especially want to thank my good friend Susannah Morgan 
for making the trek to Washington, DC, a trek of more than 
3,000 miles. She may beat me home, because it looks like I am 
going to be doing a red-eye tonight to make it to central 
Oregon first thing in the morning, but I really want to thank 
her for all her leadership.
    This is a terrific panel. Senator Crapo is, of course, the 
ranking minority member. He has been involved in a number of 
matters that have involved a negotiation this morning, and he 
really wanted to be here.
    We are going to work on this in a bipartisan way. That is 
the way we try to do everything that we possibly can. Now, it 
is not always possible, and I always kind of use that because, 
with respect to the Child Tax Credit, I went to the floor of 
the United States Senate in December, and I asked unanimous 
consent to extend the expiring Child Tax Credit for a year. And 
unfortunately, there was objection from the other side of the 
aisle.
    So then I came back in January, and I asked unanimous 
consent to again extend the Child Tax Credit for a year, and 
again there was an objection from the other side. So sometimes 
it is not possible. But I will tell you, there are a lot of 
opportunities right now for bipartisanship.
    You have given us an enormously important one as it relates 
to charitable giving. We are also working in a bipartisan way 
with respect to competing with China, mental health, retirement 
savings. So I really appreciate your giving us a very good 
update on what the challenges are.
    And apart from the fact that we are still coming out of a 
crisis, the pandemic, we want to give more certainty and 
predictability to all of you so that you are in a position to 
talk to workers, and donors, and others. That is where I think 
we stand, not just for the next 15 minutes, but for the days 
ahead.
    You have given us a lot of good ideas. Let me also say 
that, for the record, the questions are due on March 24th. 
Members have to submit their questions for the record by March 
24th. We thank all our guests again,
    With that, the Finance Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


                 Submitted by Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, 
                      a U.S. Senator From Maryland

                             Apra Maryland

March 16, 2022

Apra Maryland is the professional development and networking resource 
for 
Maryland-area fundraising professionals who harness information and 
data to drive philanthropy. With our 160 members, we urge your support 
of the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618/H.R. 
1704).

In March 2020, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security (CARES) Act, Congress enacted a $300 charitable deduction for 
Americans who do not itemize their Federal income taxes. In December 
2020, Congress extended this universal charitable deduction 
availability through 2021 and increased the cap to $600 for joint 
filers with the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020. 
Unfortunately, this important lifeline for Maryland's charitable 
nonprofits expired at the end of 2021.

The universal charitable deduction has been an essential aspect of 
COVID-19 pandemic relief for Maryland's 30,880 charitable nonprofits. 
The Association of Fundraising Professionals' Fundraising Effectiveness 
Project reported that in the last quarter of 2020, ``. . . general 
donors giving less than $250 have come out in a huge way during the 
pandemic'' with a ``+15.3% [year to date] change.''

The bipartisan Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 
618/H.R. 1704) would extend the availability of the universal 
charitable deduction through 2022, eliminate the current exclusion of 
gifts to donor-advised funds, and increase the maximum deduction to an 
amount not to exceed \1/3\ of the standard deduction.

Apra Maryland supports the extension and expansion of the universal 
charitable deduction and urges the Maryland Congressional Delegation to 
adopt legislation to that effect. We support S. 618/H.R. 1704, 
preferably with amendment to make a permanent universal charitable 
deduction, not to exceed \1/3\ of the standard deduction.

Thank you,
Theresa Clark
President

                                 ______
                                 
                Prepared Statement of Daniel Cardinali, 
                 President and CEO, Independent Sector
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to share a perspective from the nonprofit 
and charitable sector at today's hearing. I serve as president and CEO 
of Independent Sector, a national membership organization founded in 
1980 made up of nonprofits, foundations, and corporate giving programs 
nationwide. Working together, our approximately 500 member 
organizations and their networks reach every State and district and 
touch the life of every American in one or many ways. They range from 
some of the largest charities in the world to all-volunteer 
organizations, and from major philanthropic institutions to small 
foundations, academic centers, community-based organizations, and more. 
Independent Sector's core aim is to support these organizations and all 
civil society, working toward a healthy and equitable nonprofit sector 
to ensure all people living in the United States thrive.

    It is an honor to represent Independent Sector's members and the 
broader nonprofit sector along with my fellow witnesses today. Our 
sector's strength--like our Nation--lies in its diversity. With that in 
mind, I also strongly urge you to draw upon the vast wealth of 
knowledge and community-based context in comments submitted for the 
record by several of our member organizations and other leaders in the 
nonprofit sector, including the Girl Scouts of the USA, Council on 
Foundations, Association of Art Museum Directors, League of American 
Orchestras, Jewish Federations of North America, YMCA of the USA, 
United Way Worldwide, Opera America, Dance/USA, American Alliance of 
Museums, National Council of Nonprofits, National Health Council, 
Goodwill Industries International, Association of Fundraising 
Professionals, and Faith and Giving.
                   importance of the nonprofit sector
    Before considering the nonprofit sector's impact on the people it 
reaches, I ask you to consider its importance to something even more 
fundamental: representative democracy itself. In the course of their 
daily commitment to promoting the common good, the organizations that 
form our civil society nurture a marketplace of ideas analogous to the 
way that for-profit organizations sustain a marketplace of goods. 
Without either of these marketplaces, American democracy would be in 
grave peril. The fragility of democracy is on clear display around the 
globe, and nonprofit organizations play a critical role--within 
America's borders and beyond them.
Advancing Human Flourishing and Solving Problems Together
    Over our more than 250-year history as a Nation, civil society has 
been the place where young people are educated to realize their 
potential and contribute to society, cultural institutions enrich our 
lives and unleash our creativity, and religious institutions provide 
meaning and build community rooted in values. Without these essential 
institutions and community members leading and volunteering in them, 
our citizenry would be greatly diminished.

    The nonprofit sector is the place where people have been coming 
together to solve problems for as long as there has been a community to 
serve. Whether they are providing housing, health care, nutrition, 
workforce development, education, disaster relief, cultural 
inspiration, spiritual guidance, environmental conservation, or any 
number of other essential services, nonprofit organizations are run by 
community-based boards of directors. This means they have a keen and 
powerful sense of what holds a community together, what it needs, what 
it most values, and what might be pulling it apart. They offer an 
unmatched look at the fabric of community life in America.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged Americans like nothing else in 
our lifetime. As with any monumental challenge, the nonprofit sector 
has confronted this pandemic heroically and in innumerable ways. As 
just one example, the Bethlehem Inn in Bend, OR provides safe and 
inclusive shelter for men, women, and children across central Oregon 
who are working their way out of homelessness. Each year, the Inn has 
the capacity to compassionately serve 1,100 adults with shelter, 
nutritious meals, clothing, hygiene essentials, and opportunities for 
addiction counseling, life-skills training, and housing and employment 
applications. Throughout the pandemic and economic crisis, charitable 
support from the community helped keep the Bethlehem Inn's doors open. 
Not only did they continue providing services while taking precautions 
to successfully prevent a COVID-19 outbreak, but they also responded to 
profound community need by opening a second location that will continue 
providing opportunity for people who have fallen on hard times.

    The world has watched the crisis in Ukraine unfold in real time, 
but the nonprofit sector has not merely watched; it has sprung into 
action. Aided by the generosity of donors from around the world, 
nonprofits have provided emergency medical and humanitarian assistance 
within Ukraine, supported essential journalism, and offered nutrition, 
health, counseling, shelter, and more to an ever-growing number of 
Ukrainian refugees in bordering countries. The speed and effectiveness 
of the nonprofit sector's response could never be duplicated by 
government programs or well-meaning businesses.
Trusted Doer and Partner
    Nonprofit organizations are woven into and reflect the communities 
they serve, and they work every day to improve lives and build a 
brighter future. No sector is closer to the realities or the people on 
the ground or has as deep an understanding of the problems communities 
face. With this understanding and proximity comes the trust to drive 
innovation and collaboration to get things done.

    As a result, the nonprofit sector is an essential partner for 
government leaders with big goals. From health care to housing, 
education to environmental protection, government at every level relies 
on nonprofits to generate innovative new solutions and provide critical 
services throughout the country. This collaboration does not always 
properly recognize the expertise, capabilities, and needs of nonprofit 
organizations, and could be improved with additional structures and 
policies.
Economic Driver and Job Creator
    While the organizations and people that serve in the nonprofit 
sector are driven primarily by their charitable missions, they drive an 
essential part of the Nation's economy. Over 10 percent of the private 
workforce in the United States is employed by a nonprofit organization, 
and with more than 12 million paid workers, the nonprofit sector 
employs more people than the finance and real estate sectors combined, 
outpacing manufacturing at the national level and in 27 States. 
Further, these organizations pay $670 billion annually in wages, 
supporting families in communities across America.\1\ Despite its 
``tax-exempt'' moniker, the sector pays a significant amount of taxes; 
in 2010, 501(c)(3) organizations paid $35.2 billion in payroll 
taxes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Lester M. Salamon and Chelsea L. Newhouse, ``The 2020 Nonprofit 
Employment Report,'' Nonprofit Economic Data Bulletin no. 48. 
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, June 2020).
    \2\ National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), the Urban 
Institute, the Nonprofit Almanac 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     health of the nonprofit sector
    Last fall, Independent Sector published our second annual ``Health 
of the U.S. Nonprofit Sector''\3\ report--an evolving resource that 
collects the most current data on the health of the U.S. nonprofit 
sector across multiple dimensions in a single, accessible format. While 
there are many ways to assess the health of a system as large and 
complex as the nonprofit sector, the report focuses on health 
indicators in four categories: Financial Resources, Human Capital, 
Governance and Trust, and Public Policy and Advocacy. These are the 
lenses through which Independent Sector considers trends in the 
nonprofit sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Grayson et al., ``Health of the U.S. Nonprofit Sector,'' 
Independent Sector, October 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Resources
    Much like for-profit counterparts, the pandemic deeply disrupted 
the finances of many nonprofit organizations as fee-for-service and 
other earned revenue evaporated and COVID-19 precautions increased the 
cost of operations. Organizations that historically relied on in-person 
fundraising events faced particularly acute challenges. Unlike for-
profit businesses however, nonprofits saw a huge surge in demand for 
assistance as their communities confronted immense health and economic 
challenges.

    If nonprofit costs have increased as a result of the pandemic while 
earned revenue has decreased, revenue from charitable donations has 
been more difficult to assess, in part because it is distributed 
unevenly across the nonprofit sector. According to Giving USA, total 
charitable giving increased in 2020, although donations from 
individuals would have dropped without the broad and robust giving of 
one particular donor. According to the Fundraising Effectiveness 
Project, charitable giving through the third quarter of 2021 largely 
kept pace with 2020 levels, with a small decrease in the number of 
donors and a small increase in the total amount in donations. Another 
recent study from researchers at American University and George Mason 
University found no significant increase in giving to organizations led 
by or serving communities of color in 2020 or 2021, despite increased 
attention on their missions.

    While the trends in dollars donated over the past 2 years may be 
somewhat varied, the longer-term trajectory of the number of Americans 
donating is clear and alarming. Twenty million fewer American 
households gave to charity from 2000-2016, a decline of 13 percent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Chelsea Jacqueline Clark, Xiao Han, and Una O. Osili, Changes 
to the Giving Landscape (Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Lilly 
Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Capital and Workforce
    The nonprofit sector is powered by people, including nearly 12 
million employees as well as approximately 70 million volunteers who 
step up to serve their communities in various ways. During the worst of 
the recent economic crisis, nonprofit organizations lost over 1.6 
million jobs and the sector was still missing approximately 459,000 
jobs as of December 2021,\5\ the most recent estimate available. While 
the economy as a whole has recovered more than 90 percent of lost jobs, 
the nonprofit sector lags at merely 72 percent and is not likely to 
break even until the end of 2022. These lost and missing jobs have 
particular ramifications for women, who make up approximately \2/3\ of 
the nonprofit sector's workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ COVID-19 December Jobs Update, Johns Hopkins University Center 
for Civil Society Studies, January 2022.

    Importantly, these job loss numbers are the work of nonprofit 
researchers and reflect highly informed estimates based on 2017 data. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes quarterly data about a wide 
range of sectors and subsectors, but the nonprofit sector only receives 
such data every 5 years unless charitable resources are diverted to 
purchase the data from the Bureau. Although this issue is beyond the 
Finance Committee's jurisdiction, the lack of regular government data 
about the third-largest workforce in America is deeply unfair and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
constrains the ability of policymakers to respond to changing needs.

    While trends in America's non-stipend volunteer force (as opposed 
to AmeriCorps participants, for example) are somewhat more difficult to 
measure, it too plays a vital role in helping the nonprofit sector 
serve those in need. One recent report found that 66 percent of 
volunteers had decreased the amount of time they volunteer or stopped 
entirely due to the pandemic.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The Role of Volunteering in Philanthropy, Fidelity Charitable, 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governance and Trust
Public trust is the currency upon which nonprofits conduct their work. 
The extent to which the public believes nonprofits lead ethically and 
transparently impacts whether individuals will invest in or utilize 
services from nonprofits. While trust in a wide range of institutions 
hovers near historic lows, it is encouraging to see that 84 percent of 
recent survey respondents said they were confident in the ability of 
nonprofits to strengthen American society. The greater role nonprofit 
organizations play in people's lives, the more trusted they become.

    While trust is a key currency for any individual nonprofit 
organization, it is also important to the health of the nonprofit 
sector as a whole. It is for this reason that Independent Sector 
strongly supports appropriate oversight of the nonprofit sector and 
condemns those would abuse our sector for private gain. In addition to 
appropriate legal requirements and enforcement, Independent Sector is 
committed to a robust practice of self-regulation within the nonprofit 
sector. We were proud to work with this committee in the mid-2000s to 
establish the Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, the work of which lives on 
in The Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice--33 
principles of sound practice for charitable organizations and 
foundations related to legal compliance and public disclosure, 
effective governance, financial oversight, and responsible fundraising.
Policy and Advocacy
    Nonprofits are a critical conduit of information between 
policymakers and the communities they serve, and Independent Sector 
believes deeply that policy education and appropriate advocacy is 
critical to a healthy nonprofit sector. The health of our sector's 
advocacy efforts can be partially demonstrated by concrete--if 
incomplete--victories in Federal policy in recent years, including 
access to Paycheck Protection Program loans, payroll tax credits for 
COVID-19-related sick leave and employee retention, and the creation of 
a nonitemizer charitable deduction for the first time in decades. 
However, our understanding of how many nonprofits do this work and the 
barriers they experience is badly outdated. Independent Sector is 
commissioning a comprehensive survey of nonprofits this year to answer 
these questions, the first of its kind in 22 years.
                          urgent policy needs
    To ensure that the nonprofit sector can continue to foster 
individual and collective flourishing and provide essential services to 
communities in need, Independent Sector respectfully asks for 
consideration of the following legislative proposals under the 
committee's jurisdiction:

Restore the Nonitemizer Deduction and Significantly Increase or 
        Eliminate the Cap
    The tax code reflects our Nation's values, and has provided a tax 
deduction for charitable contributions for over 100 years. In 2020, the 
nonitemizer deduction--created in the CARES Act and subsequently 
extended through 2021--provided a charitable deduction for taxpayers 
who do not itemize up to $300 for single filers and eventually expanded 
to $600 for joint filers. This new incentive was a powerful statement 
that every American has a role to play in lifting up our communities. 
While the charitable impulse comes from the heart, tax incentives 
clearly make a difference. On December 31, 2020, donations of exactly 
$300--then the cap for both individuals and households--increased by 28 
percent.\7\ The charitable sector was deeply disappointed that 
congressional inaction allowed the nonitemizer deduction to expire at 
the end of last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Fundraising Effectiveness Project, 2020 Fourth Quarter Report.

    Rather than being just for the wealthy, charitable giving should be 
an activity that brings a community together, strengthening social 
bonds and a sense of belonging, even in our differences. For example, 
the Idaho Nonprofit Center coordinates an annual initiative--Idaho 
Gives--that generates nearly $4 million in donations to roughly 600 
Idaho charities. The event has an average donation of $250 and the 
Idaho Food bank notes that each charitable dollar provides enough food 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for five meals to those in need.

    I urge you--in the strongest possible terms--to restore the 
nonitemizer charitable deduction quickly, and to significantly increase 
or eliminate the cap in order to strengthen our social bonds and to 
help generate the scale of giving America needs at this moment. 
Independent Sector is grateful to the sponsors and cosponsors of the 
Universal Charitable Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618, 
H.R. 1704), including members of this committee--Senators Lankford, 
Cortez Masto, Tim Scott, Stabenow, and Hassan. We have been proud to 
work for the enactment of this critical--if temporary--response to the 
myriad challenges faced by our Nation.

    On a more permanent basis, there are a number of different ways to 
create a powerful incentive for every American to give to charity. 
Independent Sector commissioned research--in partnership with Dr. Osili 
and some of her colleagues at the Indiana University Lilly Family 
School of Philanthropy--about what those options could mean in terms of 
dollars given to charity as well as the number of donors.\8\ The number 
of donors is sometimes overlooked, but it means a great deal in policy 
design for at least three reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Charitable giving and tax incentives: Estimating changes in 
charitable dollars and number of donors for five policy proposals, 
Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2019.

        It is hugely important for the health of our civil society 
that nonprofits are funded by the broadest possible segment of the 
population.\9\ A charitable sector that is funded only by the wealthy 
will look very different and will serve America very differently, with 
ramifications for governance, trust, and the types of organizations and 
activities that receive funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Ashely, Shena. ``Why the Decline in Individual Donors Should 
Matter to Institutional Philanthropy--and What to Do about It.'' 
Nonprofit Quarterly. December 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Charitable giving is a lifelong habit, and today's small-
dollar donors may one day become major philanthropic partners. If the 
charitable deduction is only available for a tiny subset of taxpayers, 
we will fail to build the next generation of givers.
        Increasing the number of donors could have a profound impact 
on the nonprofit sector by bolstering the volunteer force. Households 
that made a donation to any charity during the course of a year were at 
least three times more likely to volunteer at a nonprofit in their 
community.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Bergdoll, Jonathan, Indiana University Lilly Family School of 
Philanthropy. Unpublished analysis of 2019 data from the Panel Study of 
Income Dynamics, public use dataset. Produced and distributed by the 
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 
2021. Dietz, Nathan, University of Maryland Do Good Institute. 
Unpublished analysis of U.S. Census Current Population Survey Volunteer 
Supplement, September 2015.

    It is also important to keep in mind the unique nature of the 
charitable deduction. Unlike incentives to save for retirement or 
purchase a home, for example, the charitable deduction encourages 
behavior for which a taxpayer receives no direct tangible benefit. The 
charitable deduction does not subsidize personal consumption or 
underwrite the accumulation of personal wealth. It simply and 
effectively encourages taxpayers to give away a portion of their income 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to benefit others.

    Finally, restoring and expanding the nonitemizer deduction is 
extremely popular. In December, Independent Sector released polling 
showing that 88 percent of American voters want to see a permanent 
nonitemizer deduction, while 74 percent support raising the cap to the 
level envisioned in S. 618, with greater than 70 percent support across 
every income level and all political identifications.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Selected Nonprofit Policy Issues: Public Polling, Independent 
Sector, December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted Action to Further Boost Charitable Giving
    In addition to a broad-based nonitemizer deduction, there are 
further policy levers that this committee can use to unlock additional 
charitable giving. Independent Sector was proud to work with Congress 
and our members for over a decade in support of the IRA charitable 
rollover provision, which was eventually made permanent in the PATH Act 
as part of Public Law 114-113.

    A recent bipartisan proposal, the Legacy IRA Act (S. 243), would 
broaden access to this giving vehicle by enabling seniors to make tax-
free contributions from their individual retirement accounts (IRA) to 
charities through life-income plans. With many Americans unable to 
afford to give away their retirement income during their lifetimes, 
this would give prospective donors one more critical way to invest in 
the common good in a way that works for them. Independent Sector was 
pleased to support a modified version of the Legacy IRA Act that was 
included in the Securing a Strong Retirement Act (H.R. 2954), and we 
urge the committee to include S. 243 in any retirement legislation that 
you consider.

    Additionally, I urge Congress to restore two other disaster relief 
provisions that expired at the end of 2021: the ability for individuals 
who itemize on their taxes to deduct up to 100 percent of their 
adjusted gross income for charitable contributions, and the ability of 
corporations to deduct up to 25 percent of taxable income. With 
continued widespread economic disruption, some potential donors with 
highly variable income could be hamstrung by the lower limits now in 
effect and reduce their giving accordingly.
Restore the Employee Retention Tax Credit and Adapt it to Better Suit 
        Nonprofit 
        Organizations

    Congress created an Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) in the 
CARES Act to respond to the pandemic, subsequently expanding and 
extending it through 2021. In a long overdue recognition of nonprofit 
employers, the ERTC functions as a credit against payroll tax 
liability--unlike some prior disaster relief income tax credits that 
offered our sector no benefit. Independent Sector is deeply grateful to 
this committee for that recognition. As a result, the ERTC has been a 
critical lifeline, allowing nonprofit organizations to continue serving 
their community in the face of immense financial challenges throughout 
the pandemic. Its early and retroactive termination in the middle of 
the fourth quarter of 2021 was extremely disruptive to charitable 
missions and operations throughout our sector, given that organizations 
had planned for the expiration of the credit at the end of 2021. While 
the lost jobs caused by its early termination reflect families that 
lost a paycheck, they also point to an issue of even greater urgency--
unmet community needs.

    That unmet need is particularly urgent as nonprofit organizations 
struggle to recruit and retain staff. Alarmingly, 42 percent of 
nonprofit organizations responding to a recent survey had job opening 
rates of higher than 20 percent, as they grapple with challenges 
including salary competition and inability to find child care.\12\ I 
urge you to restore the Employee Retention Tax Credit, to adjust the 
``gross receipts'' test to more accurately reflect the resources 
available to sustain nonprofit operations, and to expand eligible 
payroll expenses to include child care and tuition assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ The Scope and Impact of Nonprofit Workforce Shortages, 
National Council of Nonprofits, December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolster the Volunteer Force by Increasing the Charitable Mileage Rate
    Independent Sector strongly supported the investment of an 
additional $1 billion last year in national service through AmeriCorps, 
but it is concerning that no similar attention has been paid to the 
non-stipend volunteer force. In addition to data indicating that 
volunteering has lagged in the past 2 years, recent press reports have 
highlighted recent volunteer shortages at food banks, affordable 
housing organizations, meal delivery operations, and other key 
charitable service providers. Congress cannot compel Americans to 
volunteer, but it can encourage this vital practice in one instance by 
treating volunteer drivers more fairly. I urge you to increase the 
Charitable Mileage Rate for nonprofit volunteer drivers from its 
painfully low statutory rate of 14 cents per mile to the same rate for 
businesses (58.5 cents per mile) for 2022, and to eliminate the tax on 
mileage reimbursements up to the business rate.
Provide a Seat at the Table for the Nonprofit Sector
    While the other solutions I have called for today fall squarely 
within this committee's focus on tax issues, there is a further set of 
policy solutions that are needed to strengthen the partnership between 
the nonprofit sector and the Federal Government as a whole. These 
solutions--which we refer to as the Seat at the Table Initiative--would 
create mechanisms that leverage the mission, knowledge, and impact of 
nonprofits to help government and the nonprofit sector work together 
more effectively in pursuit of shared goals.

    Specifically, we call for the creation of a White House Office on 
Nonprofit Sector Partnership, as well as an Interagency Council, two 
structures that will allow policymakers access to data, reporting, and 
front-line, community-specific expertise from nonprofits so they can 
better assist constituents. These bodies, along with a proposed Federal 
Advisory Board made up of nonprofit leaders, would also ensure 
nonprofits nationwide are equipped to produce better policies and 
better results for the American people. Additionally, the initiative 
contains other policy measures that would support the partnership 
between government and the nonprofit sector, including: releasing 
quarterly nonprofit economic data, reducing paperwork for nonprofits to 
register and fundraise in multiple States, increasing access to 
national service, as well as assessing grant and contracting processes.
                               conclusion
    Once again, thank you for convening this hearing and for the honor 
of representing Independent Sector's members before the committee. 
These are trying and tumultuous times for legislators, the nonprofit 
sector, and the Nation. May they serve as a reminder that our sector's 
work is never over and always deeply urgent. Congress--much like its 
partners in the nonprofit sector--has responded to national crises over 
the past few years in unique ways. Now is not the time to walk away 
from that work, but to build upon it. Expanding the charitable 
deduction so that it is available to every American--along with other 
targeted investments in the nonprofit sector--will broaden 
participation in civil society and unleash the power of nonprofit 
organizations to ensure that all people living in the United States 
thrive.

                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted for the Record to Daniel Cardinali
                  Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
    Question. During the hearing, we discussed challenges facing the 
nonprofit sector, including the changes to the tax law in 2017, which 
resulted in a decreased tax incentive to give to charity, and a 
reduction in the number of taxpayers eligible to claim the charitable 
deduction. In 2019, just 11 percent of taxpayers claimed itemized 
deductions, with fewer actually claiming the charitable deduction. In 
your testimony, you suggested that the number of donors declined and 
that donations are distributed unevenly across the nonprofit sector.

    Are there certain kinds of organizations that have been 
particularly affected?

    Answer. Thank you for your leadership in convening this hearing. 
Without swift action, charities of every type will continue to be 
negatively affected by the expiration of the nonitemizer deduction and 
communities will be deprived of critical resources. It is hugely 
important for the health of our civil society that nonprofits are 
funded by the broadest possible segment of the population. A charitable 
sector that is funded only by the wealthy will serve America very 
differently, with ramifications for governance, trust, and the types of 
organizations and activities that receive funding.

    I believe that a charitable deduction available only to itemizers 
will punish organizations whose donors tend to come from States with 
lower itemization rates. This construct would also likely punish 
organizations based in rural and low-income areas, as the donors in 
their area may tend to have fewer deductions and be less likely to 
itemize.

    When considering which kinds of organizations are affected, I would 
direct the committee to the most recent Study of Charitable Giving by 
Affluent Households, published by the Lilly Family School of 
Philanthropy at Indiana University in 2021.\1\ I defer to Dr. Osili's 
analysis of this report, but would note that section 5 of the report 
clearly illustrates affluent households giving to a wide range of 
nonprofit causes and organization types with basic needs and religion 
topping the list. According to data on page 36, eight different 
categories received support from more than 25 percent of affluent 
households. Generous donors are generous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Accessed at https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/
1805/26654/bank-america-sept21.pdf.

    Furthermore, while I remain gravely concerned about the 
implications of a shrinking donor pool for American civil society, any 
analysis that focuses solely on giving by subsector or organization 
type is necessarily incomplete. Organizations deemed to be higher 
education institutions in any particular analysis are also likely 
making profound contributions to their community's workforce 
development or its health-care access. Nonprofits that may be recorded 
as arts organizations may be simultaneously making contributions of 
spiritual inspiration, youth development, and medical education to 
their communities, to name a few. Independent Sector appreciates your 
support for the full fabric of the charitable sector, and we look 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forward to working with you.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
    Question. Your written statement mentions Independent Sector's 2021 
report, Health of the U.S. Nonprofit Sector, which contains helpful 
data, analysis, and recommendations around the nonprofit sector.

    Can you discuss the overall health of the nonprofit sector since 
March 2020?

    Answer. Thank you for your leadership in convening this hearing. 
Our Health of the U.S. Nonprofit Sector report focuses on health 
indicators in four categories: Financial Resources, Human Capital, 
Governance and Trust, and Public Policy and Advocacy. As you note, 
there is additional information about these four lenses in my written 
testimony and the full report is available on Independent Sector's 
website.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://independentsector.org/nonprofithealth/.

    In summary, losses of earned revenue and unpredictable fundraising 
have combined with increased community demand and the cost of disrupted 
operations to strain the nonprofit sector's financial resources since 
March 2020. Our sector faces severe human capital challenges, having 
lost 1.6 million jobs during the worst of the pandemic and recovering 
much more slowly than the economy as a whole. Trust in the nonprofit 
sector increased in 2020 as the public observed nonprofits serving on 
the front lines of the global pandemic and economic crisis, but this 
appears to have been a temporary increase. I look forward to sharing 
2022 figures when they are released later this month. The health of our 
sector's advocacy efforts can be partially demonstrated by a number of 
concrete--if incomplete--victories in Federal policy in recent years, 
although we seek a fuller assessment as part of comprehensive advocacy 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
research that Independent Sector is commissioning this year.

    Question. In your statement, you mentioned the Legacy IRA Act, 
highlighting the ability for individuals to give using their retirement 
accounts. Considering the Finance Committee is working on a 
comprehensive retirement savings package, you have raised this point at 
an opportune time. I know your member organizations benefit from every 
type of giving, but my sense is that this type of giving may be 
overlooked.

    Can you explain how important giving through retirement accounts is 
to your members?

    Do you have relevant data that you could share with the Finance 
Committee?

    Answer. Giving through retirement accounts is very important for 
Independent Sector's members and nonprofit organizations nationwide 
since the number of retirees in the country is rapidly growing. It is 
expected that 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65 every day through 2030, 
and those over 65 now represent 15 percent of the total population.\3\ 
Coincidently, this is the average age of a donor in the United States 
as of 2021.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ How Women and Men Give Around Retirement. Pg. 3. The Women's 
Philanthropy Institute. Indiana University Lilly Family School of 
Philanthropy, https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/
16758/wpi-retirement-july18.pdf.
    \4\ 2022 Report on Qualified Charitable Distributions from IRAs. 
Pg. 15. FreeWill, https://www.freewill.com/qcd-report-2022.

    Since 2006 when charitable giving through Individual Retirement 
Accounts (IRAs) or Qualified Charitable Distributions (QCDs) was 
established and ultimately made permanent through the Protecting 
Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act, it has remained one of the crucial 
fundraising avenues for nonprofit organizations. Among the many planned 
gift options retirees have, the QCD at age 70\1/2\ incentivizes greater 
charitable giving while it mitigates or eliminates the income tax on 
the withdrawal. Americans donated an estimated $471.44 billion in 2020. 
Out of that record number of donations, $41.19 billion were donations 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bequest according to the Giving USA 2021 report.

    Over the last few years, nonprofits have seen a surge in the number 
of QCD gifts coming into their organizations. According to the 2022 
Report on Qualified Charitable Distributions from IRAs, 71 percent of 
organizations that received QCDs in 2021 said they fundraised more than 
$10,000 through these gifts. Nearly one-third said that they received 
more than $50,000 in total from QCDs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 2022 Report on Qualified Charitable Distributions from IRAs. 
Pg. 33. FreeWill, https://www.freewill.com/qcd-report-2022.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
    Question. Nonprofits make up the fourth-biggest industry in 
Washington State, with more than 30,000 organizations and 238,000 
nonprofit employees. Like too many industries, nonprofits across my 
State were decimated when the pandemic hit and had to cut staff. And 2 
years later they are still struggling. In Washington nonprofit 
employment is still down 6 percent below pre-pandemic levels, after 
dropping 9 percent in early 2020. These are organizations that have 
been on the frontline throughout the pandemic helping people find 
access to housing, food, child care, and more, and they need our 
support.

    One of the most effective measures we took in the CARES Act was to 
provide a payroll tax credit of up to $5,000 per employee for 
businesses that were hard hit by the pandemic, to help keep people 
employed. But unfortunately the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law repealed 
the ERTC for the fourth quarter of 2021 as a pay-for, leaving 
nonprofits without one of the key tools they had to retain staff. I am 
a big believer in payroll tax credits as an incentive to sustain a 
workforce. It's why I worked to create a similar program for our 
aerospace workforce in the American Rescue Plan.

    What has been the impact of the repeal of the Employee Retention 
Tax Credit on nonprofit employment? Are you already seeing nonprofits 
having to lay off staff or leave open positions?

    If we could extend the ERTC through the end of this year, what 
impact would that have to get nonprofits back to their pre-pandemic 
levels?

    Answer. I share your support for the Employee Retention Tax Credit 
(ERTC) and your concern about nonprofit job losses. In a long-overdue 
recognition of nonprofit employers, the ERTC functions as a credit 
against payroll tax liability--unlike some prior disaster relief income 
tax credits that offered our sector no benefit. Independent Sector is 
deeply grateful for that recognition. As a result, the ERTC was a 
critical lifeline, allowing nonprofit organizations to continue serving 
their community in the face of immense financial challenges throughout 
the pandemic. Its early and retroactive termination in the middle of 
the fourth quarter of 2021 was extremely disruptive to charitable 
missions and operations throughout our sector, given that organizations 
had planned for the expiration of the credit at the end of 2021. It is 
difficult to predict whether restoring ERTC would provide enough 
support to help recover the more than 450,000 jobs that were still 
missing from the nonprofit sector at most recent estimate. While the 
lost jobs caused by early termination reflect families that lost a 
paycheck, they also point to an issue of even greater urgency--unmet 
community needs.

    That unmet need is particularly urgent as nonprofit organizations 
struggle to recruit and retain staff. Alarmingly, 42 percent of 
nonprofit organizations responding to a recent survey had job opening 
rates of higher than 20 percent, as they grapple with challenges 
including salary competition and inability to find child care.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The Scope and Impact of Nonprofit Workforce Shortages, National 
Council of Nonprofits, December 2021.

    Question. There are over 1.3 million charitable nonprofits in the 
United States, employing 12.3 million people. But of course their 
impact goes far beyond their economic footprint--they are there again 
and again to step in to help those in need when they have nowhere else 
to turn. And nonprofits are also the recipients and implementors of so 
much of what we fund here in the Federal Government, from homeless 
services to environmental restoration. But despite the scale and 
importance of the nonprofit industry, there is no unified approach from 
the Federal Government to addressing the needs and support charitable 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nonprofits.

    What steps could the executive branch take to better coordinate 
policy across agencies to support the needs of charitable nonprofits?

    Would the creation of a Federal task force or dedicated White House 
office be useful to better support nonprofits?

    Answer. Despite its scale and unique understanding of community 
needs, you are correct that the nonprofit sector is often on the 
``outside looking in'' when Federal policies are decided, and there is 
absolutely no unified approach. There is no equivalent to the Small 
Business Administration for nonprofits, the Nation's third-largest 
employment sector. Nonprofits do play a key role as implementers of 
Federal policy, but--with the right systems in place--their deep 
community trust and on-the-ground expertise could make them true 
partners to the Federal Government. Independent Sector has worked with 
our members and partners throughout the nonprofit sector to develop an 
initiative comprised of structures and policies that would truly give 
nonprofits a proverbial seat at the table. We expect similar bipartisan 
legislation to be introduced in the House of Representatives very soon.

    A White House Office on Nonprofit Sector Partnership would ensure 
policies are designed with an understanding of the sector's capacity to 
realize critical priorities in a way that maximizes the benefit to 
communities. Coordinating policies across Federal agencies through an 
interagency council would streamline information sharing for both 
agency staff and nonprofit organizations, allowing nonprofits to spend 
more time on their missions and helping Federal agencies work with our 
sector more smoothly. This is particularly urgent for organizations 
that participate in government contracting, with a recent survey 
finding that government funding covers only about 70 cents on the 
dollar for these organizations' direct program expenses.\7\ Finally, we 
believe that a Federal advisory board on the nonprofit sector would 
allow policymakers access to data, reporting, and frontline, community-
specific expertise from nonprofits so they can better assist 
constituents and design more effective policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ A National Imperative, Alliance for Strong Families and 
Communities (since changed name to Social Current), 2017.

    Importantly, this initiative calls for other key policies as well. 
Streamlining multi-State fundraising registration, providing regular 
employment and workforce data about the nonprofit sector, and 
broadening access to national service programs would all help give the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nonprofit sector a seat at the table.

    Question. As you're aware, charitable organizations depend on 
volunteers to help deliver vital programs and services in local 
communities. However, the number of volunteers in the nonprofit sector 
have not returned to pre-pandemic levels.

    Prior to the pandemic, the annual volunteerism rate in Washington 
State was over 35 percent, contributing 202 million hours of service 
valued at nearly $5 billion. In November 2020, the University of 
Washington reported that volunteerism rates among Washington State 
nonprofits had decreased by 30-50 percent, harming their ability to 
operate at full capacity just when their services were needed most.

    Nonprofits have been essential to helping or local communities 
during the pandemic, even as they faced health risks, labor shortages, 
and operational challenges themselves. I think that it is important 
that we are able to support charitable nonprofits and address this 
volunteerism shortage.

    There have been some suggestions on how to boost volunteerism like 
increasing the charity mileage rate to bring it in line with the 
business mileage rate. What steps do you think Congress should take to 
incentivize more people to volunteer?

    Answer. Thank you for highlighting the roughly 70 million 
volunteers who step up to serve the nonprofit sector and their 
communities in various ways. The challenges you cite in your State are 
echoed in national survey data and press reports, as my testimony 
mentions. Independent Sector strongly supported the investment of an 
additional $1 billion last year in national service through AmeriCorps, 
but it is concerning that no similar attention has been paid to the 
non-stipend volunteer force.

    Increasing the charitable mileage rate to the business rate, as you 
suggest, would be a critical first step and would send a strong message 
about the importance of volunteering at a time when many Americans are 
stretching to make ends meet. We support recently introduced 
legislation, the Volunteer Driver Tax Appreciation Act (H.R. 7432), 
which would increase the mileage rate for volunteers who are 
transporting passengers or property on behalf of a charity.

    Additionally, Congress should allocate at least $250 million in 
Federal funding to: (1) support the creation and launch of a nationally 
scaled digital platform to connect, mobilize, and support volunteer 
networks across the Nation, particularly those in long-underserved 
communities; and (2) to build the internal capacity of nonprofit 
organizations to effectively develop and engage volunteers. In the 
longer term, Congress can design additional solutions to boost 
volunteerism if it directs the Bureau of Labor Statistics and 
AmeriCorps to improve data collection and analysis of volunteerism.

                                 ______
                                 
               Question Submitted by Hon. Debbie Stabenow
    Question. Charitable giving has remained relatively stable compared 
to GDP over the last several decades, but studies have suggested that 
the proportion of individual donors has been declining. The nonprofit 
sector has provided enormous support to communities across the country, 
while many families, who may normally donate to their local nonprofits, 
are facing their own struggles and economic hardships during this 
unprecedented crisis.

    Charitable IRA rollovers provide an important option for seniors to 
donate. In your testimony, you advocated for the Legacy IRA Act (S. 
243), introduced by Senator Cramer and me, which would expand 
charitable IRA rollovers.

    What would the expansion of charitable rollovers, specifically 
enactment of the Legacy IRA Act, mean for both seniors who want to 
donate and the nonprofits that receive those donations?

    Answer. We are grateful for your leadership on this issue. If 
enacted, the Legacy IRA Act (S. 243) would broaden access to this 
giving vehicle by enabling seniors to make tax-free contributions from 
their individual retirement accounts (IRA) to charities through life-
income plans. With many Americans unable to afford to give away their 
retirement income during their lifetimes, this would give prospective 
donors one more critical way to invest in the common good in a way that 
works for them. After the donor passes away, the remaining amount is 
used by the charity for their mission. Independent Sector was pleased 
to support a modified version of the Legacy IRA Act that was included 
in the Securing a Strong Retirement Act (H.R. 2954), and we urge the 
Senate Finance Committee to include S. 243 in any retirement 
legislation.

    The Legacy IRA Act would mean donors could have a greater impact 
and nonprofits would have more funds to continue their crucial work. 
Nonprofits are estimated to see overall giving increase by $1 billion 
if this bill becomes law, according to the 2022 Report on Qualified 
Charitable Distributions from IRAs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 2022 Report on Qualified Charitable Distributions from IRAs. 
Pg. 30. FreeWill, https://www.freewill.com/qcd-report-2022.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse
    Question. The deduction for charitable donations is meant to 
encourage contributions that benefit the public. With donor-advised 
funds, the donor gets the deduction now, but the charitable benefit may 
not happen for years.

    Are there any reforms to donor-advised funds that should be 
considered?

    Answer. Donor-advised funds are important charitable giving 
vehicles worthy of serious conversations within the sector and with 
policymakers about whether there is opportunity to improve their 
operation and oversight. Upon the introduction of the Accelerating 
Charitable Efforts Act (S. 1981), Independent Sector brought the 
legislation and other associated policies to our public policy 
committee, and hosted a series of webinars to educate, present multiple 
perspectives, and hear reactions directly from the charitable sector. 
We will use the information we heard from experts, researchers, our 
network, and colleague organizations to evaluate any proposals using 
three key perspectives. We believe that any legislation in this area 
should (1) protect public trust in philanthropy and the broader 
nonprofit sector; (2) improve equitable practices in philanthropy; and 
(3) preserve the amount of charitable resources flowing into the 
sector.

    President Biden's Fiscal Year 2023 budget request includes a 
proposal limiting the ability of a private foundation distribution to a 
donor-advised fund to be considered a qualifying distribution for the 
purposes of its annual five percent payout requirement. Independent 
Sector believes that public trust is a critical asset for our sector, 
and it is important that nonprofits uphold the spirit of the laws that 
govern them--including the 5-percent payout rule for private 
foundations--to help preserve that trust. We appreciate the President's 
budget request recognizing that policy change is needed to address this 
issue. We look forward to working with policymakers, alongside other 
philanthropic and charitable organizations, to determine if this 
specific proposal is the best solution for philanthropy, grantees, and 
communities.

    Question. We have heard that reforms which require tracking when 
donations come in and when they are distributed from donor-advised 
funds can be an administrative burden.

    Do you have ideas for ameliorating any administrative burden that 
may exist?

    Answer. We appreciate your focus on reducing administrative burden 
for nonprofit organizations in this context and others. Although I am 
not an expert in this area, it is my understanding that charitable 
nonprofits that sponsor a donor-advised fund do generally have policies 
on inactive funds, which necessitate some tracking of donations. Any 
new reporting or tracking requirements that impose a cumbersome 
administrative burden would take away from the resources of the 
organization needed to support their charitable mission. Independent 
Sector would be glad to work with you and other organizations in our 
sector to reduce the administrative burden of any policy changes.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Chuck Grassley
    Question. In December 22, 2020, I released the results of an 
investigation conducted by my staff into the relationship between World 
Vision, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and the Islamic Relief 
Agency, which had been sanctioned by the U.S. Government. My 
investigation concluded in part, ``A more robust and fundamentally 
sound system of screening and vetting is needed to restore the public's 
trust that contributions to World Vision are not funding illicit 
organizations.'' The full results of that investigation are available 
on my webpage here: https://www.
grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-releases-results-
investigation-world-vision-s-interactions-isra.

    Do you believe that charities have implemented adequate safeguards 
to ensure that grants from the U.S. Government and donations from 
Americans are not even inadvertently funneled to the benefit of 
individuals or groups that have been sanctioned by the U.S. Government? 
Are there additional steps charities can take to ensure they are in 
compliance with applicable rules and regulations, or is there any 
action Congress should take to promote that compliance?

    Answer. Following leadership from you and Senator Baucus, 
Independent Sector convened a panel to examine good governance and 
ethical practices for the nonprofit sector, which resulted in the 
publication of the 2007 report Principles for Good Governance and 
Ethical Practice, A Guide for Charities and Foundations. This report 
was updated in 2016 with additional recommendations. Good governance 
through self-regulation is critical to the health of American civil 
society, but it is not sufficient on its own. Although the nonprofit 
sector can accomplish a great deal through shared standards and self-
regulation, nonprofits also need State and Federal regulators to have 
enough resources to enforce laws that guard against fraud and abuse, 
because scandal often negatively impacts public trust in the entire 
sector.

    Independent Sector supports strong enforcement against those that 
violate the laws governing our sector, and would be pleased to work 
with you and the Senate Finance Committee to examine appropriate 
safeguards and compliance policies.

    Question. In an article published in 2020 in the Maryland Law 
Review, Professor Johnny Rex Buckles concludes in part, ``Federal tax 
law permits foreign actors to influence U.S. politics and policies 
through their interactions with American charities.''\9\ He goes on to 
note in his conclusion, ``Even the existing restrictions on lobbying, 
and the prohibition against political campaign intervention, safeguard 
against only the most obvious exploitation of charities by politically 
motivated foreign actions.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Johnny Rex Buckles, ``Curbing (or Not) Foreign Influence on 
U.S. Politics and Policies Through the Federal Taxation of Charities,'' 
Maryland Law Review, Vol. 79:590 (2020).
    \10\ Id.

    In a theoretical case study, the article presents an example where 
a Russian oil baron donates to a U.S. charity that educates the 
American public on the dangers of fossil fuels with the intent of 
promoting increased regulation of U.S. fossil fuel interests that would 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
serve to confer a comparative advantage on their Russian competitor.

    This example may in fact not be very theoretical. In an opinion 
piece published in The Hill in March of 2022, Institute for Policy 
Innovation resident scholar Merrill Matthews wrote, ``U.S. policymakers 
are finally realizing that Russia may have been covertly funding U.S. 
environmental organizations to shape public opinion and policies--
especially energy and anti-fossil fuel policies--to Russia's liking and 
benefit. Such Russian skullduggery has long been an open secret in 
Europe.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Matthews, Merrill, ``Russia used `soft power' to influence EU 
policies and anti-fossil fuel efforts,'' The Hill, March 22, 2022, 
available at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599113-
russia-used-soft-power-to-influence-eu-policies-and-anti-fossil.

    Do you have concerns that foreign actions are able to exploit U.S. 
tax-exempt organizations to promote their own priorities and extend 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
influence over U.S. policy?

    Are there reliable measures of how much foreign money is poured 
into U.S. non-profit entities and the source of that funding?

    Do you have an estimate of funding for U.S. non-profits that 
originated from sources aligned with Russia, or Russian policy 
priorities?

    Answer. Foreign influence in U.S. politics and policy presents 
unique concerns and challenges and the nonprofit sector must be mindful 
and vigilant to prevent illegal activity. The Foreign Agents 
Registration Act (FARA) and Department of Justice enforcement are vital 
to protecting against illicit activity. With that said, we do believe 
that FARA is badly outdated and that portions of it are overly broad 
and vague. At a recent hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives 
Committee on the Judiciary, Nick Robinson of the International Center 
for Not-for-Profit Law testified that, ``FARA's notoriously sweeping 
provisions have increasingly interfered with the operations of 
nonprofits, businesses, media, religious institutions, universities, 
and others with limited or no connection to foreign governments in a 
manner that Congress never intended. . . .''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Enhancing the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, House 
Committee on the Judiciary, April 5, 2022.

    We do not have specific detail about Russian spending or Russian 
policy priorities in the United States. As noted above, Independent 
Sector has published detailed recommendations for Good Governance and 
Ethical Practice for nonprofits to follow, including recommendations 
for transparency in their activities, to ensure nonprofits are acting 
in accordance with the law and ethical guidelines. Independent Sector 
is willing to work with you and the Congress to review these practices 
and continue to ensure nonprofits act ethically and are not used 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
inappropriately.

                                 ______
                                 
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Idaho
    Senators from all over the United States sit on this committee, and 
one thing we all have in common is an appreciation for the important 
work the nonprofit sector performs in each of our States. If the past 2 
years have taught us anything, it is that the nonprofit sector is vital 
to our communities across the country.

    In Idaho, charitable organizations stepped up to serve Idahoans 
when they needed it the most during the darkest days of the pandemic. 
The nonprofit sector adapted to the COVID-19 situation incredibly well, 
often fulfilling their missions with fewer resources and volunteers or 
even canceled events, all while ensuring the communities they serve 
were being helped.

    But it is not just COVID-related responses that are worth 
mentioning. Whether it is responding to a natural disaster, food 
insecurity, or providing mental health services, nonprofits across the 
country have done a wonderful job. They deserve our thanks, our praise, 
and our commitment to continued support. According to a 2021 report by 
the Giving USA Foundation, charitable giving in the U.S. exceeded $470 
billion in 2020--a 5-percent increase over 2019.

    The vast majority of giving comes from individuals, but 
contributions and impacts from corporations, foundations, and even 
estates cannot be overlooked. While data on charitable giving are 
encouraging, more can be done to encourage giving moving forward. 
Charitable giving and accompanying tax incentives are inextricably 
linked. Fortunately, the Senate has a track record of bipartisan 
cooperation on this issue.

    On the Finance Committee, Senators Lankford, Scott, and Cortez 
Masto have been leaders in crafting bipartisan legislation to help 
increase charitable giving. I look forward to hearing about how we can 
continue to work together on bipartisan tax policies to responsibly 
encourage giving. As the Senate committee charged with considering 
changes to the tax code, we also have an obligation to look ahead and 
pay attention to shifts in the charitable giving landscape.

    For example, the increasing prominence of crowdfunding and the rise 
of digital assets present challenges and opportunities for the 
nonprofit sector. I am also interested in hearing about educational 
efforts to encourage more giving. It is essential that we think through 
these issues and ensure we are being proactive about new developments 
and trends on the horizon.

    To our four witnesses, thank you for being here. Each of you has a 
unique background and perspective. I appreciate your willingness to 
share your expertise with us this morning, and I look forward to a 
productive exchange.

                                 ______
                                 
                   Submitted by Hon. James Lankford, 
                      a U.S. Senator From Oklahoma
                     Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits

                       Chesapeake Community Plaza

                   720 West Wilshire Blvd., Suite 115

                        Oklahoma City, OK 73116

                            1 (800) 338-1798

                             www.okcnp.org

                             [email protected]

                             March 16, 2022

The Honorable James Lankford
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Senate Finance Committee Hearing ``Examining Charitable Giving and 
        Trends in the Nonprofit Sector''

Dear Senator Lankford,

On behalf of the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits and the 11,207 
charitable nonprofits in our state, I write in advance of the upcoming 
hearing, ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit 
Sector,'' to express strong support for your legislation, the Universal 
Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act, S. 618, to improve this 
important charitable giving incentive. I also would like express our 
appreciation for your past support for pandemic relief, as well as 
update you on the ongoing challenges that nonprofits are facing, and 
explain the need for additional targeted relief within the jurisdiction 
of the Senate Finance Committee.

In the face of the ongoing public health and economic crises, too many 
Oklahoma nonprofits are still struggling to meet increased demands for 
services, confronting a combination of decreased revenue, expenses that 
are higher than pre-pandemic, and nonprofit workforce and volunteer 
staffing shortages. See the results of the National COVID-19 Community 
Impact Survey \1\ administered by the Federal Reserve System. The 
relief provided by Congress made the difference for many organizations 
by replacing revenues lost due to declines in individual and corporate 
giving, fees for service, and canceled fundraising events. The largest 
of these by far was forgivable loans under the Paycheck Protection 
Program. Nearly 3,500 Oklahoma nonprofits received about $430 million 
in forgiven PPP loans in 2020 and 2021, according to Small Business 
data.\2\ Those funds saved more than 70,000 nonprofit jobs, the SBA 
reports, which enabled these organizations to serve our communities. 
However, the PPP program and most other pandemic relief programs have 
expired, yet the need for, and burdens on, charitable organizations 
remain great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://fedcommunities.org/data/main-street-covid19-survey-
2021/.
    \2\ https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/
interactive-dashboards/paycheck-protection-program.

With the above context, I now address three areas of challenges that 
nonprofits are facing and propose tax policy solutions for your 
consideration: the lack of resources, the lack of staff, and the lack 
of volunteers--all of which are essential to advancing nonprofit 
missions.

Charitable Giving Has Not Kept Up

Charitable giving nationwide has not kept up with need and rising 
expenses. The 2021 Giving USA report \3\ found that individual giving 
decreased by nearly 0.8 percent in 2020 compared with 2019, when one 
major donor's contributions are removed from the data. A separate 
analysis, the Nonprofit Trends and Impacts 2021 \4\ from the Urban 
Institute, found that small nonprofits were under particular stress. 
``Forty-two percent of organizations with budgets under $500,000 
experienced decreased donations in 2020, compared with 29 percent of 
organizations with budgets of $500,000 or more.'' Nonprofits that said 
donations were essential to their revenue stream were also more likely 
to experience decreased donations in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://store.givingusa.org/pages/annual-subscription.
    \4\ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-trends-
and-impacts-2021/view/full
_report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Policy Solutions
In the aftermath of virtually every natural disaster since Hurricane 
Katrina, Congress has recognized the value of nonprofit relief and 
recovery efforts by enacting charitable giving incentives that 
encourage some individuals and corporations to help cover some of the 
costs of these community-based services. The COVID-19 pandemic and 
resulting economic crisis have certainly qualified as natural disasters 
and Congress--a bipartisan body--swiftly enacted giving incentives for 
those who itemize and corporations. Recognizing the catastrophic impact 
of health and economic crises, Congress went further by enacting, and 
then expanding and extending, the universal charitable or nonitemizer 
deduction to ensure that all taxpayers, including those who claim the 
standard deduction received a tax benefit for giving back to their 
communities by supporting the work of charitable nonprofits.

As a sponsor of the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery 
Act, S. 618, you better than most recognize the benefits of the 
nonitemizer charitable giving incentive. The Oklahoma Nonprofit Center 
fully endorses this important legislation because it will further 
promote giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--
to give to the work of charitable nonprofits, thereby ensuring that our 
country retains a strong and independent civil society. It will also 
provide needed resources for charitable and faith-based organizations 
to continue providing vital services to families, workers, and 
communities, especially those critically impacted by the ongoing 
pandemic. We stand with in your commitment to S. 618 and encourage your 
colleagues to join you in supporting this bill to strengthen our 
communities.

During the Finance Committee hearing on Thursday, we also ask that you 
speak up in support of extending the two additional disaster-relief 
giving incentives that expired on December 31, 2021--the provision 
permitting individuals who itemize to deduct charitable donations up to 
100% of their adjusted gross income and the measure allowing 
corporations to deduct charitable donations up to 25% of taxable 
income.

Nonprofit Workforce Shortages Crisis

One of the greatest challenges that nonprofits of every type of mission 
are experiencing is the inability to hire and retain qualified workers. 
The Federal Reserve survey, referenced above, found that 40% of 
responding organizations reported that staffing levels are down. As of 
December 2021, the nonprofit sector was still more than 450,000 
employees short of pre-pandemic levels, according to the report COVID-
19 Jobs Update, December 2021 \5\ from the Center for Civil Society 
Studies at Johns Hopkins University. The report found, ``as of the end 
of 2021, nonprofits have recovered approximately 72.1% of the jobs 
estimated to have been lost as of May 2020.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://ccss.jhu.edu/december-2021-jobs/.

This past fall, the National Council of Nonprofits conducted a survey 
of the difficulties nonprofits across the country were confronting in 
retaining staff and filling vacancies. Three out of five (60%) survey 
respondents reported vacancies of between 10% and 30%, according to the 
NCN report, The Scope and Impact of Nonprofit Workforce Shortages,\6\ 
published in December. Another 16% reported vacancies greater than 30%. 
Nationwide, nonprofits explained the causes of the vacancies as salary 
competition, typically with employers outside the nonprofit sector 
(79%) and the inability of potential employees to find child care 
(23%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-workforce-shortages-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Policy Solutions
The Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits and dozens of Oklahoma nonprofits 
joined more than 1,500 organizations from all 50 states in signing onto 
the recent letter to Congress and the Administration seeking Pandemic 
and Workforce Shortage Relief for Charitable Nonprofits.\7\ Among other 
things, that letter calls on Congress to address critical staffing 
shortages at nonprofits by retroactively restoring the Employee 
Retention Tax Credit, as proposed in the bipartisan ERTC Reinstatement 
Act (S. 3625), and extend this refundable payroll tax credit through 
2022. To address the impact of the unique impact of nonprofit workforce 
shortages on individuals and communities, we ask that you modify 
nonprofit eligibility under the ERTC beyond the current ``gross 
receipts'' test to ensure more nonprofits qualify. We also request that 
Congress revise the definition of eligible payroll expenses under the 
ERTC to include child care and education subsidies to reflect the 
increased costs charitable organizations experienced as they struggle 
to maintain or expand services. We believe this improvement is 
justified because, unlike for-profit employers, tax-exempt nonprofits 
are not currently able to receive income-tax relief for providing those 
employee benefits. Our proposal provides a level of tax fairness and 
parity that does not currently exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-workforce-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20
Advocacy%20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volunteers Have Not Returned

A unique aspect of charitable organizations is that they can expand 
their impact by leveraging the commitment of armies of volunteers who 
are dedicated to the work of nonprofits in their communities. Pre-
pandemic estimates by AmeriCorps \8\ indicate that the volunteerism 
rate in Oklahoma was 32.0%, contributing 94.5 million hours of service. 
Nationally and in Oklahoma, nonprofits reported throughout the pandemic 
that volunteerism dropped precipitously. Now, however, as many 
businesses return to public operations, many nonprofits still have not 
seen their volunteers return to pre-pandemic levels. Volunteering is 
still depressed--parents have additional family demands, older 
Oklahomans and others from vulnerable populations have safety concerns 
with returning to in-person volunteering, and in general people are 
stressed and have reduced time and energy to volunteer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/
Volunteering_in_America_States_508.
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Policy Solutions
As discussed in the recent nonprofit letter on policy priorities,\9\ 
Congress can incentivize volunteerism by eliminating unfair tax 
policies. Specifically, we seek an increase in the Volunteer Mileage 
Rate for nonprofit volunteer drivers to the government rate (58.5 
cents/mile) for 2022 and the elimination of the tax on mileage 
reimbursements up to the business rate. The rapid increase in gas 
prices mean that many nonprofits will need to reimburse their 
volunteers for driving on the charity's behalf. Yet, those drivers will 
be forced to pay income tax on any reimbursement rate greater than the 
volunteer mileage statutory rate of 14 cents per mile. This existing 
tax policy, enforced at both the federal and state levels, imposes a 
disincentive on all but the most well-off volunteers. It is unfair, 
harmful to the missions of charitable organizations, and must be 
changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-workforce-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20
Advocacy%20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Rescue Plan Act Resources

Before closing, I want to raise an important issue that, while not 
within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, is of critical concern to 
the charitable nonprofits in our state. The American Rescue Plan Act 
allocated $3.2 billion to governments in Oklahoma through the 
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund. The federal 
government is showing tremendous trust that governments closest to the 
people and their problems are best positioned to decide the best ways 
to spend their allocated resources to meet local needs. While available 
for many purposes, the statute and Treasury Department regulations make 
abundantly clear that governments at all levels may use these funds in 
partnership with charitable nonprofits to address many challenges in 
our communities. The Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits is actively engaged 
in working with state and local officials to ensure the money is 
properly invested. We ask that you and your Senate colleagues allow 
these ARPA funds to go to the state and local governments as scheduled 
so that we may achieve greater impact.

Conclusion

As you consider the issues raised during the Finance Committee hearing, 
we ask that you reflect in the important, sustaining work that Oklahoma 
nonprofits performed throughout the pandemic and recognize that our 
challenges are far from over. Most for-profit businesses and government 
offices have or soon will reopen to something amounting to normal 
business. Most charitable organizations--particularly those addressing 
the immediate needs of our residents--never closed their doors. Yet, at 
this stage in the pandemic when demand for nonprofit services remains 
high, Oklahoma's nonprofits remain short of resources to meet normal as 
well as pandemic-related expenses. But we don't just lack adequate 
resources; our nonprofits lack the staff and volunteers to meet the 
very high needs, which is resulting in waiting lists, denial of 
services, and outright closures of local nonprofits. In light of these 
compelling challenges, we ask that you champion tax-policy solutions, 
at the hearing and in the Senate, that will restore and enhance the 
charitable giving incentives and the Employee Retention Tax Credit, and 
remove tax disincentives for volunteers to support the missions of 
nonprofits in their communities.

Respectfully,

Marnie Taylor
President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                     National Council of Nonprofits

                   1001 G Street, NW, Suite 700 East

                          Washington, DC 20001

                              202-962-0322

                        councilofnonprofits.org

                             March 16, 2022

The Honorable James Lankford
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Support for the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery 
Act, S. 618

Dear Senator Lankford:

In testimony submitted today to the Senate Finance Committee in advance 
of the hearing, ``Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector, 
''the National Council of Nonprofits enthusiastically endorsed the 
Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618) that you 
have sponsored and championed for the past two-and-one-half years. Sec 
the full statement. We are honored to join the more than 1,500 
organizations that signed the Nonprofit Community Letter on the 
Pandemic and Workforce Shortage Relief for Charitable Nonprofits, 
updated March 14th, that also endorsed your legislation.

In preparing for Thursday's Finance Committee hearing, several state 
associations of nonprofits sent letters to their Senators on the 
Committee. Below are the statements endorsing S. 618 submitted as of 
early this afternoon We anticipate that more are coming.

Colorado Nonprofit Association

``Colorado Nonprofit Association unequivocally supports renewal of the 
universal charitable deduction at least through 2022 and expansion 
through Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618). 
Passing this act will promote further giving by all American taxpayers 
of all incomes and generate needed resources for charitable and faith-
based organizations to continue serving communities impacted by the 
pandemic.''

Delaware Alliance for Nonprofit Advancement

``Indeed, we fully endorse the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and 
Recovery Act, S. 618, because it will further promote giving by all 
American taxpayers--regardless of their income--and generate needed 
resources for charitable and faith-based organizations to continue 
providing vital services to families, workers, and communities, 
especially those critically impacted by the ongoing pandemic.''

Idaho Nonprofit Center

``We want to be clear that the Idaho Nonprofit Center strongly supports 
renewal of the universal charitable (non-itemizer) deduction at least 
through 2022. Indeed, we fully endorse the Universal Giving Pandemic 
Response and Recovery Act, S. 618, because it will further promote 
giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--and 
generate needed resources for charitable and faith-based organizations 
to continue providing vital services to families, workers, and 
communities, especially those critically impacted by the ongoing 
pandemic.''

Maryland Nonprofits

``We want to be clear that Maryland Nonprofits strongly supports 
extension of the universal charitable (non-itemizer) deduction at least 
through 2022. Indeed, we fully endorse the Universal Giving Pandemic 
Response and Recovery Act, S. 618, because it will further promote 
giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--and 
generate needed resources for charitable and faith-based organizations 
to continue providing vital services to families, workers, and 
communities, especially those critically impacted by the ongoing 
pandemic.''

Michigan Nonprofit Association

``As a cosponsor of the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery 
Act, S. 618, you know well the benefits of the nonitemizer charitable 
giving incentive. Like you, the Michigan Nonprofit Association fully 
endorses this important piece of legislation because it will further 
promote giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--
to give to the work of charitable nonprofits, thereby ensuring that our 
country retains a strong and independent civil society. It will also 
provide needed resources for charitable and faith-based organizations 
to continue providing vital services to families, workers, and 
communities, especially those critically impacted by the ongoing 
pandemic. We ask that you make a strong statement in support of S. 618 
during Thursday's hearing and encourage your colleagues to join you in 
supporting this bill to strengthen our communities.''

Montana Nonprofit Association

``Montana Nonprofit Association strongly supports renewal of the 
universal charitable (non-itemizer) deduction at least through 2022. We 
fully endorse the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act, 
S. 618, because it will further promote giving by all American 
taxpayers--regardless of their income--and generate needed resources 
for charitable and faith-based organizations to continue providing 
vital services to families, workers, and communities, especially those 
critically impacted by the ongoing pandemic.''

North Carolina Center for Nonprofits

The North Carolina Center for Nonprofits strongly supports renewal of 
the universal charitable (non-itemizer) deduction at least through 
2022. Indeed, the Center fully endorses the Universal Giving Pandemic 
Response and Recovery Act (S. 618) because it will further promote 
giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--and 
generate needed resources for charitable and faith-based organizations 
to continue providing vital services to families, workers, and 
communities, especially those who continue to be affected by the 
ongoing pandemic.''

New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits

''We are grateful for your co-sponsorship of the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act, S. 618. The NH Center for 
Nonprofits fully endorses this important piece of legislation because 
it will further promote giving by all taxpayers, regardless of their 
income, to donate to charitable nonprofits. We ask that you consider 
speaking in support of S. 618 during Thursday's hearing and encourage 
your colleagues to join you in supporting this bill.''

New Jersey: Center for Nonprofits

The Center for Non-Profits strongly supports renewal of the universal 
charitable (non-itemizer) deduction at least through 2022. We fully 
endorse the bipartisan Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery 
Act, S. 618, because it will further promote giving by all American 
taxpayers--regardless of their income--and generate needed resources 
for charitable and faith-based organizations to continue providing 
vital services to families, workers, and communities, especially those 
critically affected by the ongoing pandemic.

Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits

``As a sponsor of the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery 
Act, S. 618, you better than most recognize the benefits of the 
nonitemizer charitable giving incentive. The Oklahoma Nonprofit Center 
fully endorses this important legislation because it will further 
promote giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--
to give to the work of charitable nonprofits, thereby ensuring that our 
country retains a strong and independent civil society. It will also 
provide needed resources for charitable and faith-based organizations 
to continue providing vital services to families, workers, and 
communities, especially those critically impacted by the ongoing 
pandemic. We stand with in your commitment to S. 618 and encourage your 
colleagues to join you in supporting this bill to strengthen our 
communities.''

Oregon: Nonprofit Association of Oregon

``We want to be clear that the Nonprofit Association of Oregon strongly 
supports renewal of the universal charitable (non-itemizer) deduction 
at least through 2022. Indeed, we fully endorse the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act, S. 618, because it will further 
promote giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--
and generate needed resources for charitable and faith-based 
organizations to continue providing vital services to families, 
workers, and communities, especially those critically impacted by the 
ongoing pandemic.''

Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations

``The Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations strongly 
supports renewal of the universal charitable (non-itemizer) deduction 
at least through 2022. Indeed, we fully endorse the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act, S. 618, because it will further 
promote giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--
and generate needed resources for charitable and faith-based 
organizations to continue providing vital services to families, 
workers, and communities, especially those critically impacted by the 
ongoing pandemic. This measure is critical as individual giving makes 
up 78% total charitable giving in the United States.''

South Carolina: Together SC

``As a cosponsor of the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery 
Act, S. 618, you know well the benefits of the nonitemizer charitable 
giving incentive. Like you, Together SC fully endorses this important 
piece of legislation because it will further promote giving by all 
American taxpayers--regardless of their income--to give to the work of 
charitable nonprofits, thereby ensuring that our country retains a 
strong and independent civil society. It will also provide needed 
resources for charitable and faith-based organizations to continue 
providing vital services to families, workers, and communities, 
especially those critically impacted by the ongoing pandemic. We ask 
that you make a strong statement in support of S. 618 during Thursday's 
hearing and encourage your colleagues to join you in supporting this 
bill to strengthen our communities.''

Virginia: Center for Nonprofit Excellence (CNE) and NetworkPeninsula

``Indeed, we fully endorse the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and 
Recovery Act, S. 618, because it will further promote giving by all 
American taxpayers--regardless of their income--and generate needed 
resources for charitable and faith-based organizations to continue 
providing vital services to families, workers, and communities, 
especially those critically impacted by the ongoing pandemic.''

Washington Nonprofits

Letter to Senator Cantwell urging Congress to ``Renew of the universal 
charitable (non-itemizer) deduction for 2022 and significantly increase 
the cap on the deduction, as proposed in the bipartisan Universal 
Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act.''

Senator Lankford, we thank you for our leadership and determination in 
advancing the work of charitable organizations by promoting greater 
charitable giving tax incentives. We will continue to work closely with 
our colleagues at the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits to promote this 
important legislation.

            Regards,

            Tim Delaney
            President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                      National Philanthropic Trust
The Honorable James Lankford
United States Senator
316 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Lankford,

On behalf of National Philanthropic Trust (NPT), thank you for the 
leadership you have shown, along with Senator Chris Coons, advocating 
for S. 618, the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act. 
The legislation expands and extends the current deduction for 
charitable giving at a critical time for nonprofits. As you know, 
charities are on the front lines battling the effects of the COVID-19 
pandemic, and S. 618 would increase charitable donations and make sure 
nonprofits have the resources they need to aid local communities 
recover from the pandemic.

NPT is a public charity and the largest national, independent provider 
of donor-
advised funds (DAFs). Since our founding in 1996, our donors have made 
more than 492,000 grants totaling $17.5 billion to charities across the 
United States, including Oklahoma. NPT's donors have responded to the 
turbulent past two years by substantially increasing their dollars to 
the nonprofit sector. In the 2021 fiscal year, NPT's donors more than 
doubled their giving by dollar value, committing $6.4 billion to 
nonprofit organizations.

In Oklahoma, over the last five years, NPT made charitable grants to 
298 charities in the state across 47 cities--totaling more than $23 
million (please see the attached map highlighting NPT's grants in the 
state). Our charitable grants in Oklahoma ranged from Edmond to Owasso 
to Tulsa to Oklahoma City to Broken Arrow. In fact, NPT's grants in 
Oklahoma increased 70 percent during the pandemic--underscoring the 
responsiveness of our donors to the needs of Oklahomans and local 
communities. Nonprofit organizations that received NPT grants include 
City Rescue Mission in Oklahoma City, Folds of Honor Foundation in 
Owasso, and the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics Foundation, 
to name a few.

As a DAF sponsor, we are particularly supportive that S. 618 would 
allow gifts to DAFs in the universal charitable deduction provision. We 
not only believe this is good tax policy, but it will also help enhance 
charitable giving and grantmaking to local nonprofits.

Thank you, Senator Lankford, for your commitment to the charitable 
sector and for your leadership advancing S. 618. We stand ready to work 
with you and the Senate Finance Committee to advance this important 
piece of legislation.

Sincerely,

Eileen R. Heisman
President and CEO


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                         
                        Philanthropy Roundtable

                 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 550 South

                          Washington, DC 20036

                    [email protected]

                              202-822-8333

The Philanthropy Roundtable supports S. 618, the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act. We applaud the bipartisan 
leadership of Senators Lankford and Coons, along with the cosponsors, 
for introducing this measure.

In a time of pandemic recovery, international crisis and economic 
struggles at home and abroad, Americans are stepping forward to help 
those in need. This bill is crucial to ensuring our nation's generous 
spirit continues to grow and thrive by allowing a deduction for 
charitable contributions for taxpayers who do not otherwise itemize 
their tax deductions.

The bill in its entirety is a positive for those who care about our 
vibrant charitable landscape, the donors that support it and all of us 
who benefit from the important work of charities today. We have seen 
the vital impact of prior universal charitable deduction measures. 
Included in the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(CARES) Act, a version of this temporary tax benefit applied to tax-
year 2020. Then the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 
2020 generally extended it through the end of 2021. Thanks to these 
measures, charitable giving reached a record high of $471.44 billion in 
2020, according to Giving USA's 2021 report. Other data show 
significant increases in smaller gifts. The Fundraising Effectiveness 
Project found that gifts under $250 grew by 15.3% in 2020 compared to 
2019 and noted a 28% increase in $300 gifts on December 31st, the exact 
amount allowed for a deduction under the prior measure.

As earlier temporary universal charitable deduction measures expire, S. 
618 offers even more encouragement for charitable giving. By allowing 
donor-advised fund (DAF) gifts to be eligible for a deduction, the bill 
appropriately acknowledges the key role that DAFs play in this 
landscape.

According to data from the National Philanthropic Trust for the 2020 
fiscal year, DAF donors stepped up in a year of pandemic, social and 
economic crises. Grants out of DAFs rose to $34.67 billion from $27.29 
billion, an astounding 27% in 2020 compared to the prior fiscal year. 
Contributions into DAFs rose as well, by 20.6%.

These numbers illustrate America's rainy-day fund in action as donors 
increased the amounts distributed out of DAFs to charities at a higher 
rate than they increased their giving into DAFs--all of which is 
irrevocably dedicated to charitable giving.

While DAF donors meaningfully increased their already high payout rates 
during 2020 to nearly 24%, we are already facing new economic 
challenges. Our communities have needs now and will face new, 
unpredictable problems in the future. Allowing donors to continue 
growing charitable assets while also paying out at strong rates is one 
of the most powerful features of DAFs as a giving vehicle.

With the growing popularity of DAFs as a tool for giving, the 
associated tax benefits should not be limited to those that itemize 
their tax deductions. All generous Americans should be allowed to 
deduct their charitable giving through DAFs.

Now, more than ever, S. 618 is vital to foster the generosity of 
Americans and to support our charitable sector as it works to address 
the significant challenges before us. We applaud Sen. Lankford, Sen. 
Coons, and the bipartisan group of senators who support this important 
legislation for their leadership and thank them for their support of 
the charitable sector.

                                 ______
                                 
                         Philanthropy Southwest

                    1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 13500

                            Dallas, TX 75201

                              214-740-1787

                           FAX: 214-740-1790

                     www.philanthropysouthwest.org

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, Senator Lankford, and 
Members of the Committee, Philanthropy Southwest welcomes the 
opportunity to provide input to the Committee on Examining Charitable 
Giving Trends for the Nonprofit Sector. Founded in 1949, Philanthropy 
Southwest, the first association of grantmakers in the nation, believes 
in a thriving Southwestern U.S. through the power of philanthropy. We 
are a vibrant network comprised of hundreds of grantmaking 
organizations and thousands of foundation trustees and staff in the 
U.S. Southwestern region.

Philanthropy Southwest understands the importance of protecting and 
enhancing the charitable deduction to ensure that charities across our 
nation continue to receive the funds necessary to serve their 
communities and fulfill their philanthropic missions. Inspired by the 
words of former President John F. Kennedy, ``Philanthropy, charity, 
giving voluntary and freely . . . is truly a jewel of an American 
tradition.''

Altruism is good for all, and the charitable deduction is not only good 
tax policy, but it also encourages all Americans, regardless of income, 
to give. According to recent Giving USA data, U.S. nonprofits and 
foundations have stepped up like never before in response to the COVID-
19 pandemic giving to charitable organizations supporting their 
neighbors in need. This increased level of giving is attributed to a 
robust charitable deduction for itemizing and nonitemizing taxpayers. 
For example, the Fundraising Effectiveness Project report found that 
there has been an outsized increase in small gifts of $250 or less, and 
there was a reported 28% increase of $300 gifts on December 31, 2020, 
the maximum amount a donor can take using a universal charitable 
deduction. This increase shows the impact of the universal charitable 
deduction on smaller gifts.

With the current charitable deduction being only available for 
itemizing taxpayers, it forecloses the opportunity for more charitable 
giving. The 2020 COVID relief legislation provided a temporary benefit 
for nonitemizers to deduct their charitable contributions through 2021, 
thus reducing the economic costs to the donor. The renewal of this 
temporary universal charitable deduction could result in nearly 9 and 
10 taxpayers being able to deduct their charitable giving even if they 
do not itemize, democratizing the incentive for charitable giving.

Philanthropy Southwest supports the reenactment of a universal 
charitable deduction for non- itemizing taxpayers. The Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618, H.R. 1704), which renews 
the universal charitable deduction and increases the cap to one-third 
of the standard deduction, would provide donors and charities alike 
with the certainty they need to continue giving freely to the vital 
organizations in their communities and across the globe.

On April 5th-7th, the philanthropic sector will convene virtually in 
support of philanthropy for Foundations on the Hill, an annual 
convening for the sector. This premier gathering presents an 
opportunity to speak to Congress about critically important legislation 
for the charitable sector and inform congressional leaders about the 
unique and important role that charitable giving plays in America. Our 
U.S. Southwest delegation of foundation leaders will be informing 
congressional offices about the importance of reenacting the universal 
charitable deduction and looks forward to partnering with government 
around efforts to preserve and protect charitable giving for all.

                                 ______
                                 
                             Faith & Giving

                             March 17, 2022

The Honorable James Lankford
U.S. Senate
316 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Lankford:

The undersigned faith-based organizations write to thank you for your 
long-term leadership to add a universal charitable deduction (UCD) for 
non-itemizers to the tax code and for your work to enact the Universal 
Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618). We are deeply 
grateful to you and the bill's other lead sponsors--Senators Coons, 
Lee, Shaheen, Tim Scott, Klobuchar, Collins, and Cortez Masto--as well 
as to the other cosponsors who sit on the Finance Committee, Senators 
Stabenow, Hassan, and Brown.

Thank you as well for your vital roles in enacting a temporary UCD in 
the March 2020 CARES Act--and later extending it through 2021 and 
doubling it for joint filers. Your diligent leadership ensured this 
vital lifeline for the work of faith-based and other charities was 
available to millions of generous Americans of all faiths.

The charitable deduction works. As one vivid example, the charitable 
deduction's benefits and incentives may be the only reasonable 
explanation why approximately 10 percent of annual giving occurs during 
just the last three days (0.8 percent) of each year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Digital Giving Index, Network for Good, https://
beta.networkforgood.com/wp-content/uploads/digitalgivingindex_2015-
1.png (covering 2015 giving).

Similarly, after Congress enacted the $300 UCD in 2020, the Fundraising 
Effectiveness Project (FEP) reported that year-to-year annual donations 
of less than $250 increased from the previous year's levels by 15.3 
percent.\2\ Flipping the normal pattern for giving during a crisis, 
this was nearly 1.5 times greater than the increase (10.4 percent) that 
year in large donations ($1,000 or more). As FEP Chair Jon Biedermann 
stated, ``One factor that may have helped the increase in smaller gifts 
was the universal charitable deduction.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Fundraising Effectiveness Project: Giving Increases 
Significantly in 2020, Even as Donor Retention Rates Shrink,'' 
Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), March 15, 2021, https:/
/afpglobal.org/fundraising-effectiveness-project-giving-increases-
significantly-2020-even-donor-retention-rates.
    \3\ Id.

Further, as compared with 2019, there was a 28 percent increase in $300 
donations on the final day of 2020.\4\ This is the exact amount of the 
universal charitable deduction for 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.

For these and many other reasons, we believe Chairman Wyden is spot on 
when he explains, ``The charitable deduction is a lifeline, not a 
loophole.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ ``The charitable deduction is a lifeline, not a loophole,'' 
Blog Post, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, April 18, 2016, https://
www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/ron-the-charitable-deduction-is-a-
lifeline-not-a-loophole.

Congregations and other faith-based organizations around the country 
got the word out in 2020 and 2021 about the temporary UCD. They wanted 
to ensure non-iteming givers received the UCD's benefit. But ministry 
leaders also know the deduction helps increase giving by generous 
individuals. Giving by individuals is the financial lifeblood of many 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
faith-based charities.

Today, religious giving is subject to multiple negative pressures 
Congress can help counter by restoring an expanded and extended UCD. 
One such pressure is the percentage of American households giving to 
charity, which has declined precipitously over the past two decades.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ``Latest Data Shows New Low in Share of Americans Who Donated 
to Charity,'' Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University, 
July 27, 2021, https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/news-events/news-item/
latest-data-shows-new-low-in-share-of-americans-who-donated-to-
charity.html?
id=363.

Further, Giving USA data for 2018 through 2020 (the most recent 
published data) show annual religious giving has failed to keep pace 
with inflation. While inflation increased by 5.5 percent in 2018 
through 2020,\7\ religious giving increased by less than 3 percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See ``Inflation, consumer prices for the United States,'' 
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), St. Louis Fed, https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA.
    \8\ See ``Giving USA 2018,'' Press Release, Giving USA Foundation, 
June 12, 2018 (reporting religious giving of $127.4 billion in 2017), 
https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2018-americans-gave-410-02-billion-to-
charity-in-2017-crossing-the-400-billion-mark-for-the-first-time/; 
``Giving USA: Giving Grew in a Tumultuous Year but Not for All,'' 
Chronicle of Philanthropy, June 15, 2021, https://www.philanthropy.com/
article/giving-grew-in-a-tumultuous-year-but-not-for-all-whats-ahead-
in-2021 (reporting religious giving of $131.1 billion in 2020, a 
decrease of 0.2 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over 2019).

Adding to the financial impact of these negative trends, congregations 
and organizations of every faith across America have remained on the 
front lines caring for the needs of individuals and communities hurt by 
the pandemic. Through virtual and (where and when possible) in-person 
connections, congregations and other faith-based charities are serving 
the escalating physical, emotional/relational, and spiritual needs of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the most vulnerable members of our communities.

Unfortunately, the charities caring for our nation's most vulnerable 
often are the most vulnerable themselves to economic downturns and 
crises. Many fail to fully recover or even survive.

Restoring an expanded and extended UCD as soon as possible in 2022 will 
help these smaller congregations and faith-based ministries weather the 
pandemic's impact while also combating negative long-term trends for 
religious giving. Moreover, granting lower- and middle-income taxpayers 
the same sort of generous tax incentive granted to higher-income 
taxpayers will help increase and democratize giving to all of America's 
diverse ministries and other charities.

Thank you again for your and your Senate colleagues' dedicated 
leadership to enact an expanded and extended universal charitable 
deduction for non-itemizers. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
([email protected]) with questions or to help connect with 
other signers.

            Respectfully yours,

            Brian W. Walsh, Executive Director

                      National Faith-Based Signers

Accord Network
Agudath Israel of America
The American Association of Christian Schools
American Leprosy Missions
Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI)
Bread for the World
Catholic Charities USA
CCCU--Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
Center for Public Justice
Children's AIDS Fund International
Christian Alliance for Orphans
Christian Connections for International Health
Citygate Network
Compassion First
Cross International
Dignity Freedom Network
Disabled Children's Fund
ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability)
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Faith & Giving
Jewish Federations of North America
Kumveka
Langham Partnership USA
Lifewater International
Living Water International
Lutheran Services in America
Mennonite Central Committee
National Christian Foundation
Operation One
PastorServe
Plant With Purpose
Sojourners
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Volunteers of America
World Hope International
World Relief
World Vision US

             Regional, State, and Local Faith-Based Signers

Baltimore Jewish Council (Maryland)
Church Hill Activities and Tutoring (CHAT) (Richmond, Virginia)
CitiHope International (Delhi, New York)
Great Falls Rescue Mission (Montana)
Jewish Family and Children's Services, San Francisco Bay Area 
(California)
The Jewish Federation in the Heart of New Jersey (South River)
Jewish Federation of Greater Toledo (Ohio)
Jewish Federation of Southern New Jersey (Cherry Hill)
Jewish Federations of New Jersey (Scotch Plains)
MAP International (Brunswick, Georgia)
Morningstar Mission Ministries (Joliet, Illinois)
Mount Olive Baptist Church (Washington, DC)
Shirley's House of Hope (Marshfield, Wisconsin)
Third Lens Ministries (Atlanta, Georgia)
Youngstown Area Jewish Federation (Ohio)

                                 ______
                                 
                The Jewish Federations of North America

                     The Max M. Fisher Headquarters

                        25 Broadway, Suite 1700

                           New York, NY 10004

                             p 212-284-6548

                             f 212-271-6741

                   https://www.jewishfederations.org/

March 15, 2022

The Honorable James Lankford
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Lankford:

The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) would like to express 
its gratitude to you and Senator Chris Coons for championing the 
bipartisan Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 
618). As the nonprofit sector works to recover from the crippling 
effects of the COVID pandemic, it is critically important to ensure 
that Americans who donate to charities and religious organizations 
receive an above-the-line tax deduction at a level higher than the $300 
deduction first enacted in 2020 as part of the CARES Act.

JFNA represents 146 Jewish Federations and over 300 Network communities 
nationally, including the Jewish Federation of Tulsa and the Jewish 
Federation of Greater Oklahoma City. Jewish Federations collectively 
raise and distribute more than $3 billion annually, and in Oklahoma we 
support the social welfare, social services, and educational needs of 
those throughout the state and beyond. In Tulsa, the Jewish Federation 
is the umbrella organization for The Sherwin Miller Museum of Jewish 
Art and the Charles Schusterman Jewish Community Center. In Oklahoma 
City, we collaborate with the Edmond Public Schools, the Oklahoma 
Center for Community and Justice, and United Way of Central Oklahoma.

A significant amount of charitable giving and grantmaking at our Jewish 
Federations are advanced through donor-advised funds, which is why we 
strongly support the provision in S. 618 that enhances the non-itemizer 
provision by including gifts to donor-advised funds. We believe this 
would allow for more charitable grantmaking and assist communities and 
nonprofits during times of crisis.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue and your steadfast support 
of the nonprofit sector. We encourage the Senate Finance Committee to 
support S. 618 and work to pass it soon. Charities in Oklahoma and 
throughout the country are depending on it.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Beckwith                  David Rosen
Co-Chair                            Co-Chair
Tax Policy Committee                Tax Policy Committee

                                 ______
                                 
                Prepared Statement of Susannah Morgan, 
                         CEO, Oregon Food Bank
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to share my on-the-ground perspective 
regarding charitable giving in the nonprofit sector.

    My name is Susannah Morgan, and I am the chief executive officer of 
Oregon Food Bank. Our network is among the largest in the country, with 
a central warehouse that provides resources to 21 regional food banks--
which then support over 1,400 pantries, free food markets and meal 
sites across Oregon and Southwest Washington.

    Our mission is to end hunger and its root causes. To build 
communities that never know hunger, we need living-wage jobs, 
affordable housing and childcare, and protection from discrimination. 
When we hit tough times, we need strong government safety nets, like 
SNAP, to ensure everyone has access to food. Food banks should be the 
last resort when other systems have failed--and food alone will never 
solve hunger.

    I have worked in anti-hunger efforts for 26 years across several 
States, and the past 2 years have been the most challenging in my 
career. More than 865,000 people sought emergency food assistance 
through the Oregon Food Bank Network in 2019--nearly 1 in 5 of our 
neighbors. In 2020, this number rose like a tsunami to a jaw-dropping 
height of 1.7 million people, and remained painfully high at over a 
million in 2021.

    Even with the outpouring of community support, we couldn't have 
kept food flowing without significant State and Federal action. As we 
began to run out of food due to the enormous increase in demand, 
Governor Kate Brown came through with $1 million a week for food 
purchases until USDA commodities arrived through the CARES Act. 
Congressional aid reached communities directly through enhanced 
unemployment and SNAP benefits, relief payments to families, and more. 
The Child Tax Credit alone drove down child poverty by an incredible 41 
percent \1\ and reduced food insecurity by 26 percent.\2\ Combined, 
these actions helped us to meet the crisis head-on and ensure that 
hunger did not spiral out of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly-
poverty-january-2022.
    \2\ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/
2788110.

    Charitable giving incentives were an important piece of this 
equation as well. Let me share one extraordinary week I had, tied to 
decisions made by this committee: on a Monday early in the pandemic, my 
colleague in The Dalles, OR called me over the moon because she had 
just located the perfect building for a new regional food bank. 
Purchase price was $750,000. On Wednesday, a local philanthropist 
expressed interest in making a $1 million donation, thanks in part to 
tax law changes that allowed 100 percent deduction of her Adjusted 
Gross Income. On Friday, she committed to fund the purchase of the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
building, in what is surely the shortest capital campaign ever.

    The work of this committee clearly influences expressions of love 
and generosity in our communities. Yet, from where I sit, it is 
incredibly important that you consider how future tax policy changes 
may impact Federal revenue. Even at our scale in Oregon, for every meal 
we provide, SNAP provides 10. Charity organizations simply cannot 
replace Federal funding for the programs and resources our families 
need to thrive.

    So I humbly ask that you act to strengthen Federal revenue and 
advance policies that prevent hunger from happening. The best thing 
Congress can do to reduce hunger is invest in proven solutions that 
support families directly. Reinstate the Child Tax Credit. Modernize 
SNAP to reflect the true cost of healthy food. Invest in housing and 
child care. Raise revenue by requiring the wealthiest corporations, 
individuals and estates to pay what they owe.

    It is important that any new incentives are designed to encourage 
charitable giving that helps our communities now. Hunger is a crisis 
today and charitable support is needed now--not tucked away for some 
hypothetical future. Sustain the 100 percent Adjusted Gross Income 
deduction. Increase the amount private foundations must grant annually. 
Ensure donor-advised funds held by large commercial wealth firms have 
minimum annual distributions of 7 to 10 percent and spend-down 
timelines, while making exceptions for community foundations.

    As we speak, our communities face uncertainty around the impact of 
global events, the cost of living, and whether a new variant might 
emerge. Hunger remains an epidemic. This isn't over. We need Congress 
to continue supporting our neighbors through proven policies. I believe 
that, together, we can still emerge stronger than ever.

    It has been an honor to be with you today. Thank you for your time 
and attention.

                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted for the Record to Susannah Morgan
                  Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
    Question. Over the past 2 years, Congress has implemented a number 
of novel policies to make sure charities have the resources they need 
to continue serving our communities in the midst of the pandemic. These 
include the non-itemizer charitable deduction, and expanding the 
Employee Retention Tax Credit and Paid Leave Credit for tax-exempt 
organizations. Other non-tax programs have also impacted nonprofits, 
like PPP and various grant programs. In your testimony, you emphasized 
the importance of these policies as well as direct support to 
households through the enhanced child tax credit.

    Could you provide more detail about how the Oregon Food Bank and 
the communities it serves benefitted from these tax policies? What 
lessons can we learn from your experience?

    Answer. The rate of hunger surged during the pandemic--and it could 
have been even worse.

    More than 865,000 people sought emergency food assistance through 
the Oregon Food Bank Network in 2019--nearly one in five of our 
neighbors. In 2020, this number rose like a tsunami to a jaw-dropping 
height of 1.7 million people, and remained painfully high at over a 
million in 2021.

    Government help was critical to keep emergency food flowing in 
2020. In the first few weeks of the pandemic, despite an outpouring of 
community support, Oregon Food Bank could not keep up with the enormous 
demand for food assistance. We began to run out of food. Then Governor 
Kate Brown came through with $1 million per week for food purchases. 
Then USDA commodities arrived through the CARES Act.

    We believe that it was primarily Federal intervention that drove 
down the hunger curve in 2021. This intervention took the form of 
enhanced unemployment and SNAP benefits, relief payments to families, 
and more. The Child Tax Credit alone drove down child poverty by an 
incredible 41 percent and reduced food insecurity by 26 percent.

    Right now, Congress should reinstate the Child Tax Credit--which 
was a great idea with proven results in reducing hunger and poverty.

    In the next crisis, Congress should again provide immediate 
assistance--to nonprofits like us and to families directly. Congress 
should once again increase unemployment benefits, which was in many 
cases life changing. Congress should once again provide direct payments 
to families.

    Before the next crisis happens, Congress should work with states to 
ensure that systems like Unemployment Insurance, SNAP, and Pandemic EBT 
are able to administer benefits quickly. One of the reasons food banks 
saw such alarming increases in requests for food in the early days of 
the pandemic was because people who were newly eligible for programs 
like UI faced weeks--and sometimes even months--of waiting for benefits 
to be administered. That was unacceptable in 2020, and it would be 
unthinkable if we let this happen again.

    We recommend more immediate action to prevent a housing crisis, 
such as an eviction moratorium. We recommend targeting cash assistance 
at families at or below median income with no strings.

    Also, as I said in my testimony, it is important that any new 
incentives are designed to encourage charitable giving that helps our 
communities now. Hunger is a crisis today and charitable support is 
needed now--not tucked away for some hypothetical future. Sustain the 
100-percent Adjusted Gross Income deduction. Increase the amount 
private foundations must grant annually. Ensure donor-advised funds 
held by large commercial wealth firms have minimum annual distributions 
of 7 to 10 percent and spend-down timelines, while making exceptions 
for community foundations.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
    Question. I appreciate you sharing your ``on-the-ground'' 
experiences with us. I was struck by your opening statement, in which 
you seemed to indicate an overall story of success despite the 
challenges your organization faced.

    What has been the greatest challenge your organization has faced 
since the pandemic began?

    Answer. Oregon Food Bank's greatest challenge during the pandemic 
has been adaptation.

    In the first few weeks of the pandemic, requests for food 
assistance nearly doubled. We were drawing down our inventory. We moved 
most of our workforce--except for the warehouse crew and drivers--to 
remote work. We suspended our massive volunteer program. We watched as 
food pantries and meals sites across the State lost the core of their 
volunteers--people 60+--as they went into quarantine. We instituted 
masking and deep cleaning.

    I have never in my life been so consistently afraid. Our community 
needed us so much--and for those first few weeks, I was so scared we 
would fail . . . that we would run out of food, or have an outbreak and 
have to close our warehouse or abandon truck routes, or that food 
assistance sites would close due to lack of hands.

    And yet, we succeeded. We, collectively. Congress came through with 
the CARES Act, which provided direct support to families and 
unemployment benefits and SNAP and thus drove down demand. The CARES 
Act also provided us with a reliable source of USDA commodities. Our 
community came through with unprecedented generosity, which allowed us 
to hire more staff, pay hazard pay, buy laptops for remote work and 
generally afford all this adaptation. And our community came through 
with new volunteers--younger people who were out of work or working 
flexible hours from home--to take the place of volunteers who had 
quarantined.

    Question. From your perspective, what is the number one issue you 
believe this committee should tackle to help support organizations like 
yours?

    Answer. Reinstate the monthly Advance Child Tax Credit and ensure 
all members of our community can access it. When it went into effect 
last July, it cut the number of people struggling to afford food by a 
quarter. When it expired in January, 3.7 million more kids in America 
went back into poverty. If you want to ensure fewer people in America 
need to access emergency food, bring back the Advance Child Tax Credit.

                                 ______
                                 
               Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
    Question. As you're aware, charitable organizations depend on 
volunteers to help deliver vital programs and services in local 
communities. However, the number of volunteers in the nonprofit sector 
have not returned to pre-pandemic levels.

    Prior to the pandemic, the annual volunteerism rate in Washington 
State was over 35 percent, contributing 202 million hours of service 
valued at nearly $5 billion. In November 2020, the University of 
Washington reported that volunteerism rates among Washington State 
nonprofits had decreased by 30-50 percent, harming their ability to 
operate at full capacity just when their services were needed most.

    Nonprofits have been essential to helping or local communities 
during the pandemic, even as they faced health risks, labor shortages, 
and operational challenges themselves. I think that it is important 
that we are able to support charitable nonprofits and address this 
volunteerism shortage.

    Has the Oregon Food Bank experienced a decline in volunteers since 
the start of the pandemic? How has that impacted your operations and 
ability to serve Oregonians in need?

    Answer. Oregon Food Bank suspended our volunteer program entirely 
for the first 2 months of the pandemic. In June 2020, we restarted 
volunteer shifts at a much smaller scale: down to 10-15 people instead 
of 100--to ensure social distancing.

    Oregon Food Bank relies on volunteers to sort donated food and to 
repack bulk purchased food. So during the pandemic, we also completely 
stopped accepting food from food drives, because we did not have 
volunteer labor to sort it. We started purchasing food, such as 
macaroni, in retail pack sizes instead of bulk--spending more money 
because we did not have the volunteer labor to repack it. We paid to 
have apples put into five pound bags instead of asking volunteers to 
bag apples.

    As of early April 2022, we have not yet relaunched our full 
volunteer program. So 2 years later, we are still spending tens of 
thousands more dollars annually than we would if we had our prior 
levels of volunteer assistance.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune
    Question. When the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted in 2017, some 
observers predicted that overall charitable donations would decline as 
a result of a larger standard deduction.

    Has that been the Oregon Food Bank's experience? Have overall 
charitable contributions and grants to the Oregon Food Bank increased 
or decreased over the last 5 years? For each of those years, did 
overall charitable contributions and grants increase or decrease 
compared to the prior year?

    Answer. Total contributions to Oregon Food Bank declined in FY17-18 
and FY18-19, and then increased dramatically during the pandemic. With 
hunger at historically high rates, everyone knew someone who was facing 
hunger, and our community reached deep and gave with extraordinary 
generosity.

    Here is actual data on Oregon Food Bank's contributions:


 
                                                                      Approximate Number of Donors
 
            FY15-16                                                                                      37,500
 
            FY16-17                                                                                      41,500
 
            FY17-18                                                                                      41,000
 
            FY18-19                                                                                      3,0000
 
            FY19-20                                                                                      49,000
 
            FY20-21                                                                                      65,000
 


    It is also worth noting that the types of giving also shifted. As 
seen in the data below, we received a much higher rate of IRA and Donor 
Advised funds after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Both types of 
giving are known to be avenues that wealthier, disproportionately white 
donors utilize--so while the worst year for OFB came directly after the 
tax adjustment in FY17/18, certain donors were able to tap into assets 
and continue to receive tax breaks more easily than others.


 
                                                    IRA Rollover Gifts              Donor Advised Fund Gifts
 
    FY15-16                                                                1                                311
 
    FY16-17                                                                0                                376
 
    FY17-18                                                               12                                489
 
    FY18-19                                                              269                                633
 
    FY19-20                                                              805                              1,455
 
    FY20-21                                                              973                              1,904
 

    We would also like to State that no single organization can 
represent the complex experience of the entire nonprofit sector, 
including as it relates to charitable giving. For example, I understand 
that after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the ACLU was 
overwhelmed with new supporters. That was not Oregon Food Bank's 
experience. During times of economic crisis, our communities understand 
the struggles of their neighbors and tend to give to social services 
nonprofits--like Oregon Food Bank. Any number of influencing factors--
economic, political, tax policies, etc.--may change a single nonprofit 
organization's experience.

    Question. Americans are the most generous people on earth, and 
overall charitable donations continue to grow, but some have suggested 
that these donations are not going to working charities like yours as 
efficiently as possible.

    As a representative of a working charity, what is your perspective 
on this topic and how does the Oregon Food Bank work to ensure that you 
efficiently utilize your donations?

    Answer. The vast majority of Oregon Food Bank's revenue comes from 
donations from individuals or families. Philanthropic contributions 
are, in our view, an expression of love--love for our fellow human 
beings and love for our communities.

    We have absolutely no concerns about the efficiency of charitable 
donations. People write us a check or make an online donation or wire 
money from their stockbroker. It is generally an easy process and easy 
(if labor intensive) to track. We thank each and every donor.

    We do want to ensure that everyone in America has the opportunity 
to show love through philanthropy. We are concerned that, while the 
total charitable giving has increased, the total number of households 
who give has declined. While several factors are at play, one of these 
is income inequality and the growing wealth gap.

    Finally, we ensure that contributions to Oregon Food Bank are used 
efficiently--and more importantly effectively--by maintaining an active 
Board of Directors that is representative of our community and that 
takes its fiduciary responsibilities seriously.

                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Una Osili, Ph.D., Efroymson Chair in Philanthropy 
   and Economics, and Associate Dean for Research and International 
   Programs, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University
    My name is Una Osili, and I am the associate dean for research and 
international programs at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of 
Philanthropy and the Efroymson chair in philanthropy and economics. I 
want to thank the distinguished members of the committee for this 
opportunity to speak today about how the pandemic has influenced 
charitable giving, how technology has changed the ways people give, and 
how policymakers can facilitate cross-border giving.

    Philanthropy has long been a cornerstone of our nation. Many early 
Native American giving traditions were rooted in cultural beliefs of 
mutual responsibility and reciprocity. The Massachusetts Bay Colony led 
one of the first successful fundraising drives in 1641.

    America's longstanding tradition of generosity has persisted over 
time. The philanthropic sector is a vital part of the provision of 
public goods, disaster relief, and risk capital for innovation, as well 
as a contributor to the health and vitality of civil society.
                   giving during the covid-19 crisis
    In the past 2 years, giving, both informally and formally, has 
played a visible role in responding to the pandemic in the U.S. and 
abroad. Furthermore, during the COVID-19 era, philanthropy has been 
unprecedented in size, scale, and scope. During this crisis, religious 
congregations, grassroots organizations, community foundations, and 
nonprofits in areas such as health and food insecurity have 
demonstrated resilience and creativity in meeting urgent needs.

    It is important to emphasize that charitable giving grew during the 
first year of a global pandemic, with 2020 being the highest year of 
charitable giving on record at $471.44 billion.\1\ Total philanthropic 
giving in 2020 rose 5.1 percent over 2019. When we consider inflation, 
the total amount still increased, with a total increase of 3.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Giving USA Foundation. (2021). Giving USA: The Annual Report on 
Philanthropy for the year 2020. Chicago: Giving USA Foundation. 
Researched and written by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of 
Philanthropy.

    Sixty-nine percent of this total--approximately $324.10 billion--
was contributed by living individuals. Foundations, charitable 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bequests, and corporations account for the remaining 31 percent.

    Research has long established that charitable giving is linked with 
key economic and financial factors.

    When we examine the subsectors of charitable giving during the 
pandemic era, two categories of charitable giving saw significant 
growth in giving in 2020. Public-society benefit organizations showed 
the largest increase at 15.7 percent, and these organizations include 
national donor-advised funds, United Ways, and civil rights 
organizations, among a wide range of nonprofits. Giving to 
environmental and animal organizations went up by 11.6 percent.

    Giving to education also increased by 9 percent, driven by a robust 
end-of-year stock market. Human services organizations experienced 
increases in giving, growing by an estimated 9.7 percent, or 8.4 
percent adjusted for inflation.

    However, not all subsectors experienced growth. Giving to arts, 
culture, and humanities declined 7.5 percent, or 8.6 percent, adjusted 
for inflation.
         how are americans giving, and to whom are they giving?
    Initial evidence also suggests that the global COVID-19 pandemic is 
altering how and why people give.\2\ The events of 2020 have 
accelerated innovation in the ways individuals are participating in 
philanthropy today and expanded more traditional methods, such as in-
kind giving and mutual aid. At the local level, community-based 
emergency funds have coordinated efforts to avoid duplication and 
address unprecedented health and economic needs. Informal acts of 
generosity were also widespread. For example, masks were sewn and 
gifted to health-care workers,\3\ and local restaurants distributed 
meals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Wyke, M. (January 22, 2021). ``The New Face of Charitable 
Giving During the Pandemic,'' The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-face-of-charitable-giving-during-
the-pandemic-11611334800.
    \3\ Enrich, D., Abrams, R., and Kurutz, S. (March 25, 2020). ``A 
Sewing Army, Making Masks for America,'' New York Times. Retrieved from 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/business/coronavirus-masks-
sewers.html.

    At the same time, American households have grown in their reliance 
on technology for connecting with others during the global pandemic; 
nonprofits have adapted to virtual events, online fundraising, and 
donor engagement. In 2020, online giving in the U.S. increased by 
approximately 21 percent compared to 2019.\4\ Online giving continued 
to grow in 2021, with an increase of 9 percent from 2020.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Blackbaud Institute. (2021). 2020 Charitable Giving Report. 
Retrieved from https://institute.blackbaud.com/.
    \5\ Blackbaud Institute. (2022). 2021 Charitable Giving Report. 
Retrieved from https://institute.blackbaud.com/.

    The use of technology interconnected donors and sectors on common 
platforms. Technology brought donors and many nonprofits together and 
often maximized contributions through collective giving and matching 
gifts. It also increased transparency by allowing donors and nonprofits 
to understand better how funds were being used and their effectiveness. 
At the same time, technology also presents new challenges for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nonprofits who seek to engage donors and build trust and confidence.

    In addition to technology, crowdfunding, giving via cryptocurrency, 
and impact investing have altered fundraising approaches and enlarged 
volunteer opportunities and donor engagement. Crowdfunding--raising 
capital from a large and diverse pool of donors via online platforms--
is a noteworthy example of innovation in giving mechanisms. Like other 
forms of online giving, it has expanded in recent years. During 2020-
2021, the COVID-19 pandemic, the racial and social justice movement, 
and economic uncertainty accelerated the use of crowdfunding by 
individuals to address health and financial hardships and to raise 
funds for various racial and social justice causes.

    Based on a national survey conducted in 2020, a new study examines 
closely who crowdfunding donors are, how they are different from more 
traditional charitable donors, and the activities they support and 
their motivations.\6\ The study found that about one-third of Americans 
typically donate to crowdfunding projects. Motivations for crowdfunding 
donors are similar to those factors for traditional charitable donors. 
However, the study also showed that crowdfunding donors tend to be 
younger and more diverse than traditional donors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2021). 
Charitable Crowdfunding: Who Gives, to What, and Why?. Retrieved from 
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/25515/
crowdfunding210331-1.pdf.

    To assess the impact of individual giving during the pandemic, the 
Lilly Family School of Philanthropy also conducted and examined two 
comprehensive national surveys on household giving priorities and 
motivations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2021). 
Understanding Philanthropy in Times of Crisis: The Role of Philanthropy 
in COVID-19. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/
handle/1805/26934/philanthropy-crisis-nov21.pdf.

    Survey questions explored how COVID-19-related factors may affect 
charitable giving. These factors include social distancing and 
lockdowns, COVID-19 infections amongst friends and family, and 
financial uncertainties incurred. In addition, the surveys asked about 
motivational factors for giving to COVID-19-related causes. The surveys 
revealed that self-reported giving of all types among Americans went up 
by 4-6 percentage points from May to September 2020.\7\ Informal giving 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and volunteering also remained strong during this period.

    Taken together, the data also suggests that the philanthropic 
sector is facing a greater demand for services and increased giving 
from existing and new donors. Nonprofit organizations are adapting new 
modes of service delivery, staffing shortages, and virtual modes of 
engagement.

    According to additional survey evidence from 2021, the share of 
households who gave directly to charitable organizations, individuals, 
or businesses for COVID-19 relief increased by 9.3 percentage points 
from May 2020 to May 2021.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2021). 
COVID-19, Generosity, and Gender: How Giving Changed During the First 
Year of a Global Pandemic. Retrieved from https://
scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/27002/covid19-nov21-
report.pdf.

    In response to the pandemic, overall charitable giving to 
organizations focused on basic needs and health saw strong growth from 
May 2020 to May 2021. While giving to organizations focused on religion 
and all other purposes also increased during this time, U.S. households 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
are giving less to these organizations than before the pandemic began.

    Donations to racial and social justice causes increased in 2020. 
This increase included donations to Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, as well as grassroots organizations, with 15.7 percent of 
Americans contributing to these causes in 2020.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2021). 
Everyday Donors of Color: Diverse Philanthropy During Times of Change. 
Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/
26496/donors-color-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          cross-border giving
    Philanthropy plays a vital and increasingly visible role in the 
global economy. Charitable contributions can be targeted to meet real-
time challenges, provide risk capital for innovation, and support 
recovery in communities.

    The outpouring of cross-border generosity in response to the 
devastation from the COVID-19 pandemic has been tremendous.\10\ Not 
only have private donors increased their giving, but they used new 
tools and vehicles for giving, including impact investments, 
cryptocurrency, collective giving, and pooled funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ In addition to intergovernmental funds, we have seen an 
outpouring of generosity by Africans in response to the crisis. For 
details by country, see https://globalindices.iupui.edu/tracker/
country-reports/index.html.

    Despite this progress, addressing the urgent humanitarian issues in 
many regions, including the refugee crisis in Ukraine, requires an 
acceleration of efforts to harness private sector resources from 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
individual donors, foundations, and corporations.

    The most recent Global Philanthropy Environment Index (GPEI), 
released in March 2022, reveals significant obstacles to expanding 
philanthropic flows.\11\ The Index, which measures philanthropic 
environments worldwide using data collected by country-based experts, 
examines the incentives and barriers that could affect individuals' and 
organizations' charitable efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. 
(2022). The 2022 Global Philanthropy Environment Index. Retrieved from 
https://globalindices.iupui.edu.

    Findings from the 2022 GPEI suggest that the global philanthropic 
environment was slightly more favorable in 2018-2020 than in 2014-2017. 
Three-fifths of the 91 countries and economies studied reported a 
favorable environment for philanthropy. Yet, among the 79 countries and 
economies studied in both 2018 and 2022 GPEI, this improvement was 
inconsistent, with about 30 economies reporting a shrinking space for 
philanthropy due to their political environments. When examining the 
enabling environment for cross-border philanthropic flows, over 30 
percent of the 91 countries and economies studied in the 2022 GPEI 
reported a restrictive space for cross-border philanthropic flows. 
Among the 79 countries and economies included in both 2018 and 2022 
GPEI, more than one-third reported a shrinking space for cross-border 
philanthropy. Some countries have imposed high costs and burdensome 
administrative requirements on philanthropic inflows and outflows with 
implications for donors and nonprofits working across borders.
                           final observations
    The generous response by U.S. donors during the global pandemic, 
racial and social justice movement, and humanitarian crisis provides 
essential context for our ongoing understanding of the rapidly changing 
philanthropic landscape.

    While total charitable giving has been increasing during the 
pandemic, we have to be concerned about post-pandemic giving patterns 
by Americans of all income backgrounds.

    Despite the economic shocks and social upheaval induced by the 
COVID-19 pandemic, recent data show that affluent households remained 
very generous in their support of charitable organizations, with 88 
percent giving to charity in 2020--consistent with the 90 percent rate 
we saw in 2017.\12\ And, the average amount given increased 
substantially, by 48 percent, from just over $29,000 in 2017 to just 
over $43,000 in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. 
(2021). 2021 Bank of America Study of Philanthropy: Charitable Giving 
by Affluent Households. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/
bitstream/handle/1805/26654/bank-america-sept21.pdf.

    In contrast, however, recent data from the Philanthropy Panel Study 
(PPS) show the fraction of low- and middle-American households that 
contribute to charity decreased between 2000 to 2018.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. 
(2021). The Giving Environment: Understanding Pre-Pandemic Trends in 
Charitable Giving. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/
bitstream/handle/1805/26290/giving-environment210727.pdf.

    While two-thirds of Americans gave to charitable causes in 2000, 
only 49.6 percent of Americans gave in 2018, nearly a seventeen-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
percentage point decline.\13\

    The Philanthropy Panel Study (PPS) is the largest and most 
comprehensive study of American philanthropy. It tracks the share of 
American households who donated to charity for a nationally 
representative sample in a given year. For middle and low-income 
Americans, the declines in the overall giving rate occurred among 
nearly all socio-demographic groups.

    Most of the decrease in giving participation occurred during the 
Great Recession.\14\ The Great Recession of 2008 (December 2007 to June 
2009) substantially affected whether people donated to charity and how 
much they contributed, but the trends did not slow or reverse once the 
economy had recovered from the Great Recession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Osili, U., Clark, C.J., and Han, X. (2019). ``Heterogeneity 
and giving: Evidence from U.S. households before and after the Great 
Recession of 2008.'' American Behavioral Scientist, 63(14), 1841-1862.

    In the PPS data, one-third of the decrease in charitable giving 
participation from 2000-2016 can be directly attributed to shifts in 
income, wealth, and homeownership.\13\ This suggests that factors such 
as decreases in interpersonal trust, empathy, among other factors, may 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
also play a role.

    As we look ahead, we have an opportunity to address issues of 
equity and efficiency among donors and nonprofits since giving is 
becoming increasingly concentrated among high-income households.

    A growing body of work has examined the effects of extending the 
charitable deduction to non-itemizers. Results indicate that a non-
itemizer charitable deduction could increase charitable donations and 
induce an expansion in the number of donor households.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Rooney, P., Zarins, S., Bergdoll, J., and Osili, U. (2020) 
``The Impact of Five Different Tax Policy Changes on Household Giving 
in the United States.'' Nonprofit Policy Forum, 11(4), 1-18.

    There are many issues to consider when examining the impact of tax 
policies. Nonprofit leaders and advocates, as well as policymakers will 
need to consider the effect of each policy on charitable giving 
dollars, the number of households that donate, and Treasury revenue, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
but they should also consider issues of donor equity and efficiency.

    To meet complex challenges triggered by COVID-19, the racial and 
social justice movement, and a global humanitarian crisis, expanding 
tax incentives for lower- and middle-income Americans can help bolster 
the role of the philanthropic sector.

    Making timely decisions about policies that support and enhance the 
long tradition of American generosity can help strengthen the role of 
the philanthropy now and in the future.

    Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to 
answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 
         Questions Submitted for the Record to Una Osili, Ph.D.
                  Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
    Question. We have all been watching the crisis unfold as a result 
of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we are just beginning to see 
the effects of the humanitarian toll that will certainly follow.

    Many Americans may want to help by giving to international aid 
organizations. One area of focus in your research is international 
philanthropy.

    What guidance do you have for Congress and taxpayers about best 
practices in making donations to international aid organizations?

    Answer. During armed conflicts and the subsequent humanitarian 
crises, the role of philanthropy and civil society increases both 
locally and internationally. As of May 26, 2022, Candid has tracked 816 
grants valued at USD 1.1 billion and 163 pledges worth USD 683.4 
million provided in response to the crisis in Ukraine (Candid, 
2022).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://topics.candid.org/issue-pages/ukraine/.

    American taxpayers--who have a desire to donate--have several 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
opportunities to give, including:

        Make donations and grants to registered non-U.S. nonprofit 
organizations working in Ukraine and affected areas internationally if 
such organizations meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue 
Service, including equivalency determination or expenditure 
responsibility;
        Work with intermediaries and pooled funds headquartered in the 
United States; such as the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund organized by 
GoFundMe in collaboration with the U.S. Department of State's Office of 
Global Partnerships; and the Ukraine Crisis Relief Fund organized by 
GlobalGiving; or
        Fund U.S.-based philanthropic organizations working in the 
region, such as the Red Cross or donate to international organizations, 
such as UNHCR, UNICEF, or WHO (Council on Foundations, 2022).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://cof.org/content/guidance-making-grants-support-ukraine.

    Overall, donors should make donations to international aid 
organizations by giving to nonprofit organizations or causes that are 
closest to their heart. Many resources are available to find 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
trustworthy nonprofit organizations:

        Charity Navigator \3\ has published a list of highly rated 
nonprofit organizations involved in humanitarian relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/
index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=9366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        GlobalGiving,\4\ along with other crowdfunding platforms, have 
hosted numerous projects focusing on Ukraine; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.globalgiving.org/search/
?size=25&nextPage=1&sortField=sortorder&selected
Locations=00ukrain&loadAllResults=true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        List of response funds and organizations responding directly 
to the crisis are available at the Council on Foundation's website.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://cof.org/news/philanthropys-response-russian-invasion-
ukraine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Local initiatives, such as the Fund for Ukrainian Civil 
Society \6\ (led by Ednannia, one of the largest Ukrainian NGO 
established the emergency fund for civil society organizations all over 
Ukraine), provide ways to give directly to organizations working in 
Ukraine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://sos.ednannia.ua/?utm--
medium=email&_hsmi=205839157&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_TVa2
LKo6DsXEuyjV3EMo00WBiGoOXHw8phUrpeV3EnjGoD-
FnJFHsNatoCk9GpaEV40sqjbL9OGLy
wMardsc3trNVxw&utm_content=205839157&utm_source=hs_email.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
    Question. In your written statement, you mentioned the need to 
think about changes in how individuals give, highlighting new forms of 
giving such as crowdfunding.

    Could you elaborate on how you see these new forms of giving 
affecting the nonprofit sector?

    Answer. According to the results of Charitable Crowdfunding: Who 
Gives, to What and Why--a study conducted in 2021 by the Indiana 
University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, crowdfunding and other 
forms of online fundraising, such as via social media and nonprofit 
organizations' websites, have the potential to extend opportunities for 
a wider audience. The reduction in barriers to giving makes it easy for 
donors to reach organizations and individuals they want to give to. 
Based on existing data, crowdfunding may tend to complement donors' 
giving rather than replace it.

        Unlike nonprofit organizations which build networks of 
        supporters and leverage them on social media to raise funds, 
        individual crowdfunding donors have yet to fully harness the 
        power of social media to advocate for their projects. They 
        seldom, if ever, ask friends, family, and acquaintances via 
        social media to contribute to the causes they are supporting on 
        crowdfunding platforms. This behavior seems different from 
        fundraising on social media platforms where networks are 
        paramount to successful fundraising campaigns. More research is 
        needed to better understand the reluctance of crowdfunding 
        donors to fully engage their friends and acquaintances in this 
        type of fundraising. (Indiana University Lilly Family School of 
        Philanthropy, 2021) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/25515/
crowdfunding210331-1.pdf.

        As individuals gravitate more to online giving and researchers 
        continue to study this growth, creating clearer distinctions 
        between charitable fundraising via crowdfunding and via social 
        media will allow for better understanding not only of how the 
        giving vehicles differ but also how donors using each vehicle 
        are similar or different. (Indiana University Lilly Family 
        School of Philanthropy, 2021) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/25515/
crowdfunding210331-1.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. How does tax policy play into these changes, if at all?

    Answer. The issue around tax-deductibility and crowdfunding raises 
interesting questions about donor motivations for giving on these 
platforms. A contribution to a charitable organization with 501(c)(3) 
status can be deducted on taxes according to the tax laws. As this 
study finds, many crowdfunding donors give to individuals or to 
community campaigns, which may not be tax-deductible. Crowdfunding 
donors may be less motivated by tax-deductibility than typical 
charitable donors. Moreover, income and wealth are not closely linked 
to giving via crowdfunding platforms compared to typical charitable 
donors.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse
    Question. The deduction for charitable donations is meant to 
encourage contributions that benefit the public. With donor-advised 
funds, the donor gets the deduction now, but the charitable benefit may 
not happen for years.

    Are there any reforms to donor-advised funds that should be 
considered?

    Answer. Overall, donor-advised funds (DAF) are considered among the 
fastest-growing charitable giving vehicles, but there has been little 
quantitative research on where DAF grant dollars go. The Giving USA 
Special Report, Donor-Advised Funds: New Insights, a publication of 
Giving USA Foundation, researched and written by the Indiana University 
Lilly Family School of Philanthropy shows that DAF grant dollars 
doubled from 2014 to 2018, while grant patterns remained stable. 
Education, religious, and public-society benefit organizations--which 
include United Ways and many organizations focusing on community 
development and civil rights--attracted the most DAF grant dollars 
between 2014 and 2018. The report also includes preliminary findings 
from a subset of DAF-sponsoring organizations with data from 2019 and 
2020. According to the data, DAF grant dollar amounts grew by 39 
percent and the number of distinct grantees grew 11 percent between 
2019 and 2020. DAF giving to human services grew 138 percent, while 
giving to public-society benefit organizations nearly doubled. DAF 
grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and 
other racial justice organizations more than quadrupled. (Giving USA 
Foundation and Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 
2021) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://store.givingusa.org/pages/giving-usa-special-report-
donor-advised-funds-new-insights.

    With the rise of commercial DAFs since the 1990s, DAFs have 
generally recorded average higher payout rates than private 
foundations, which operate under a similar model of tax deduction 
immediately, charitable granting later. While some research has found 
that there are a minority of DAF accounts that sit idle, it has not 
been determined if these accounts are of significant size. 
Additionally, many of the larger organizations in the DAF sector, such 
as Fidelity Charitable, and community foundations have internal 
policies designed to combat this, removing a donor's control from their 
funds if they sit idle for a number of years. Based on data from 13,000 
DAF accounts collected from community foundations and religiously 
affiliated DAF sponsor organizations across the U.S., about half (52 
percent) of DAF accounts have 4-year average payout rates between 5 
percent and 49 percent (Vance-McMullen and Heist, 2022).\10\ Around 71 
percent of these DAF accounts made a grant in a typical year. A 
majority (86 percent) made at least one grant over the 4-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
6011def87418a462fcb03978/t/6242d5b62b2ff70cccde
478c/1648547257883/DAFRC+Patterns+and+Trends+Report.pdf.

    Currently, the legal framework that supports DAFs does not require 
a specific payout rate. Based on existing data, DAFs have reported 
higher average payout rates compared to private foundations. However, 
as DAFs grow in size and visibility, there may be a need for additional 
data and research on how best to strengthen the overall donor-advised 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
funds landscape in order to benefit the charitable sector.

    Question. We have heard that reforms which require tracking when 
donations come in and when they are distributed from donor-advised 
funds can be an administrative burden.

    Do you have ideas for ameliorating any administrative burden that 
may exist?

    Answer. It is worth noting that DAFs vary in their size and 
capacity across various types (community foundations, single-issue 
charity, and commercial DAF sponsors). Technology may have a role to 
play in reducing the administrative burden. However, detailed tracking 
and reporting on grants and distributions may require additional staff 
and organizational capacity for small organizations. In contrast, an 
investment in the administration and tracking of either significant 
transfers or of transfers from larger organizations may be beneficial 
for the charitable sector while still allowing for adequate overview.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Chuck Grassley
    Question. As part of the CARES Act, Congress sought to boost 
charitable giving during the pandemic by relaxing limits on the 
individual and corporate itemizer deduction. These provisions 
temporarily allowed individuals to deduct up to 100 percent of AGI and 
corporations to deduct up to 25 percent of taxable income.

    Do you have any data or information you could share on the 
effectiveness of these provisions? What should Congress consider in 
deciding whether to extend either provision?

    Answer. In response to historic levels of unemployment and an 
economic downturn during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(CARES) Act in March 2020. While significant portions of the act 
targeted disaster relief, unemployment assistance, and taxpayer 
support, the law also included provisions that affect the nonprofit 
sector. The CARES Act was initially in place for tax year 2020, but it 
was extended in December 2020 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
(2021).

    Key components of the CARES Act that affect charitable giving 
include (Internal Revenue Service, 2021):\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/expanded-tax-benefits-help-
individuals-and-businesses-give-to-charity-during-2021-deductions-up-
to-600-available-for-cash-donations-by-non-itemizers.

    1.  An above-the-line (non-itemizer) charitable deduction up to USD 
300 for all taxpayers in 2020 and USD 300 for single filers and USD 600 
for married couples filing jointly in 2021.
    2.  Suspension of the adjusted gross income limit on cash 
contributions (with some limitations).
    3.  An increased limit on corporate deductions for cash 
contributions (25 percent, up from 10 percent); and
    4.  Additional incentives for businesses that donate food 
inventory.

    The above-the-line charitable deduction has the potential to 
incentivize additional charitable giving while providing tax relief to 
more households. However, researchers have raised concerns that small 
incentive--while reducing non-itemizers' tax burden--will not 
significantly increase overall giving (Steuerle et al, 2021).\12\ The 
Congressional Research Service estimates that the USD 300/USD 600 non-
itemizer deduction will cost the Treasury USD 2.865 billion (Sherlock 
et al., 2021).\13\ The Tax Policy Center estimates that the deduction 
could cost the Treasury USD 1.5 billion (2020-2030) while providing 
taxpayers as little as USD 100 million in relief and charities with a 
nonsignificant benefit (Steuerle et al, 2021).\14\ These estimates 
differ based on whether they were calculated before or after the 
passage of the extension and which tax years are included. Gravelle 
(2021) \15\ summarizes these analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103824/
designing-an-effective-and-more-universal-charitable-deduction.pdf.
    \13\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46649.
    \14\ https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103824/
designing-an-effective-and-more-universal-charitable-deduction.pdf.
    \15\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11420#:%7E:
text=The%20CARES%20Act%20and%20the,who%20take%20the%20standard%20deducti
on.

    Regardless of the tax treatment of charitable giving, Americans 
have responded to the increased need resulting from the COVID-19 
pandemic. Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy estimated that 
in 2020, USD 471 billion were donated to U.S. charities with USD 324 
billion of that total (69 percent) donated by individuals (Giving USA 
Foundation, 2021).\16\ This total includes an adjustment for giving to 
COVID-19 relief and racial justice giving in 2020 of USD 4.1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/news-events/news-item/giving-
usa-2021:-in-a-year-of-unprecedented-events-and-challenges,-charitable-
giving-reached-a-record-$471.44-billion-in-2020.html?id=361.

    Candid and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy published a report, 
Philanthropy and COVID-19: Measuring One Year of Giving, which reported 
that giving (including pledges) totaled over USD 15 billion during the 
first year of the pandemic (Candid and Center for Disaster 
Philanthropy, 2021).\17\ and as of May 26, 2022, Candid's summary of 
grants and pledges made to support COVID-19 relief is over USD 28 
billion (Candid, 2022).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ https://www.issuelab.org/resources/38039/38039.pdf.
    \18\ https://candid.org/explore-issues/coronavirus.

    Question. In December 22, 2020, I released the results of an 
investigation conducted by my staff into the relationship between World 
Vision, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and the Islamic Relief 
Agency, which had been sanctioned by the U.S. Government. My 
investigation concluded in part, ``A more robust and fundamentally 
sound system of screening and vetting is needed to restore the public's 
trust that contributions to World Vision are not funding illicit 
organizations.'' The full results of that investigation are available 
on my webpage here: https://www.grassley.
senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-releases-results-investigation-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
world-vision-s-interactions-isra.

    Do you believe that charities have implemented adequate safeguards 
to ensure that grants from the U.S. Government and donations from 
Americans are not even inadvertently funneled to the benefit of 
individuals or groups that have been sanctioned by the U.S. Government? 
Are there additional steps charities can take to ensure they are in 
compliance with applicable rules and regulations, or is there any 
action Congress should take to promote that compliance?

    Answer. There are many regulations and safeguards that have been 
implemented to combat terrorist financing in the nonprofit sector. The 
Financial Action Task Force (FATF) (2015) \19\ as well as the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury (2010) \20\ provides guidelines and best 
practices to ensure that nonprofit organizations are in compliance with 
counterterrorism and anti-money laundering regulations. Some of these 
guidelines and best practices are mentioned below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/BPP-
combating-abuse-non-profit-organisations.pdf.
    \20\ https://home.treasury.gov/.

        Congress should raise awareness about terrorist financing by 
regularly consulting with charities and publishing guidance for the 
nonprofit sector. Please see an example developed by the Australian 
Government: Safeguarding Your Organization against Terrorism 
Financing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/criminal-justice/files/
safeguarding-your-organisation-against-terrorism-financing.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress should also promote and advocate for the use of an 
effective, risk-based approach by the nonprofit sector. Please see an 
example developed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of 
Foreign Assets Control: Risk Matrix for the Charitable Sector.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ https://home.treasury.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To implement risk-based approaches, charities need to better 
understand the various risk that may emerge during cross-border 
donations. Thus, Congress should promote and support education and 
training that are offered to charities in these topics, as well as in 
good governance and financial responsibility.
        Simultaneously, Congress should safeguard that the legislation 
does not create burdensome reporting requirements and does not take 
overly broad interpretation of the FATF recommendations by focusing on 
those charities or sub-groups of charities that are at greatest risk 
after due-diligently reviewing the nonprofit sector in the U.S.
        Finally, charities themselves can also decrease this global 
threat and ensure that their grants are well used by self-regulating 
themselves to enhance transparency and accountability in their 
operations and safeguard their own organizations against terrorist 
financing. Establishing an independent monitoring organization could 
help charities make adequate risk management and responsible decisions, 
could award accreditation to member charities who meet the requirements 
and could also monitor the sector and raise awareness on recent 
threats.

    Overall, as the nonprofit sector is diverse, it is important to 
focus on mitigating risks through:

        Ongoing outreach to the sector;
        Proportionate, risk-based supervision or monitoring;
        Effective investigation and information gathering; and
        Effective mechanisms for international cooperation.(FATF, 
2015) \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/BPP-
combating-abuse-non-profit-organisations.pdf.

    Question. In an article published in 2020 in the Maryland Law 
Review, Professor Johnny Rex Buckles concludes in part, ``Federal tax 
law permits foreign actors to influence U.S. politics and policies 
through their interactions with American charities.''\24\ He goes on to 
note in his conclusion, ``Even the existing restrictions on lobbying, 
and the prohibition against political campaign intervention, safeguard 
against only the most obvious exploitation of charities by politically 
motivated foreign actions.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Johnny Rex Buckles, ``Curbing (or Not) Foreign Influence on 
U.S. Politics and Policies Through the Federal Taxation of Charities,'' 
Maryland Law Review, Vol. 79:590, (2020).
    \25\ Id.

    In a theoretical case study, the article presents an example where 
a Russian oil baron donates to a U.S. charity that educates the 
American public on the dangers of fossil fuels with the intent of 
promoting increased regulation of U.S. fossil fuel interests that would 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
serve to confer a comparative advantage on their Russian competitor.

    This example may in fact not be very theoretical. In an opinion 
piece published in The Hill in March of 2022, Institute for Policy 
Innovation resident scholar Merrill Matthews wrote, ``U.S. policymakers 
are finally realizing that Russia may have been covertly funding U.S. 
environmental organizations to shape public opinion and policies--
especially energy and anti-fossil fuel policies--to Russia's liking and 
benefit. Such Russian skullduggery has long been an open secret in 
Europe.''\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Matthews, Merrill, ``Russia used `soft power' to influence EU 
policies and anti-fossil fuel efforts,'' The Hill, March 22, 2022, 
available at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599113-
russia-used-soft-power-to-influence-eu-policies-and-anti-fossil.

    Do you have concerns that foreign actions are able to exploit U.S. 
tax-exempt organizations to promote their own priorities and extend 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
influence over U.S. policy?

    Answer. Foreign actions including cross-border charitable donations 
may exploit U.S. tax-exempt organizations either for using the 
organization for money laundering or for promoting certain policies, 
even though there are several regulations that aim to decrease the 
possibility of any foreign influence over U.S. policy through nonprofit 
organizations (Buckles, 2020).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=3858&context=mlr.

    Countries where strict regulations on foreign-funded nonprofit 
organizations have been implemented, such as Russia, Israel and 
Hungary, show that control on foreign donations might be harmful for 
the overall nonprofit sector. In these three countries, regulations 
targeted primarily human rights and watchdog organizations, however, 
the laws often undermined the reputation of the entire sector too. 
Additionally, such regulations often violated national and 
international laws and agreements. As an example, the Hungarian Act 
LXXVI of 2017 on the Transparency of Organizations Supported from 
Abroad violated the freedom of association, the right to privacy and 
personal data protection and freedom of expression of the organization 
among others (Hungarian Helsinki Committee and Tarsasag a 
Szabadsagjogokert, 2017).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ https://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/What-is-the-Problem-
with-the-Law-on-Foreign-Funded-NGOs.pdf.

    It is crucial to find a balance between national security, 
enhancing philanthropy, and promoting accountability simultaneously. 
Thus, if Congress decides to further regulate foreign-funded U.S. tax-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
exempt organizations:

        Congress could conduct public consultations (within the 
nonprofit sector and across the U.S. society) to develop accurate 
safeguards without creating burdensome requirements for tax-exempt 
organizations; and
        Congress could promote accountability and due diligence and 
support the implementation of professional guidelines or a universal 
``bill of rights'' for 
foreign-funded tax-exempt organizations to avoid any harmful actions 
against U.S. policies and to strengthen these organizations' own 
legitimacy and credibility.
        Congress could tailor current and future regulations to 
distinguish different types of foreign support and their various 
beneficiaries. Foreign action can often be crucially important, just 
let's think of cross-border giving to natural disasters or foreign-
funded organizations that support global causes internationally.

    Question. Are there reliable measures of how much foreign money is 
poured into U.S. non-profit entities and the source of that funding?

    Answer. While there are other sources available to the government 
for tracking such information, within the publicly available Form 990 
data, data on foreign funding to U.S. nonprofit organizations (cross-
border philanthropic inflow) is limited. While the Form 990 requires a 
decent amount of information about grants or payments to foreign 
entities, there is not much in terms of donations to nonprofit 
organizations.

    Additionally, organizations have to file Schedule B of the Form 
990, but it is not publicly available data. In Schedule B, U.S. 
nonprofit organizations have to list every contributor who gave more 
than USD 5,000 to the organization. It would be a good starting point 
to audit foreign-funded--including Russian-funded--U.S. nonprofit 
organizations in the future.

    Question. Do you have an estimate of funding for U.S. non-profits 
that originated from sources aligned with Russia, or Russian policy 
priorities?

    Answer. Unfortunately, there is no publicly available information 
on this matter. Please see above.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
    Question. In recent years, charitable giving through 
cryptocurrencies have skyrocketed, and we should only expect this to 
continue to grow as cryptocurrency becomes more and more prevalent. 
However, right now it is difficult to make a tax-deductible charitable 
donation with cryptocurrency. If you are making a donation worth over 
USD 5,000 in cryptocurrency, you have to get a qualified appraisal 
whereas with publicly traded stock an appraisal is not needed. Even for 
non-publicly traded stock gifts below USD 10,000 do not need a 
qualified appraisal. Given that cryptocurrency is traded on a public 
market, it seems that the value is readily ascertainable.

    Wouldn't it be helpful to allow taxpayers to make charitable crypto 
donations without requiring qualified appraisals? Do you consider the 
appraisal as necessary in a marketplace in which the value can easily 
be determined in online crypto exchanges?

    Answer. With the growth of the cryptocurrency market, we have seen 
an expansion in intermediary organizations that work with donors and 
registered nonprofit organizations to reduce the barriers to giving via 
cryptocurrency. One of these intermediaries is the Giving Block \29\ 
that provides an ecosystem for nonprofit organizations to fundraise via 
cryptocurrencies. Intermediary organizations have expanded access to 
crypto currency donations for nonprofit organizations while providing 
channels for donors to give cryptocurrencies to the organizations and 
causes they support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ https://thegivingblock.com/.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. I would like to follow up on our discussion regarding the 
barriers to establishing more community foundations around the country. 
As we discussed during the hearing, Indiana has had tremendous success 
in establishing community foundations across the State, in large part 
due to the generosity and long-term vision of the Lilly Endowment. 
However, not all States are fortunate enough to have Indiana's 
extensive community foundation structure and support.

    Based on your scholarship and experience, are you aware of any 
Federal barriers that prevent or hinder the creation of community 
foundations across the country? If so, what are your recommendations 
for addressing those barriers?

    Answer. Community foundations have expanded in the U.S. and many 
parts of the world. Within the U.S., the National Standards for U.S. 
Community Foundations Accreditation Program \30\--which ``certifies 
U.S. community foundations that meet and exceed Federal and State law 
requirements in practice and by policy--has provided guidance over 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ https://www.cfstandards.org/.

    While research has not focused on specific barriers that hinder the 
growth of community foundation, there is a recognition that funders can 
provide financial resources to assist with the creation of new 
community foundations and strengthening existing ones. Funders have 
also provided initial funding to encourage the development of community 
foundations for start-up and technical assistance, challenge grants to 
build endowment, and grants for specific programs and initiatives. Non-
monetary resources can raise a community foundation's profile and help 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
build trust with potential donors, grantees and the community at large.

    State and local governments can also play a role in strengthening 
community foundations through partnerships and collaboration. In some 
States, gifts to community foundations are eligible for tax credits. 
For example, in Kentucky, charitable donations to endowed charitable 
funds at Community Foundation are eligible for up to 20 percent in 
State tax credits. Only gifts to endowment funds at accredited 
community foundations qualify for this tax credit. Unlike tax 
deductions, tax credits are subtracted from a donor's tax bill, dollar 
for dollar. A gift of USD 5,000 has the potential to reduce the 
taxpayer burden in State taxes by USD 1,000.

    Question. During the hearing, I mentioned a collaboration between 
the Central Indiana Community Foundation and Indianapolis-based 
technology company, Selflessly, who partnered together to reduce 
obstacles to giving and help individuals and businesses better execute 
on their giving goals. I raised this example to demonstrate how 
Indiana's charitable giving sector is embracing innovation and 
technology.

    Another example is the launch of the Labs for Industry Futures and 
Transformation (LIFT) Network in the South Bend-Elkhart region of my 
State. This partnership leverages generous grant funding and local 
community foundations, networks, and organizations, including Notre 
Dame's iNDustry Labs, to link expertise, technologies, workforce 
development programs, and innovation-based facilities throughout the 
area.

    What are some other ways Indiana leads the country in innovation 
with respect to expanding or utilizing charitable giving?

    Answer. One area where Indiana has led the country in innovation is 
community foundations' growth. There are over 94 community foundations 
(legal entities, affiliates, and area funds), with at least one 
community foundation based in every county. Indiana's community 
foundations are tax-exempt charitable organizations. The Lilly 
Endowment, through its Giving Indiana Funds for Tomorrow \31\ (GIFT), 
has awarded USD 126.5 million to community foundations across Indiana. 
In the seventh phase of the initiative (GIFT VII), the Endowment looked 
to build upon the momentum and successes of GIFT's earlier stages and 
enhance Indiana's community foundations as trusted and valued 
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ https://lillyendowment.org/our-work/community-development/
strengthening-indiana/giving-indiana-funds-for-tomorrow/.

    Question. As violence has raged on in Ukraine, hopefully with an 
end in sight, it has been heartwarming to hear stories about Hoosiers 
taking action. For example, an organization out of Noblesville, IN, 
called Mission to Ukraine, usually assists women in crisis and children 
with severe disabilities. However, during this conflict, Mission to 
Ukraine has pivoted to collecting and handing out food, water, 
medicine, and clothes to the most vulnerable on the ground in Ukraine. 
Many Americans who listened to this hearing may be wondering what they 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
can do to help.

    What would be your recommendation to Americans who have a desire to 
assist humanitarian efforts in Ukraine?

    Answer. There are various ways to assist the humanitarian effort in 
Ukraine.

        Make donations and grants to registered non-U.S. nonprofit 
organizations working in Ukraine and affected areas internationally if 
such organizations meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue 
Service, including equivalency determination or expenditure 
responsibility;
        Work with intermediaries and pooled funds headquartered in the 
United States; such as the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund organized by 
GoFundMe in collaboration with the U.S. Department of State's Office of 
Global Partnerships; and the Ukraine Crisis Relief Fund organized by 
GlobalGiving; or
        Fund U.S.-based philanthropic organizations working in the 
region, such as the Red Cross or donate to international organizations, 
such as UNHCR, UNICEF, or WHO (Council on Foundations, 2022).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ https://cof.org/content/guidance-making-grants-support-
ukraine.

    Question. What trends or innovations have you observed with respect 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to Americans' charitable giving to Ukraine?

    Answer. According to Fidelity Charitable (2022),\33\ one in four 
Americans supported Ukraine through giving to nonprofit organizations, 
giving directly to affected individuals, or supporting local businesses 
or purchasing a product with proceeds to benefit Ukraine. The top three 
causes supported by Americans were medical support (60 percent), 
children's issues (58 percent) and short-term humanitarian aid, such as 
temporary housing, meals, and personal supplies (52 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/content/dam/fc-public/docs/
insights/all-eyes-on-ukraine-how-americans-are-responding-to-the-
crisis.pdf.

    There are many innovative ways how donors in the United States and 
across the globe have supported individuals and communities affected by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the crisis such as:

        Booking Airbnbs: It became a popular way to instantly support 
Ukrainians and booking Airbnbs in Ukraine has grossed nearly USD 2 
million as of March 5, 2022 (NPR, 2022);\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084739721/airbnb-ukraine-
direct-aid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Donating cryptocurrencies: Ukraine has also received a total 
of ``close to USD 100 million'' in crypto donations as of March 9, 2022 
(CoinDesk, 2022) \35\ and the government has spent USD 35 million of 
the donations on military supplies, USD 10 million on humanitarian 
support, and USD 6.5 million on general aid (Times, 2022);\36\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/03/09/ukraine-has-
received-close-to-100-million-in-crypto-donations/.
    \36\ https://time.com/nextadvisor/investing/cryptocurrency/donate-
crypto-to-ukraine/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Buying NFTs: The Ukrainian government has launched a webpage 
\37\ for selling an estimated 300 nonfungible tokens (NFTs) to collect 
donations for the support of Ukraine (Bloomberg, 2022).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ http://104.21.42.112:6080/php/
urlblock.php?args=AAAAewAAABCC7Q6VHrfEInQN7Vb9d
S8TAAAAECLO04cn4v9fV2XBxh8qfAAAAABLAAAAS48dy3whJ4ZeEWR1tCQ553dScTycSanE
o
eHnNTgL0IXkvsXLeR1jthqvBbEMcxzp4VuO5CfaLoDLLlmmFXmMYaGKvbs3HfHxkn0kA==&u
rl
=https://metahistory.gallery%2fwarline.
    \38\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-05/ukraine-
readies-nft-sales-as-crypto-donations-top-60-million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Providing support through Facebook communities: Facebook and 
other social media groups has served as an effective channel to 
communicate urgent needs and connect donors and beneficiaries in a 
timely manner (Vinnikov, 2022).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ https://globalindices.iupui.edu/doc/
Vinnikov%20GPEI%20Presentation.pdf.

    Question. The recently published 2022 Global Philanthropy 
Environment Index Report from the Indiana University Lilly Family 
School of Philanthropy,\40\ which I understand you helped prepare, 
found that while philanthropic giving grew worldwide between 2018 and 
2020, cross-border giving decreased, even as countries became richer 
and their residents more prosperous. I understand these findings were a 
surprise given that one of the hypotheses was that cross-border giving 
would increase as economic conditions in a country improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/28202.

    What is your theory as to why cross-border giving declined even 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
while overall philanthropic giving grew worldwide?

    Answer. I would like to clarify that while the global environment 
for philanthropy slightly improved between 2018 and 2022, the 
environment for cross-border giving experienced a decrease. The global 
philanthropic environment--comparing the 79 countries and economies 
included in both the 2018 and 2022 Global Philanthropy Environment 
Index--showed a modest increase between 2014-2017 and 2018-2020. 
However, one third of the 79 countries and economies included in both 
2018 and 2022 GPEI reported a shrinking space for cross-border 
philanthropy. This can be attributed to the importance of political 
factors (and not just economic factors) in shaping philanthropy.

        Country experts reported continuous and burdensome regulatory 
requirements for sending or receiving cross-border donations in 2018-
2020, often due to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism 
disclosure requirements.

        As part of the global counter-terrorism efforts, the 
        International Monetary Fund's Financial Action Task Force 
        (FATF) Special Recommendation 8 on nonprofit organizations, 
        originally published in 2012, is aimed at ensuring nonprofits 
        are not misused by terrorist organizations for illegitimate 
        purposes and suggests a group of measures to take action in 
        this direction. . . . These restrictions have been reported in 
        several countries to affect the capacity of the organizations 
        in the philanthropic sector to receive funding, send donations, 
        and introduce barriers to the flows of cash donations (Global 
        Philanthropy Environment Index, 2018).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/15958.

    Since then, FATF advocated for the review the adequacy of measures 
implemented by countries across the globe in order to take 
proportionate actions to address the possible risks without targeting 
the nonprofit sector through excessively rigid regulations to meet the 
FATF guidelines. However, such guidelines are still in place in many 
countries, negatively affecting the ability of sending or receiving 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cross- border donations.

        Additionally, between 2018 and 2020 some countries suffered 
from heavily regulated cross-border philanthropic flows, because of 
practices that restricted philanthropic inflows and/or outflows with 
high costs and burdensome administrative requirements often to fight 
against ``foreign agents.''

    In terms of the amount of cross-border giving globally, in 2018, 47 
economies contributed USD 68 billion in cross-border philanthropic 
outflows and a combined USD 834 billion through four cross-border 
flows, including philanthropic outflows, official development 
assistance, remittances, and private capital investment (Indiana 
University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2020).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ https://globalindices.iupui.edu/tracker/index.html.

        According to the Global Philanthropy Tracker, the United 
States contributed a total of USD 212.1 billion across the four cross-
border flows and the second largest flow was private philanthropy, at 
USD 47.6 billion (22.45 percent) in 2018. Private and voluntary 
organizations provided USD 35.3 billion in cross-border giving, private 
foundations contributed USD 6.3 billion, and corporate foundations 
accounted for USD 251 million. Religious organizations contributed USD 
5.71 billion to cross-border philanthropy (Indiana University Lilly 
Family School of Philanthropy, 2020).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ https://globalindices.iupui.edu/tracker/index.html.

    According to the most recent Giving USA: The Annual Report on 
Philanthropy, giving to international causes has increased in the last 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
couple of years, except for 2018 in the United States.

        In 2019, giving to international affairs was estimated to be 
USD 28.89 billion. Adjusted for inflation, giving to international 
affairs organizations declined 2.2 percent, after 2 strong years of 
growth (Giving USA Foundation, 2020).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2020-charitable-giving-
showed-solid-growth-climbing-to-449-64-billion-in-2019-one-of-the-
highest-years-for-giving-on-record/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2020, giving to international affairs is estimated to be 
USD 25.89 billion in 2020. Adjusted for inflation, giving to 
international affairs organizations increased 7.8 percent (Giving USA 
Foundation, 2021).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ https://philanthropynetwork.org/news/giving-usa-2021-year-
unprecedented-events-and-challenges-charitable-giving-reached-record-
47144.

    Question. Are there any actions Congress should take to help reduce 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
barriers to cross-border giving?

    Answer. Policymakers may review and assess anti-money laundering/
counterterrorism regulations and implement adequate measures that 
relate to the subset of the nonprofit sector that may be at risk of 
financing terrorism, while encouraging cross-border giving overall.

        A 2010 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (Holder v. 
        Humanitarian Aid) upheld the constitutionality of these 
        policies, including the prohibition of gifts to organizations 
        on a list of suspected terrorist groups maintained by the U.S. 
        Department of State, even if the funds are earmarked for a 
        group's charitable work. These rules have generally required 
        donors to exercise greater diligence in making international 
        gifts, or face penalties, and have been accused of reducing 
        giving, especially to the Middle East. (Lenkowsky, 2022) \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/28202/
2022GPEIUnitedStates.pdf.

    Policymakers may review regulations that surrounding cross-border 
donations to create more transparent and less burdensome reporting 
requirements and to provide tax incentives for international giving by 
having tax treaties with other countries. Such tax treaties are in 
force with Canada, Mexico, and Israel, where certain foreign 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
philanthropic organizations are granted 501(c)(3) exempt status.

        Americans can give cross-border donations without prior 
        government approval, but they can obtain a charitable tax 
        deduction only for contributions to POs ``created and 
        operated'' in the United States. However, they may be able to 
        exclude such gifts from taxable income if they can show that 
        the cross-border organization would qualify as a charity in the 
        United States. (Lenkowsky, 2022) \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/28202/
2022GPEIUnitedStates.pdf.

                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of C. Eugene Steuerle, Ph.D., Co-founder, Urban-
  Brookings Tax Policy Center; Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, 
    Urban Institute; and ACT for Alexandria, a Community Foundation
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor again to 
testify before you, this time on charitable contributions and taxes. 
The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be 
attributed to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, its trustees, or 
its funders.

    According to estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 
Congress's temporary changes to the tax law in 2017 reduced the Federal 
Government's total individual income tax subsidies for charitable 
giving by about 30 percent--from an average subsidy of about 21 cents 
to 15 cents per dollar contributed (Steuerle et al. 2021).

    Charitable giving, in turn, almost assuredly decreased giving from 
what it otherwise might have been. Using a commonly used estimate on 
behavioral response, my colleagues at the Tax Policy Center calculated 
that giving declined about 4 percent to 7 percent (Rosenberg and 
Stallworth 2017). At the same time, giving overall increased somewhat 
near the end of the last decade (Indiana School of Philanthropy, 
various years; Faulk, et al. (2021) due to other factors, such as 
income growth, higher employment, and in response to the COVID crisis.

    Some research also indicates that the share of people giving to 
charity has declined (Jones 2020), although this trend may also be 
attributable to the higher concentration of cash income. That, too, may 
be among the concerns that motivates this hearing.

    While there are legitimate debates about some of these numbers and 
the extent to which households have changed their behavior, the decline 
in subsidies provided is a straightforward calculation.

    Let me be clear. That decline in charitable giving subsidies was an 
indirect byproduct of several features of that 2017 law--in particular, 
a substantial increase in the standard deduction. That increase 
benefited many low- and middle-income taxpayers--not just those who 
switched to a standard deduction now worth more than all their 
otherwise itemizable deductions, but those who were already using the 
standard deduction and never took a charitable deduction to begin with.

    Nonetheless, the current charitable tax incentive now benefits only 
about one-tenth of all households, mainly those with higher incomes. I 
doubt seriously that the public will long support a deduction so 
narrowly applied (Steuerle 2018). As Roger Colinvaux (2017) suggests, a 
nonparticipatory deduction undermines many of the altruistic, 
pluralistic, and other rationales for a deduction. Whether to confront 
those concerns or simply address the upcoming expiration of the 2017 
provisions, these pressures provide a real opportunity to consider ways 
to create an even more effective charitable incentive, and I 
congratulate the committee on conducting these hearings on that matter.
       possible ways to compare options at different cost levels
    As a policy researcher, I find it helpful to define a rubric to 
compare options. Here, I suggest an informative way to compare reform 
options, whether proposed by me or anyone else.

    First, for different levels of total subsidy, compare different 
types of options on a revenue-neutral or cost-neutral basis. For 
instance, you might make these comparisons at the current level of 
total subsidy and the cost equivalent of restoring the 30-percent 
cutback in total subsidies. The Joint Committee on Taxation and the 
Congressional Budget Office have within their substantial capacities 
the ability to provide such comparisons. Applying this technique, 
analogous to cost effectiveness analysis, both focuses on effectiveness 
and compels advocates to discuss with you whether the money involved in 
the charity tax changes they propose could be spent better. I think you 
will find from most economic analyses, not just my own, that the 
conclusions on which designs best promote charitable giving will not 
vary greatly, whatever the level of total subsidy or assumption on 
behavioral response.

    Second, consider maximizing gains for charitable beneficiaries for 
each dollar of subsidy as the prize on which Congress focuses its eyes. 
That is, estimate the impact on charitable beneficiaries side by side 
with the net impact on taxpayers and on government revenues. In a 
balanced income statement, the total change in income of charitable 
beneficiaries equals the revenue loss to government minus any increase 
in taxpayers' net income (their tax reduction less the additional 
giving they make). Traditional distributional tables mislead when 
revenue losses appear to represent gains for taxpayers; in the case of 
a charitable tax incentive, some of, all, or more than all those gains 
are distributed to charitable beneficiaries.
               the power of signals both large and small
    Though much of what I present today relates to what we think we 
know about incentives, there is a higher level where we have some broad 
theoretical understanding, though limited empirical evidence, of likely 
consequences. I refer to the broader signal that Congress sends to the 
public about the role of charitable giving in our society.

    In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville singled out United States citizens 
for their extraordinary level of civic activity and association. Though 
communal efforts remain high, and the United States today still stands 
out among developed nations for the share of income devoted to 
charitable giving, neither should be taken for granted. Indeed, some 
research indicates that participation in both associations, including 
religious gatherings, and charitable giving has been declining. 
Meanwhile, many online groups and media have become increasingly 
partisan, political, and in-group focused. Also, as our Nation has 
become several time richer per capita over recent decades, we have not 
been able to increase the share of income given to charity.

    As many current events remind us, we cannot blandly assume that the 
blessings with which we have been endowed will pass automatically to 
our children. The legacy we leave should be greater than our 
inheritance. And though only a small piece of a much bigger picture, a 
bipartisan effort to improve how tax law serves charitable 
beneficiaries can have ripple effects beyond the charitable sector, 
including setting an example for how bipartisan and effective 
legislation can be achieved.

    On a less lofty level, my testimony will attempt to demonstrate how 
the signals and nudges that Congress sends should be carefully 
considered on several fronts:

    Value Promotion. In addition to its direct incentive effect, a 
deduction for only a few taxpayers weakly promotes and markets the 
value our society places on charitable giving.

    Ceilings. Caps and ceilings on the amount of giving eligible for a 
deduction or credit don't simply limit incentives to give more; as 
signals, they can provide further disincentives, especially when people 
stop giving at what they perceive as the maximum that Congress thinks 
is worth encouraging.

    Floors. Floors can encourage giving. They allow incentives to be 
concentrated where they are most likely to change behavior--that is, 
for giving beyond what one would do in absence of a tax subsidy. A 
floor set at some measure of average or median giving as a share of 
income also sends a signal to people that they might want to give above 
that level to attain their ``fair share.''

    Administrability. Incentives that can't be monitored by IRS at some 
reasonable level invite corruption within the charitable sector, create 
inequity among taxpayers, and discourage giving.

    Saliency and Nudges. When and how signals are given, such as timing 
rewards close to the time that people pay taxes think of the 
connection, can increase charitable giving.

    Taking account of these various signals, I focus the remainder of 
my discussion on what we know more directly about the effectiveness of 
different types of incentives.
            the distribution of charitable giving subsidies

    Reducing the marginal incentives for people with higher incomes 
might unintentionally decrease charitable giving, just as increasing 
the standard deduction may have done for people with low and middle 
incomes. Today, higher-income people contribute a very high percentage 
of total national giving (Figure 1).

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsAn incentive that significantly caps subsidies for richer or 
more generous donors can easily reverberate to significantly reduce the 
money available for charitable beneficiaries. Remember that charitable 
giving, not just government transfers, provides society a way to 
redistribute income and ameliorate inequalities. If a donor would give 
$1 less because of a loss of a deduction worth $1 in reduced taxes, the 
donor's net income doesn't fall at all; some charitable beneficiary 
somewhere receives $1 less in charitable goods and services.

    There's also a longstanding issue of equal justice or horizontal 
equity that reinforces the incentive case for a charitable deduction 
even for those with higher levels of income. Think of this in the 
context of a simple tax system that assesses a tax rate of 20 percent 
on all income. If you make $100,000 a year and give away $30,000, 
should you be taxed like someone who makes $100,000 and gives away 
nothing or like someone with $70,000 of net income? Without a tax 
deduction, the net income of someone who gives away $30,000 is $50,000; 
with a deduction, it's $56,000. The nongiver still has $80,000 left in 
either case. If one wants to tax 
higher-income people more, increasing taxes on all of them may be 
fairer than simply going after charitable donors.
                  designing a more universal deduction
    In a recent brief, my colleagues Robert McClelland, Nikhiti Airi, 
Chenxi Lu, Aravind Boddupalli, and I (2019) examined how lawmakers 
could expand the existing deduction, at whatever revenue cost Congress 
entertains, to maximize benefits for people who rely on charities. Some 
parts of the following discussion come from that brief and a related 
paper. In this research we used a modest estimate of the behavioral 
response to incentives, one that does not take account of the potential 
long-run signaling power of an incentive. A higher estimate for the 
behavioral response, however, would tend to show the same relative 
advantages of different types of proposals.

    It's easy to design a subsidy that mainly benefits taxpayers but 
not charitable beneficiaries. For example, the $300 per tax unit 
nonitemizer charitable deduction in 2020 provided charitable recipients 
with as little as $100 million at a cost of $1.5 billion in forgone 
Federal revenue (Steuerle 2020). Since most donors already give more 
than $300 annually, the subsidy created an incentive for almost no one. 
And the IRS has almost no way to audit bogus claims, effectively making 
the $300 deduction available to any nonitemizer, whether they donate to 
charity or not. A somewhat similar $300 subsidy per individual taxpayer 
in 2021 had the same features.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsTo better understand the effectiveness of the charitable 
deduction, we created a balance sheet that shows how income of 
government, taxpayers, and charitable recipients changes under various 
proposals (Figure 2). As noted above, additional contributions 
represent transfers that flow through charities to their beneficiaries, 
while the change in the taxpayers' net income equals their increase in 
contributions less their additional tax saving. We used a behavioral 
response commonly applied to this type of analysis. If you double that 
behavioral response, the increase in charitable contributions would be 
about double what you see in the chart, but the relative advantages of 
proposals, measured by increase in giving relative to the revenue cost 
to Treasury, stay about the same.

    We first studied an unrestricted deduction that would allow both 
itemizers and nonitemizers with a positive tax liability to deduct 
their contributions. While this would create a new tax break for many 
households, it would be very inefficient at helping the beneficiaries 
of charities since most of the subsidy would go for donations that 
would have occurred anyway.

    On net, an unrestricted charitable deduction would have lowered 
Federal revenue in 2019 by about $27 billion but increased 
contributions by only $9 billion.

    We also examined several alternative forms of a universal 
deduction. One version would allow a single deduction for itemizers and 
nonitemizers alike only for contributions in excess of 1 percent of the 
taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI), and another would subsidize 
contributions only in excess of 2 percent. A third would provide a 
separate deduction for nonitemizers for any giving up to one-third of 
the standard deduction--for example, up to a little more than $8,000 in 
2020 for most married couples.

    Compared with an unrestricted universal deduction, a 1-percent 
floor would reduce contributions by about a quarter but cost only one-
third as much. Put another way, a universal deduction with no floor 
would cost $17 billion more than a universal deduction with a 1-percent 
floor, while generating only $2 billion extra for charitable 
recipients. The rest would be an additional windfall for taxpayers.

    Any floor also makes converting to a more universal deduction more 
progressive by eliminating some deductions from current itemizers with 
little effect on their incentive to give.

    The nonitemizer deduction of up to one-third of the standard 
deduction would have cost more than $20 billion in 2019 but increased 
contributions by less than $4 billion. This proposal runs into three 
sets of problems that limit its incentive effect: it provides subsidies 
for first dollars of giving that would be done anyway, it caps 
incentives for those moderately generous taxpayers who are often the 
backbone of the charitable sector, and, once again, it spends a lot on 
higher-income taxpayers who already itemize charitable contributions 
but switch to the standard deduction.
The Switcher Problem
    Almost all attempts to expand the charitable tax deduction runs 
into what is called the ``switcher'' problem, whereby substantial tax 
benefits are provided to those who already itemize their deductions.

    Consider a married couple in 2021 who pays $10,000 in State and 
local taxes, contributes $20,000 to charities, and declares itemized 
deductions of $30,000. Now suppose that an unlimited charitable 
deduction had been allowed. The couple already could deduct any 
additional amount given to charity, so the incentive effect of the new 
regime is practically nil. The couple nonetheless would have received a 
windfall from the change in the law, as it could then have taken a 
standard deduction of $25,100 as well as a charitable deduction of 
$20,000, thereby getting an additional $15,100 in total deductions. 
Though current itemizers are not the intended target of additional 
subsidy dollars, they would still garner a large share--so large that a 
simple universal deduction would provide higher total tax subsidies for 
the richest 20 percent of households than for any other quintile 
(Steuerle et al. 2021).

    A nonitemizer deduction with a cap runs into the same issues. 
Suppose the cap for the married couple is $8,000. By switching to the 
standard deduction, a couple formerly itemizing with $8,000 of 
charitable giving within $26,100 of itemizable expenses could now 
garner $7,000 of additional deductions. In this example, the couple 
also moves from a world where they had an incentive to give some 
additional dollars to one where they had no incentive, at least for up 
to $1,000 of additional giving.

    By using a floor under which charitable contributions are not 
allowed, Congress can limit these types of gains for those already 
itemizing and improve the progressivity of an expanded deduction. A 
floor is also consistent with other provisions in the tax law that 
limit the deduction to expenses that are above normal.

    A universal deduction above 2 percent of AGI increases charitable 
giving while raising revenues for government.

    Is there a sweet spot where government can increase giving without 
any loss in revenues? My colleagues and I found that a floor of 1.9 
percent would just about break even for government under the law in 
place after 2017 but before COVID-19, while raising contributions by 
about $2.5 billion. If Congress were to restore subsidies to pre-2017 
levels, a revenue-neutral floor of less than 1 percent would 
efficiently promote giving.

    Proposals with floors also avoid providing the highest average 
additional subsidy to the 20 percent of taxpayers with the highest 
incomes who often already itemize.
                            administrability
    Unfortunately, the current charitable deduction has serious 
enforcement and tax administrative problems. It's not simply that tax 
administration is collapsing under the weight placed on it. An IRS that 
audits significantly less than 1 percent of taxpayers can hardly 
discover whether voluntarily reported transactions are valid. How can 
it possibly trace what cash I threw in the collection basket or donated 
to someone? This problem provides a real threat to creating a more 
universal deduction that would potentially add tens of millions of 
additional returns claiming hundreds of millions of individual 
contributions for which verification would be difficult if not 
impossible.
Reporting on Charitable Contributions

    A more universal deduction with a floor under what charitable 
contributions can be deducted helps avoid adding to the IRS's 
administrability problems. And to be clear, at least for those owing 
positive tax liability, it is still a deduction universally available 
to anyone giving amounts closer to what the average giver contributes.

    But that still leaves the problem inherent even in current law. 
Over 30 years ago I went on an IMF mission to China and tried to 
explain how tax administration works in a market-based economy. One top 
Chinese administrator kept asking questions about how many people we 
punished. I tried to explain that what makes our tax system work--at 
least to the extent it does work--are accounting systems where private 
parties need and want accuracy; the IRS can latch onto those private 
accounting systems, rather than try to audit everyone, which it can't 
do anyway, or severely punish the noncompliant.

    These accounting systems take advantage of divergent interests 
within the private sector. Workers want to be paid the amount that 
businesses want to deduct. Banks want to deduct the same cost of 
interest that savers want to receive. Value-added taxes work because 
buyers want to get full credit for the tax already paid by the 
intermediate producer before them. Tariffs worked for millennia because 
buyers and sellers would gather to inspect bills of lading. In each 
case, tax administrators rely mainly upon systems of accounting in 
place because one party to the transaction wants to insure against 
overreporting, and the other party against underreporting.

    Unfortunately, we have no such system in place for charitable 
contributions, even though the taxpayer wants to take the maximum 
deduction possible and the charity wants to receive the maximum 
contribution. When there is both reporting and withholding to IRS, 
mainly for wages that can be computer matched, the net underreporting 
is estimated to be only 1 percent; when there is substantial 
information reporting to IRS on items like interest and dividends, the 
figure is more like 5 percent. Compliance rates fall off substantially 
from there, even when there is partial reporting to IRS (Figure 3).

    We really don't know how well charitable contributions are reported 
partly because the IRS doesn't study this matter to any great extent. 
But, even if the IRS tried, it has no way of judging the accuracy of 
many claims. If Congress tripled the size of the IRS, it could probably 
audit more people for confirmation, especially of individual 
contributions above $250, for which charities are supposed to provide 
acknowledgment to donors. But auditing is terribly expensive, 
burdensome to taxpayers, inadequate even in the best of cases, and 
fairly useless when no records are available. Bottom line, there is no 
way on this green earth that the IRS can check on and audit billions of 
charitable transactions under current, very outdated systems of 
accounting and reporting.

    Though I focus here mainly on limits for IRS enforcement, there are 
also burdens on taxpayers. Think of all taxpayers now having to keep 
track of the extra dollar of contribution implicit in each box of Girl 
Scout cookies purchased.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsFortunately, there may be no more opportune time for Congress 
to create a system of electronic reporting for charitable deductions.

    In an era where recording of transactions extends even to 
cryptocurrency, I have little doubt that technology can easily meet the 
challenge of creating a much better and not-too-expensive system of 
reporting to the IRS. Third-party intermediaries, including tax 
preparers, payroll providers, and credit card companies, likely would 
create ways to do this easily. If people don't want to share their 
Social Security numbers, they could make their contributions through, 
say, tax preparers who already must know that Social Security number. 
Or people might limit that information by channeling their 
contributions through a single donor-advised fund, as some people do 
already to simplify their tax filing. Almost all transactions today are 
recorded electronically. I give to many charities, large and small, and 
nary a one doesn't generate electronic information for me.

    Even if Congress does not require electronic filing for everyone, 
it could limit the eligibility for a more universal deduction to 
contributions made through record-
keepers. With so many taxpayers ineligible today for a charitable 
deduction, Congress would still be significantly expanding the number 
of people who get a deduction. No charity need be left out except on 
its own volition. And perhaps some subsidies for administrative costs 
could be made available to charities for a transition period.

    I don't deny that charities would need time and effort to adjust to 
a better information system, but bearing that cost might support an 
even more generous deduction than Congress could otherwise supply. A 
more generous deduction might, in turn, generate tens of billions of 
dollars of additional contributions annually and help create a more 
transparent sector with fewer temptations for donors and charities. 
Moreover, the charities with the least sophisticated accounting systems 
likely depend more on less wealthy donors. If so, most of their 
contributors don't get a deduction currently anyway.
In-Kind Charitable Contributions
    Some attention must also be paid to the ability of IRS to monitor 
in-kind charitable contribution (Colinvaux 2019). More than 83 percent 
of noncash charitable donations in 2018, or over 11 million donated 
items valued at over $12 billion, were in the form of clothing or 
household items (Statistics of Income, IRS, for 2018). Imagine 
multiplying that number of items several fold with a more universal 
deduction.

    Issues here extend from outright cheating to questionable 
valuations to costs to Treasury in excess of what flows through to the 
charities. Most of us have probably gotten the blank slip to fill out 
ourselves when we donate some items. Also consider the case where 
someone uses a household good or piece of clothing a few times, donates 
it, and values it at half the original market price. Then a profit-
making firm acting as an agent for a charity transfers the item to a 
thrift store. There the item sells for one-twentieth of its original 
value, and most of those proceeds are paid to the store and the profit-
making agent. Such a set of transactions may be totally legal, even 
though the charity gets only a tiny fraction of what the donation cost 
the government.

    Another option often put on the table is to allow deductions for 
the sales price of complex assets. Again, I wonder whether this type of 
reform would reduce charitable giving very much; if so, the additional 
revenue pick-up could be put back into a better incentive for more 
administrable contributions.

    If we can't figure out better ways to deal with these and other 
types of in-kind contributions, then perhaps the more universal 
deduction should be confined to cash contributions.
                    saliency and behavioral science
    The behavioral public finance literature encourages us to think 
about psychology, not just economic incentives, when designing features 
of a tax system.
Allowing Deductions at Time of Tax Filing (the April 15th Idea)
    For more than a quarter-century I have suggested that allowing 
deductions up until April 15th or the time of filing of a return would 
provide more bang per buck, or increased contributions relative to 
revenue cost, than almost any other reform.

    My thoughts came from some simple observations. First, the best 
time to advertise the value of a charitable deduction is when people 
fill out their tax returns and tax preparers help them look for 
additional ways to reduce taxes. Second, many people tend to 
underestimate their marginal tax rate or the size of the subsidy for 
giving. They may equate the subsidy rate with their average, not 
marginal, tax rate. At filing time, however, tax preparers and tax 
software companies can show people directly how much they would save 
for each $100 of contributions they make. They can also help taxpayers 
donate enough to avoid any significant penalty for underpayment of 
taxes due.

    A version of this alternative deadline for claiming charitable 
deductions was included in the America Gives More Act that passed the 
House of Representatives in July 2014.

    Since this additional advertising does almost nothing to change the 
size of the incentive (other than perhaps a minor timing change on when 
the contribution is made), the cost to the Treasury is modest, perhaps 
$15 or $30 (or the average marginal tax rate that applies to 
contributions) for every additional $100 contribution made.

    In April 2016, Alex Rees-Jones and Dmitry Tabuinsky, two scholars 
who work at the intersection of public economics and behavioral 
economics, prepared a brief on ``Tax Psychology and the Timing of 
Charitable-Giving Deadlines.'' They examined this type of reform in 
more detail and concluded that it would likely increase charitable 
giving when (1) individuals, who tend to be focused on the present more 
than the future, can claim an incentive payment very quickly after the 
donation; (2) tax rules are more salient and more likely to be examined 
by the taxpayer, as at tax filing time; and (3) taxpayers, who are 
generally tax averse, find immediate opportunities to turn that 
aversion into reducing taxes even as they are paying them.

    To deal with the enforcement issues I relayed above, however, this 
April 15th allowance might be allowed only for contributions 
accompanied by an improved reporting system, as is the case with IRA 
contributions that can also be made up to the time of tax filing. 
Otherwise, at least one Treasury official I talked to in the past 
feared that some taxpayers would take the deduction twice--for example, 
on April 15, 2022, for 2021 income taxes and again in 2023 for 2022 
taxes.
Lottery Winnings
    People who come into sudden windfalls by winning lotteries are 
quickly get confronted with the tax consequences. If winners are 
charitably minded, they might make donate some of or all their 
winnings, then find themselves unable to take a full deduction for that 
donation.

    Suppose I spend $1 on a winning lottery ticket that has a 1 in 10 
million chance of winning $5 million. If I donate the ticket to a 
charity before the lottery drawing, I effectively have given away a 
ticket only worth 50 cents, and the income from the winnings would flow 
directly to the charity. Of course, charities might not even want to 
handle contributions of almost worthless lottery tickets. When I win 
and try to give the winnings away, however, I probably can't avoid 
paying tax on up to $2 million or so of the winnings (when the maximum 
deduction is set at 60 percent of AGI).

    Why not simplify this whole mess for lottery winners and grant them 
a limited period within which to donate the winnings, or some share of 
the winnings, to charity with no deduction limit? Why trap them into 
the arcane formalities of the tax laws? The most salient time for 
people to think about what to do with possible winnings is when they 
win, not when they buy the ticket.
Matching Grants Versus Tax Reductions
    A third way to consider behavioral science is to consider matching 
grants in lieu of tax reductions. I recognize that I am bringing up 
many difficult issues here, including potential cross-jurisdictional 
authority across congressional committees and direct expenditures 
versus tax subsidies.

    Consider a taxpayer with an effective tax deduction of 40 cents for 
a dollar contributed. In effect, that taxpayer's net contribution is 60 
cents, and the government effectively provides a 2-for-3 or 67-percent 
match for the net contribution. The 67-percent figure sounds higher 
than the 40-percent figure, yet the $1 tax-deductible contribution is 
equivalent to the 60-cent contribution matched by a grant. I've already 
discussed how many taxpayers may underestimate the size of the 
incentive they face with today's deduction. Many further likely also 
underestimate the size of the government match.

    For at least some donors who give away the same gross amount either 
way and ignore incentives, the amount going to charity will be much 
higher with a matching grant. In the example above, the $1 eligible for 
a tax incentive yields only $1 to the charity and 40 cents back to the 
taxpayer; the matching grant yields $1.67 to the charity and nothing 
back to the taxpayer.

    As one example of this type of arrangement, for over 6 years the 
United Kingdom offered a UK Aid Match, run by the Foreign, Commonwealth 
and Development Office, to support public engagement in international 
development work. It matches generous donations from the public pound 
for pound. Total subsidies are capped, however, which severely limits 
the impact of the program and its net incentive effect.

    These three examples show ways we can use behavioral science to 
create a more effective design of charitable subsidies.
                               conclusion
    In the early 1990s I wrote a book called The Tax Decade. The title 
alluded to the fact that almost every major tax, budget, and spending 
reform of that decade was led by efforts within the Senate Finance and 
Ways and Means committees. Almost all those reforms engaged in trade-
offs that would offend someone. Today many members of Congress, as well 
as constituents, talk about the failure of those very same processes. I 
think that failure relates directly to our increasing inability as a 
people to accept that trade-offs are necessary to enact good policy--
that money used one way inevitably can't be used another way. And we 
pull Congress in the same direction. Yet reforms that require trade-
offs must be led by Congress and can't be expected from membership 
organizations that try to represent all their members.

    Based on that experience, I recommend turning to nonpartisan or 
bipartisan congressional or other staff to provide options based upon 
how well they improve charitable giving at whatever net subsidy dollars 
you specify. Along those lines, I suggest paying close attention to how 
the societal, not just individual, value of giving can be promoted; how 
for any given level of subsidy, caps significantly weaken and floors 
significantly strengthen the incentive provided; how to decrease rather 
than add to compliance problems for IRS while using the saving from 
improved compliance to provide a more generous charitable incentive; 
and how making incentives more salient can add to charitable giving.

    All these recommendations aim to create a more participatory 
charitable sector, along with maximum gains for charitable 
beneficiaries for whatever total subsidy level Congress provides.

REFERENCES

``All Individual Returns With Noncash Charitable Contributions Reported 
on Form 8283, by Donation Type, Tax Year 2018.'' SOI Tax Stats--
Individual Noncash Charitable Contributions, Internal Revenue Service, 
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-noncash-
charitable-contributions.

Colinvaux, Roger. 2017. ``The Importance of a Participatory Charitable 
Giving Incentive.'' Tax Notes 154 (605), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=
2924562.

------. 2019. ``Fixing Philanthropy: A Vision for Charitable Giving and 
Reform.'' Tax Notes 162 (1007), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=3354717.

Faulk, Lewis, Mirae Kim, Teresa Derrick-Mills, Elizabeth Boris, Laura 
Tomasko, Nora Hakizimana, Tianyu Chen, Minjung Kim, and Layla Nath. 
2021. ``Nonprofit Trends and Impacts, 2021.'' Washington, DC: The Urban 
Institute, October 15, 2021, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/
publication/104889/nonprofit-trends-and-impacts-2021_3.pdf.

Jones, Jeffrey M. 2020. ``Percentage of Americans Donating to Charity 
at New Low.'' Gallup, May 14th, https://news.gallup.com/poll/310880/
percentage-americans-donating-charity-new-low.aspx.

Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Giving USA. 
Chicago, IL: Giving USA Foundation, various years.

McClelland, Rob, Eugene Steuerle, Chenxi Lu, and Aravind Boddupalli. 
2019. ``Tax Incentives for Charitable Contributions.,'' Washington, DC: 
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, November 12, 2019, https://
www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/tax-incentives-charitable-
contributions.

Rees-Jones, Alex, and Dmitry Taubinsky. 2016. ``Tax Psychology and the 
Timing of Charitable-Giving Deadlines.'' Washington, DC: Urban 
Institute, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/tax-psychology-
and-timing-charitable-giving-deadlines.

Rosenberg, Joseph, and Phillip Stallworth. 2017. ``The House Bill Is 
Not Very Charitable to Nonprofits.'' Tax Vox (blog), Tax Policy Center, 
November 15th, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/house-tax-bill-
not-very-charitable-nonprofits.

Steuerle, Eugene. 2018. ``Challenges and Opportunities for Charities 
After the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.'' Presentation to the ABA Tax 
Meetings Exempt Organization Section, Washington, DC, May 11th, https:/
/www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/challenges-opportunities-
charities-after-2017-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act.

------. 2020. ``The CARES Act Charitable Deduction for Non-Itemizers 
Was a Lost Opportunity to Help Beneficiaries of Non-Profits.'' Tax Vox 
(blog), Tax Policy Center, May 19th, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/
taxvox/cares-act-charitable-deduction-non-itemizers-was-lost-
opportunity-help-beneficiaries-non.

Steuerle, C. Eugene, Robert McClelland, Nikhita Airi, Chenxi Lu, and 
Aravind Boddupalli. 2021. ``Designing an Effective and More Universal 
Charitable Deduction.'' Washington, DC: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy 
Center, https://www.
urban.org/research/publication/designing-effective-and-more-universal-
charitable-deduction.

                                 ______
                                 
    Questions Submitted for the Record to C. Eugene Steuerle, Ph.D.
                  Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
    Question. In the CARES Act, Congress created a non-itemizer 
charitable deduction of up to $300 in 2020, which was later extended 
and expanded for 2021. You proposed a number of thoughtful policy 
options in your testimony which would make charitable incentives more 
efficient. But some proposals to better target giving incentives may 
not be supported by the broader charitable sector.

    Where are the areas of disagreement? And are there practical ways 
to bridge those divides?

    Answer. 1. Enforcement and Administration. One area of disagreement 
is over enforcement and administration. I believe this is an optimal 
time to make a more extended deduction in exchange for a system of 
reporting to the IRS, though I realize some charities will object to 
the additional burden. I suppose that one could offer the more extended 
deduction only for those contributions that are reported to the IRS, 
thus taking nothing away from any charity that it doesn't already have. 
In that ``political'' sense, it would create no losers. Charities would 
then ``volunteer'' to report to trigger the expanded deduction for 
donors.

    In the long run, however, I think the charitable sector is already 
hurt by a deduction that is not well administered, while the American 
taxpayer loses out by the extent of cheating that this lack of 
administration likely invites. Creating a greatly expanded deduction 
could exacerbate both problems and damage the reputation of charities. 
If one creates an expanded deduction with some notion that some later 
Congress could tackle the issue, charities would be much more likely to 
view that later effort simply as an attack on them, rather than a 
modest new burden enacted to get an enhanced deduction.

    By the way, there are numerous ways in which taxpayers can limit 
access to their information about themselves. For instance, they could 
contribute through an intermediary such as a tax preparer or a donor 
advised fund that maintained anonymity and provided the matchable 
documents to IRS.

    2. A floor. Much of the study of economics is built around the 
notion of marginal incentives. Most all economists would agree that a 
floor (e.g., a deduction only for giving above, say, 1 or 2 percent of 
income) provides much more charitable giving per dollar of contribution 
made. A few charities, mistakenly in my view, believe a floor would 
leave out many of their donors. But this seems to be based on their 
receipt of some average contribution like $300 to that charity alone, 
when most donors give to multiple charities. Moreover, most very small 
givers have never been eligible for a charitable deduction, even under 
pre-2017 law.

    Suppose that Congress allowed a deduction for giving above 1 
percent of AGI (subject to a reporting requirement, which, in my view, 
is the only way it can be administrable). This is a universal deduction 
option for everyone who gives more than 1 percent of income. Note that 
2 percent is the average for all taxpayers and 3 percent is closer to 
the average for givers, those who give some positive amount). 
Additionally, the whole purpose of the standard deduction and the floor 
under medical expense deduction was to limit burdens not just to IRS 
but to taxpayers when amounts are small.

    3. Tradeoffs. Like other organizations, charities have difficulty 
dealing with tradeoffs. Their membership organizations want to be 
appreciative to each member of Congress for anything they can get. 
Also, they fear offering trade-offs and then only getting the raw end 
of the bargain in some deficit cutting exercise. To deal with their own 
constituencies and members, they often get trapped in supporting 
efforts that give away money to most charities without any to give up 
anything, even when such an incentive is a very bad deal for most 
charities relative to one that would increase charitable giving more 
for the same level of cost.

    I believe the only way to help the sector representatives get their 
members to face up to the trade-offs is to present equal cost options. 
By its very nature, a fixed budget for considering options shows the 
trade-offs involved. (To be clear, this can be done at multiple levels 
of fixed budgets; at each level, the trade-offs are then made 
apparent.) As I indicated in my testimony, those options should be 
accompanied by estimates of the amount of charitable giving generated 
from each option. Then the sector representatives can tell their 
members that, say, ``Here's option 1. It costs, say, $10 billion but 
generates only $2 billion in charitable giving and $8 billion of net 
taxpayer relief that doesn't go for charitable purposes. Option 2 also 
costs $10 billion but likely generates $10 billion in charitable 
giving.'' While there are more winners and losers in the second option, 
this comparison allows both the charities and Congress to keep eyes on 
the prize--the charitable beneficiaries we are trying to help.

    Mr. Chairman, a number of years ago you expressed admiration for my 
work in helping organize and design the study that led to the Tax 
Reform Act of 1986. One of the reasons that engagement worked 
politically was that the negotiations that followed were conducted 
under a set revenue goal. Advocates were then forced to argue for why 
their alternative was superior to others. I think the Senate Finance 
Committee, along with Ways and Means and Treasury, will soon be facing 
a period where tax, budget, Social Security, and Medicare reform will 
force many tougher comparisons and tradeoffs to be considered. I 
realize that the tax treatment of charitable contributions represents 
only a modest amount policy arena compared to some of these other 
issues. Setting up a good process now can set a precedent that might be 
quite helpful for the future.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
    Question. You have raised a lot of tax-specific points that are 
important for the Finance Committee to consider. In your written 
statement, you raised an interesting idea: that perhaps Congress should 
allow individuals to take deductions for charitable donations up until 
the time of the tax return filing deadline.

    Even if implemented correctly, what other challenges do you think 
could arise?

    Answer. I have heard two objections made to this provision. First, 
some people might be confused as to whether the donation at time of tax 
filing might again be available the following year. For instance, I 
take a deduction at tax filing time in 2021 on my 2020 return. I then 
must be sure not to take the deduction again in 2021. (The same issue 
arises with IRA contributions.) I think that potential problem is 
easily solved by a system of reporting. If not the more elaborate 
system required with a more universal deduction, then simply make this 
option available exactly at time of filing. Almost everyone uses tax 
software or an accountant who uses such software that could report 
accurately just when and how the deduction is made.

    The second objection I have heard is that contribution deductions 
at time of tax filing change the status quo for charities that 
emphasize end-of-year advertising. I don't find this very convincing in 
an age when charities send out requests year-round. First Tuesday or 
other ``days of giving'' offer yet another recent option that many 
charities latched onto. They didn't ask the First Tuesday organizers to 
shut down because people confuse it with end-of-year efforts.

    The main reason for offering a deduction at time of tax filing is 
that by making the size of the tax incentive transparent, it is highly 
likely to increase the perceived incentive to give. Taxpayers also like 
to get refunds rather than write checks to Treasury, and this option 
allows them to make avoid those extra payments. As a result, the bang 
per buck for this option is greater than almost any other that I have 
been able to conceive. If a taxpayer is in a 25-percent bracket, any 
extra giving yields something like a 4-to-1 ratio of extra giving 
relative to extra cost for the Treasury.

    Why doesn't such a ratio exist for the current deduction? That 
deduction provides incentives for every dollar of giving, not just 
additional dollars. For the most part, the deduction at time of filing 
doesn't really add any new incentives for the dollars of giving already 
being made; it simply makes apparent the incentives so as to entice 
additional giving.

    In my testimony, I have quoted some behavioral economists who 
provide related arguments on why this incentive might be fairly 
powerful.

    I invite you also to look at the small proposal I made with respect 
to lottery winnings. State governments might also be able to take 
advantage of this type of simplification to encourage winners of their 
big lotteries to donate to charity.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse
    Question. The deduction for charitable donations is meant to 
encourage contributions that benefit the public. With donor-advised 
funds, the donor gets the deduction now, but the charitable benefit may 
not happen for years.

    Are there any reforms to donor-advised funds that should be 
considered?

    Answer. To me the questions surrounding donor advised funds are 
ones that apply to charity more generally. To give a few examples:

    First, endowments and assets. Charities that grow their endowments 
and assets, whether defined as endowments at all, tuck away far more 
money that sits in donor advised funds. All asset buildup defers the 
spending of money for charitable beneficiaries, to some extent favoring 
future beneficiaries over current ones. I have asked charities whether 
they would prefer to have an endowment (or more assets, whether labeled 
``endowment'' or not), and most of any size almost uniformly indicate, 
``Yes.'' It's not clear to me, therefore, that ``spend now, not later'' 
argument applies more to DAFs than other charitable assets.

    There's also a technical question whether DAF rules could prevent 
operating charities from effectively running DAFs. For instance, an 
operating charity might tuck away enough operating funds to offset any 
payout requirement.

    The DAF is a far more flexible instrument than many other assets 
and endowments within the charitable sector. For instance, the donation 
of a building to a charity determines the use of those funds for 
decades or even a century to come and typically locks in assets and 
their use far more than a DAF. DAFs also tend not to be locked into 
fulfilling some donor intent that may be a less efficient use of 
charitable money down the road.

    Second, political uses of charities. The use of charities for 
political purposes is indeed an issue but is hardly confined to donor-
advised funds. Whatever rules need to apply here, including on 
disclosure, seems to me to be considered across the charitable sector.

    Third, self-dealing. One issue that tended to drive past rules for 
foundations was self-dealing or using the foundation for control of a 
business. If that is an issue, then I would try to think of rules here 
that identify the abuses. Also, here it seems sensible to require 
national DAFS to ensure that the fund investment they sponsor have as 
low of a fee structure as is available for equivalent investments in 
the market generally.

    Fourth, the wealthy. In a study of rules applying to foundations, 
Ben Soskis and I found that the motivation that led to the 1969 Act, 
sometimes by Democrats and sometimes by Republicans, centered around 
suspicion of the wealthy and what they were doing with the money. 
Treasury did focus its study leading to that Act in part on money was 
tucked away and not paid out over time. If that's the issue here, then 
perhaps some simplified payout rules such as apply to foundations 
should apply to very large DAFs. Keep in mind, however, that the very 
wealthy generally don't get a current contribution deduction anyway for 
giving away very much of their wealth (most of their income is accrued, 
not realized). They can avoid most rules by simply giving away less, 
or, as some wealthy donors already are doing, setting up a ``not-for-
profit'' firm that generates little income because it gives away its 
money or subsidies activities at below cost.

    My experience as a cofounder of a community foundation is that DAFs 
are sometimes created to build up funds for specific purposes. Some are 
of modest size, and annual payouts may make little sense. Some are 
meant to provide permanent support to the community foundation, as when 
one designates a regular payout for that purpose but wants to maintain 
flexibility in case some other need becomes greater. Some are modest 
family efforts for the long-term purpose of teaching children and 
grandchildren to give. At the community foundation, we might have one 
fund for accumulating money to garner public support for a swimming 
pool or building, but, again, the donors may want to maintain 
flexibility in case that option doesn't work out. Another fund might 
gather money for racial equity work, with uncertain dates as to how and 
when that money will be distributed. Most DAF donors give away money to 
non-DAF charities; if combined, their ``effective payout'' is quite 
high even if the DAF pays out little in a given year.

    Finally, I note again that charities build up assets all the time. 
The main distinction with a DAF is that the right of decision-making 
for future rests with donors or someone they designate; at the same 
time, the money is often much more flexible and not locked up for some 
specific purpose.

    Question. We have heard that reforms which require tracking when 
donations come in and when they are distributed from donor-advised 
funds can be an administrative burden.

    Do you have ideas for ameliorating any administrative burden that 
may exist?

    Answer. If you go down this route, I suggest just using beginning-
of-year asset value to determine some minimum payout, though, as noted 
above, even a minimum payout, other than perhaps for some foundation 
equivalent treatment very large DAFs not set aside for some specific 
future purpose, gives me concerns. If you're referring to some limited 
life rule, it could become much more complex in trying to date every 
dollar of income that comes in or goes out so that each dollar has the 
``right'' limited life. Our community foundation relies upon some 
donors for year-after-year contributions of a certain percentage of DAF 
assets for the operations of the community foundation itself.

    The appeal of DAFs is their simplicity, which very likely increases 
charitable giving. I would try to avoid any rule that forces people to 
create multiple DAFs to get around the rules, weakens the 
attractiveness of this inducement to additional giving, and restores 
the power over endowments only to the big players rather than the 
democratization of endowment giving that DAFs have helped create.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. Chuck Grassley
    Question. In your testimony you raised important policy 
considerations for developing a cost-effective universal charitable 
deduction. In the CARES Act, Congress established a temporary non-
itemizer deduction for small dollar donations that expired at the end 
of 2021. This deduction is strictly limited to cash donations and 
contributions to certain organizations do not qualify.

    In the event Congress decides to extend this deduction, do you have 
a view on whether Congress should maintain or eliminate the current 
restrictions?

    Answer. Many types of in-kind deductions are extremely hard to 
administer and enforce. Even with a well-designed reporting system, a 
good case can be made for limiting a more universal deduction to cash. 
For some types of assets, it might be reasonable to allow the deduction 
when the charity sells the asset, though I think in-kind donations each 
have their own sets of enforcement issues and offer different type of 
regulatory or self- regulatory options that need to be considered.

    Question. In addition to enacting a non-itemizer deduction, 
Congress also sought to boost charitable giving during the pandemic by 
relaxing limits on the individual and corporate itemizer deduction. 
These provisions temporarily allowed individuals to deduct up to 100 
percent of AGI and corporations to deduct up to 25 percent of taxable 
income.

    Do you have any data or information you could share on the 
effectiveness of these provisions? What should Congress consider in 
deciding whether to extend either provision?

    Answer. I do not have empirical evidence on the effect of these 
higher deduction limits. In many cases, corporations can treat 
charitable contributions as expenses of doing business or creating 
goodwill, so I'm not sure how effective that higher corporate limit is, 
other than making it easier to ``market'' their charitable efforts 
(which may be a good thing). A higher individual deduction, on the 
other hand, does add to incentives, though historically we have found 
that temporary incentives often lead many donors to change the timing 
of their donations over years to maximize the incentive they receive. 
We have also found that people often take time to learn about 
incentives, so a more permanent increase tends also to have a higher 
annual effect than a temporary one. But, as I say, most of this is 
theoretical speculation about the latest limits, not empirical.

    Question. In your written testimony, you discuss issues pertaining 
to in-kind charitable contributions. Last year, Richard Rubin of The 
Wall Street Journal tweeted that at a tax conference a senior IRS 
staffer had expressed concerns that people were donating yachts and 
claiming deductions far greater than the fair market value. This is 
concerning to me as I led efforts in the 2000s to clamp down on such 
abuses by limiting the deduction for a vehicle or boat, including a 
yacht, to its sale value in most cases and strengthened rules governing 
appraisals where a fair market value deduction continued to be 
permitted.

    Do you have any suggestions for reforming our reliance on 
appraisals to correct this problem?

    Answer. Many in-kind contributions are extremely hard to value. I 
gave the example in my testimony of gifts of clothing that might 
legitimately get valued at a multiple of any money that eventually goes 
to charities. As for yachts, the incentive to take the higher of 
reasonable appraisal values may still exist.

    When I've talked to IRS officials, they tell me that they simply 
don't have the resources to tackle these issues. First, very few people 
get audited. Then, even if they are audited, the auditor may have no 
expertise with yachts or easements or other types of in-kind gifts. 
Next, the auditor would have to decide how much time and money would be 
required to pay different appraisers to come up with some alternative 
valuation. Further costs would be entailed for IRS if the taxpayer 
decided to fight the alternative appraisal. Finally, IRS must consider 
how many other important audits have been neglected as a result of 
expensive audits of in-kind contributions.

    IRS often gets limited support for its efforts here, as well. Since 
the losses from excess deductions usually are shifted to the Treasury 
and the public it represents, private assessors, charities and 
government recipients of gifts often have little or no incentive to 
restrict valuations to more appropriate levels.

    One solution for some in-kind gifts would be to allow a deduction 
only upon final sale; one might also consider some requirement as to 
what minimum portion of declared valuation must be turned over to 
charities. In some cases, charities might be held accountable for the 
assessment, with some strict penalties for noncompliance. The 
charitable sector might also be engaged to come up with strict 
standards.

    The time to bargain with the sector over these issues is while 
Congress is considering expanding the charitable deduction. It is 
entirely proper to ask something in return from the sector to ensure 
that the dollars provided by Congress most likely lead to increases in 
charitable goods and services, not just claimed deductions that do 
little for charitable beneficiaries.

    Question. On December 22, 2020, I released the results of an 
investigation conducted by my staff into the relationship between World 
Vision, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and the Islamic Relief 
Agency, which had been sanctioned by the U.S. government. My 
investigation concluded in part, ``A more robust and fundamentally 
sound system of screening and vetting is needed to restore the public's 
trust that contributions to World Vision are not funding illicit 
organizations.'' The full results of that investigation are available 
on my webpage here: https://www.
grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-releases-results-
investigation-world-vision-s-interactions-isra.

    Do you believe that charities have implemented adequate safeguards 
to ensure that grants from the U.S. Government and donations from 
Americans are not even inadvertently funneled to the benefit of 
individuals or groups that have been sanctioned by the U.S. Government? 
Are there additional steps charities can take to ensure they are 
following applicable rules and regulations, or is there any action 
Congress should take to promote that compliance?

    Answer. I do not know the full story behind this particular 
incident. I do know from experience that many charities have to pay a 
higher hourly rate to their lawyers and accountants than to their own 
staff, so I worry about the net impact of expanded regulatory 
requirements. Groups like World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, and 
Lutheran World Relief also attempt to maximize the amount of money that 
reaches beneficiaries. These groups inevitably face problems everywhere 
in trying to help beneficiaries avoid having to pay bribes or be sucked 
up in some other misuse of funds in areas when the rule of law is not 
well established. Determining the legitimate needs of beneficiaries is 
also difficult at home and abroad. For instance, the food bank at my 
church has limited ability to monitor each beneficiary, just as State 
governments face problems in determining true eligibility for welfare.

    I don't know any perfect way to deal with these issues. At best, 
government can establish imperfect bright lines and continually try to 
reassess them. But very limited resources have been provided by both 
Congress to IRS and by State officials to their Attorneys General to 
monitor this and many other aspects of the charitable sector.

    Question. In an article published in 2020 in the Maryland Law 
Review, Professor Johnny Rex Buckles concludes in part, ``Federal tax 
law permits foreign actors to influence U.S. politics and policies 
through their interactions with American charities.''\1\ He goes on to 
note in his conclusion, ``Even the existing restrictions on lobbying, 
and the prohibition against political campaign intervention, safeguard 
against only the most obvious exploitation of charities by politically 
motivated foreign actions.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Johnny Rex Buckles, ``Curbing (or Not) Foreign Influence on 
U.S. Politics and Policies Through the Federal Taxation of Charities,'' 
Maryland Law Review, Vol. 79:590 (2020).
    \2\ Id.

    In a theoretical case study, the article presents an example where 
a Russian oil baron donates to a U.S. charity that educates the 
American public on the dangers of fossil fuels with the intent of 
promoting increased regulation of U.S. fossil fuel interests that would 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
serve to confer a comparative advantage on their Russian competitor.

    This example may in fact not be very theoretical. In an opinion 
piece published in The Hill in March of 2022, Institute for Policy 
Innovation resident scholar Merrill Matthews wrote, ``U.S. policymakers 
are finally realizing that Russia may have been covertly funding U.S. 
environmental organizations to shape public opinion and policies--
especially energy and anti-fossil fuel policies--to Russia's liking and 
benefit. Such Russian skullduggery has long been an open secret in 
Europe.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Matthews, Merrill, ``Russia used `soft power' to influence EU 
policies and anti-fossil fuel efforts,'' The Hill, March 22, 2022, 
available at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599113-
russia-used-soft-power-to-influence-eu-policies-and-anti-fossil.

    Do you have concerns that foreign actions are able to exploit U.S. 
tax-exempt organizations to promote their own priorities and extend 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
influence over U.S. policy?

    Answer. Yes, I certainly do. Though my concerns extend far beyond 
foreign actors and tax-exempt organizations. The ``noise'' that 
surrounds our policy discussions today is increasingly exploited to 
mislead and create division among us. I have no easy answers here, 
though higher levels of penalties to individual actors, not just 
organizations, might be considered.

    Question. Are there reliable measures of how much foreign money is 
poured into U.S. non-profit entities and the source of that funding?

    Answer. I do not know the answer to this question. I believe one 
could engage some statisticians and social scientists to help tease out 
whether a better answer could be obtained with some surveys. Better 
reporting might also make it possible to come closer to an answer.

    I might also note that IRS recently dropped the requirement that 
nonprofits (other than 501(c)(3)s) provide the Schedule B (major donor 
disclosure) to the IRS. That was one of the few tools available to 
track the financing of nonprofits.

    Question. Do you have an estimate of funding for U.S. non-profits 
that originated from sources aligned with Russia, or Russian policy 
priorities?

    Answer. No, I do not.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. During the hearing, I had the opportunity to discuss with 
Dr. Osili some of the barriers to establishing more community 
foundations around the country. Unfortunately, I did not have enough 
time to solicit your response to that question.

    Given your experience as founder and chair emeritus of ACT for 
Alexandria, what Federal barriers, if any, did you observe that may 
prevent or hinder the creation of more community foundations across the 
country? For any Federal barriers you identify, please provide your 
recommendations to address them.

    Answer. I cannot think of any major Federal barriers right now. 
Some of the efforts with respect to DAFs--in particular, limited life 
for DAF funds, if applied to community foundations--might easily have 
prevented the survival of the community foundation I helped found. I 
applaud the efforts of the broader foundation community to create, 
encourage, and continually improve standards of operation for community 
foundations.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Oregon
    The Finance Committee meets this morning to discuss ways to go 
about promoting charitable giving in America. Americans are generous 
people, and that's why charity is one of the key incentives embedded at 
the heart of our tax code and a top priority for Democrats and 
Republicans on this committee.

    I've always said that the charitable tax deduction is a lifeline, 
not a loophole. That's never been truer than it was in early 2020 when 
the pandemic arrived in the United States.

    Over the course of just a few weeks that March, the pandemic wiped 
out a quarter of a million jobs in my home State of Oregon. This is in 
a State with a workforce of just over 2 million people. In a flash, 
Oregon's unemployment rate jumped by 10 percentage points. As terrible 
as those figures are, other States had it even worse in terms of those 
early pandemic job losses. More than 22 million Americans lost their 
jobs or had their hours reduced to zero. The unemployment rate hit 14.8 
percent, the highest ever recorded.

    That economic devastation added to a hunger crisis that had been 
causing pain among families in America for far too long. According to 
the Children's Defense Fund, prior to the pandemic, more than 10 
million American children were growing up in households where there 
wasn't enough to eat. Black and Latino families were twice as likely to 
be short on food. Again, that was the situation before anybody had 
heard of COVID-19.

    The crisis exploded in 2020. Everybody remembers the images of cars 
stacked up for miles outside of food pantries. There was an added 
challenge of feeding vulnerable children, many of whom were unable to 
get the free lunches they rely on for nutrition at school.

    The committee is fortunate to be joined this morning by my Portland 
neighbor Susannah Morgan, the CEO of the Oregon Food Bank. She's going 
to share with us the story of how this crisis hit Oregon families, as 
well as how her wonderful organization was able to respond through the 
1,400 food pantries it supports across Oregon and into southwest 
Washington. Many times, prior to the pandemic, I'd seen the Food Bank's 
incredible work firsthand. And the Food Bank found an extra gear over 
the past 2 years to support families in need.

    The record shows that in 2020, in Oregon and across the country, 
Americans stepped up when their neighbors needed help. Charitable 
giving reached new highs. The Federal and State Governments also 
stepped up.

    There are some important lessons this committee ought to consider 
going forward, because there are still millions and millions of people 
across the country who need support. Organizations like the Oregon Food 
Bank are still seeing demand at higher levels than they did in 2019.

    Two quick examples. First, the CARES Act, which the Congress passed 
in March 2020, included a tax deduction for charitable donations of up 
to $300 for the vast majority of taxpayers, who don't itemize their tax 
returns. The 2017 tax law took some of the punch out of the existing 
charitable tax deduction by greatly reducing the number of taxpayers 
who itemize. The new $300 deduction helped correct that, and it helped 
promote giving in 2020. It was extended and expanded in 2021, but it 
expired on January 1st. There ought to be bipartisan interest in 
reviving it and expanding it to promote even more giving.

    Second, in addition to promoting donations, the Senate ought to 
look at ways of helping nonprofits operate, keep their doors open, and 
keep their workers on the job. The CARES Act also created an Employee 
Retention Tax Credit that helped save a lot of jobs nationwide, and it 
was also extended and expanded in 2021. The credit was designed with 
parity for nonprofits in mind, so that those nonprofits and their 
workers could benefit just like other employers.

    Last year, along with Senator Brown, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator 
Schatz, I also introduced a bill called the WORK Now Act, which would 
help nonprofits grow and hire. It would create a new grant program to 
help nonprofits retain staff and hire unemployed Americans--while also 
supporting their efforts to scale up the services they offer.

    My view is, organizations like the Oregon Food Bank are part of the 
backbone of the communities where they operate. In addition to 
promoting charitable giving, it is a no-brainer that the Congress ought 
to find smart ways to help those nonprofits do their essential work 
too.

                                 ______
                                 

                             Communications

                              ----------                              


                      American Alliance of Museums

                     2451 Crystal Drive, Suite 1005

                          Arlington, VA 22202

                             T 202-289-1818

                             F 202-289-6578

                        https://www.aam-us.org/

                       Statement of Laura L. Lott

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the Committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. My name is 
Laura L. Lott and I am the President and CEO of the American Alliance 
of Museums (AAM). Thank you for holding this hearing. We urge Congress 
to enact a universal charitable deduction, expand the IRA Charitable 
Rollover, and restore and expand the Employee Retention Tax Credit 
(ERTC). We also request that Congress restore the 100% AGI cap on 
individual donations and the 25% income tax cap on corporate donations 
that expired at the end of 2021.

Representing more than 35,000 museum professionals and volunteers, 
institutions--including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, 
children's museums, cultural museums, historic sites, history museums, 
maritime museums, military museums, natural history museums, 
planetariums, presidential libraries, railway museums, science and 
technology centers, and zoos--and corporate partners serving the museum 
field, AAM stands for the broad range of the museum community.

Before detailing these priorities for the museum field, I want to 
express my appreciation for Congressional relief for nonprofit 
charitable organizations, including museums, which helped them cope 
with and respond to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Early in the pandemic, essentially all museums were closed to the 
public. 33 percent of directors felt their museums were at some risk of 
permanent closure without immediate support--a threatened loss of 
12,000 museums and 124,000 jobs. While federal relief funding and tax 
policy provisions have provided critical lifelines, a recent survey \1\ 
shows attendance remains down 38 percent on average from pre-pandemic 
levels and 17 percent of directors still feel there is some risk of 
closing permanently without additional relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.aam-us.org/2022/02/08/museum-field-experiencing-
compounding-financial-losses-new-survey-reveals/.

Museums--the vast majority of which are 501(c)(3) nonprofit 
organizations--play a key role in education, job creation, tourism, 
economic development, historic preservation, environmental 
conservation, and advancing scientific literacy and global 
competitiveness. They are essential community infrastructure and are 
part of a vibrant and diverse charitable nonprofit sector. In unity 
with the broader nonprofit sector, we support the requests in this 
coalition letter \2\ and urgeCongress to strengthen charitable giving 
incentives to ensure that all nonprofits, including museums, have the 
resources to serve their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-workforce-shortage-relief-letter.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Museums are essential community infrastructure for many reasons:

Museums are economic engines and job creators. According to ``Museums 
as Economic Engines: A National Report,'' U.S. museums (pre-pandemic) 
support more than 726,000 jobs and contribute $50 billion to the U.S. 
economy per year. The economic activity of museums generates more than 
$12 billion in tax revenue, one-third of it going to state and local 
governments. For example, the total financial impact that museums have 
on the economy in the state of Oregon is $585 million, including 
supporting 9,740 jobs. For Idaho, it is a $228 million impact 
supporting 3,098 jobs. This impact is not limited to cities: more than 
25% of museums are in rural areas. The import of these data is not the 
numbers alone--but the larger point that museums give back tremendously 
to their communities in numerous ways--including economically.

Museums are key education providers. Museums spend more than $2 billion 
yearly on education activities; the typical museum devotes 75% of its 
education budget to K-12 students, and museums receive approximately 55 
million visits each year from students in school groups. Museums also 
answered the call and significantly ramped up online educational 
programs and resources for students and families throughout the 
pandemic. Museums help teach the state and local curriculum in subjects 
ranging from art and science to history, civics, and government. 
Museums have long served as a vital resource to home-school learners. 
It is not surprising that in a public opinion survey, 97% of 
respondents agreed that museums were educational assets in their 
communities. The results were statistically identical regardless of 
political persuasion or community size.

Museums will be essential to rebuilding communities as we emerge from 
the pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, museums across the country 
have continued contributing to the ongoing education of our country's 
children by providing lesson plans, online learning opportunities, and 
drop-off learning kits to teachers and families. They are using their 
outdoor spaces to grow and donate produce to area food banks, as well 
as maintaining these spaces for individuals to safely relax, enjoy 
nature, and recover from the mental health impacts of social isolation. 
They provided access to childcare and meals to families of health care 
workers and first responders, have donated their PPE and scientific 
equipment to fight COVID-19, and are serving as vaccination centers. 
Despite the financial and psychological stress caused by the pandemic, 
museum professionals are filling the gaps to meet the needs of their 
communities and will be vital to their recovery. Museums are 
demonstrating the critical role they play in our country's 
infrastructure and deepening their social impact in their communities, 
addressing learning loss, and fostering intra-community trust and 
dialogue.

Congress Should Enact a Universal Charitable Deduction

Contributions to 501(c)(3) charities such as museums are tax-
deductible, incentivizing those who itemize deductions to greater 
generosity. Only about ten percent of taxpayers now itemize, however, 
and multiple measures show that both the amount given and the number of 
donors were declining prior to the pandemic. Giving appears to have 
increased during the pandemic, especially smaller gifts, due to the 
temporary provision that allowed people to deduct up to $300 ($600 for 
couples) of charitable gifts even if they do not itemize.

The deductibility of charitable gifts is of fundamental importance for 
museums. Charitable giving accounts for more than one-third of museums' 
operating funds. The CARES Act established a limited and temporary 
deduction for non-itemizers. Data from various sources shows that after 
declining in 2019, charitable giving increased following the temporary 
enactment of a ``universal charitable deduction'' that allowed everyone 
to deduct. A universal charitable deduction democratizes giving by 
incentivizing all taxpayers to contribute, regardless of income.

We urge the renewal--and expansion--of the universal charitable 
deduction to make it permanent. Along with other members of the 
Charitable Giving Coalition,\3\ we urge members of the Committee to 
cosponsor the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act, S. 
618, which would renew the universal charitable deduction that expired 
at the end of 2021 and is a step in the right direction. The 
legislation would raise the $300/$600 cap to roughly $4,000 for 
individuals/$8,000 for couples, renew the availability of the deduction 
through the 2022 tax year, and make gifts to donor-advised funds 
eligible for the universal charitable deduction. We applaud the 
Committee's cosponsors of S. 618, including Senators Lankford, Cortez 
Masto, Scott, Stabenow, Hassan, and Brown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://charitablegivingcoalition.org/universal-charitable-
deduction/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expand Existing IRA Charitable Rollover

We support the bipartisan Legacy IRA Act, S. 243, sponsored by Senators 
Stabenow and Cramer. Currently, individuals aged 70.5 and above may 
contribute up to $100,000 from their IRA accounts to charity, counting 
it toward their required distribution, but not paying tax on it. The 
Legacy IRA Act would expand this provision by allowing gifts to planned 
giving accounts, raising the cap to $400,000, and lowering the age to 
65. Seniors typically make up more than 40% of the donor base for 
charities. This bill expands the existing IRA Charitable Rollover, 
which is the fastest growing area of philanthropy. Recent survey data 
from FreeWill's online giving platform found a 390% increase in total 
IRA Charitable Rollover gifts from 2019 to 2021. A modified version of 
the Legacy IRA Act was included in the Securing a Strong Retirement 
Act, H.R. 2954, and we urge the Senate Finance Committee to include S. 
243 in a future retirement package.

Retain and Expand the Employee Retention Tax Credit

The ERTC has been a critically important tool for nonprofits, including 
museums, to be able to rebuild and continue to deliver critical 
services to the communities that they serve, now and into the future. 
Moreover, many nonprofit employers had been counting on quarter four 
2021 access to the ERTC to support the decisions they have made to 
bring employees back on the payroll and increase operating capacity to 
serve their communities. Unfortunately, the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (IIJA) eliminated ERTC for the fourth quarter of 2021, 
which hurt museums that were planning on this relief.

We urge members of the Committee to cosponsor the bipartisan Employee 
Retention Tax Credit Reinstatement Act, S. 3625. It retains the ERTC 
for nonprofits, including museums, and small businesses in the fourth 
quarter of 2021, allowing organizations to keep critical staff on the 
payroll to continue meeting community needs. The Act was introduced in 
early February by Finance Committee Members Senators Hassan, Scott, 
Warner, Cardin, and non-Committee member Capito. We are grateful for 
their leadership.

This action to retain the ERTC is supported by the broad cross-section 
of the nonprofit sector,\4\ the third largest employer in the U.S. 
economy (and the for-profit business community). Nonprofits, including 
museums, continue to serve communities across America during the 
pandemic. Now they need Congress to at a minimum retain this tax policy 
through at least the 4th quarter. Ideally, Congress ought to extend it 
throughout 2022 to help ensure a strong economic recovery from the 
pandemic. Congress can also take action by improving this critical form 
of promised COVID-19 relief by amending the definition of ``gross 
receipts'' under the law to better reflect revenue available to support 
nonprofits amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.namanow.org/wp-content/uploads/Letter-Urging-
Inclusion-of-ERTCRA-in-
Omnibus-
Final.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advocacy%20
Updates%20%20March%207%202022&utm_medium=email.

In closing, I encourage members of the Committee to visit the museums 
in their states to witness firsthand the positive impact they have on 
their communities and the importance of charitable giving to their 
public service missions. Thank you for taking time to hold a hearing on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
these critical issues and for the opportunity to submit this statement.

                                 ______
                                 
                       American Heart Association

                            National Center

                         7272 Greenville Avenue

                            Dallas, TX 75231

On behalf of the American Heart Association (AHA) and its more than 40 
million volunteers and supporters, we thank you for the support shown 
to the charitable sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. AHA is the 
world's leading voluntary organization focused on heart and brain 
health and research, and we are proud to have funded more than $4.6 
billion in cardiovascular research since 1949. We appreciate the 
opportunity to share our recommendations on the incentives that can 
help support charitable giving and urge the Senate Committee on Finance 
to include the bipartisan Legacy IRA Act (S. 243) in future retirement 
legislation.

Rapid Response of American Heart Association to COVID-19

For the approximately 120 million people in the United States who have 
one or more cardiovascular diseases, this is a particularly worrisome 
time. Cardiovascular disease and hypertension are associated with more 
severe coronavirus cases and an increased fatality rate of two or three 
times higher than the general population. The situation is even more 
dire for communities of color, where reports indicate that minorities 
have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and have suffered 
higher rates of death. There is also mounting evidence that COVID-19 
may lead to heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic lung 
disease, blood pressure abnormalities, neurological conditions, and 
other long-term health complications in people who have survived the 
virus.

AHA recognizes the urgency of this issue and is part of the global 
response. AHA responded quickly to the pandemic in March 2020 by 
funding rapid response research awards to better understand COVID-19 
and its interaction with heart and brain systems. This initiative 
offered fast-tracked research grants for short-term projects to better 
understand the diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and clinical 
management. In December 2021, as COVID-19 variants continued to spread, 
AHA announced a $10 million research initiative to fund new studies on 
the long-term effects of the disease. These initiatives--and others 
like them--would not be possible without charitable giving.

Need for Charitable Giving Will Continue Beyond Pandemic

AHA urges Congress to reinstate and expand the temporary universal 
charitable giving deduction that expired at the end of 2021. This 
charitable deduction to non-itemizers at $300 for individual and $600 
for couples filing jointly along with the suspension of adjusted gross 
income (AGI) limitations for cash gifts and increase in limitation for 
corporate gifts were all valuable to incentivizing giving behaviors. 
Every day, charities are holding communities together with essential 
services amid the health and economic crisis, but they need support, 
including charitable giving from generous donors. Findings from a 
recent poll released by Independent Sector show 88% of Americans 
support making the universal charitable deduction permanent for all 
taxpayers.

American Heart Association leads a coalition of approximately 60 
national charities which support the bipartisan Legacy IRA Act (S. 
243), co-sponsored by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Kevin Cramer 
(R-ND). The Legacy IRA Act will encourage more charitable giving by 
enabling seniors to make contributions from their individual retirement 
accounts (IRA) to charities through life-income plans. Seniors are a 
key demographic as they typically make up more than 40 percent of the 
donor base for charities. This is an expansion of the existing 
Charitable IRA Rollover provision, which is the fastest growing area of 
philanthropy. Data released this week from FreeWill's online giving 
platform shows the value of the current Charitable IRA Rollover as 
there was a 390 percent increase in total number of gifts from 2019 to 
2021. And yet, in a survey of 300+ nonprofit professionals, 23 percent 
said these gifts came from high net worth or upper middle-class 
individuals.

The Legacy IRA Act would expand this giving incentive to more middle-
income seniors. A modified version of the Legacy IRA Act was passed as 
part of the ``Securing a Strong Retirement Act'' (SECURE Act 2.0), and 
we urge the Senate Finance Committee to include S. 243 in its version 
of this retirement package.

AHA joins with many others in the nonprofit community in urging 
Congress to reinstate and expand the temporary universal charitable 
deduction and pass the Legacy IRA Act along with reinstating the 
temporary suspension of AGI limitations and increasing the limits on 
corporate giving. We stand ready to be of help should you have 
additional questions about these requests. Please feel free to contact 
Emily Holubowich, Vice President of Federal Advocacy, at 
[email protected].

                                 ______
                                 
                             Leadership 18

                        701 North Fairfax Street

                          Alexandria, VA 22314

March 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chair                               Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Richard Neal          The Honorable Kevin Brady
Chair                               Ranking Member
U.S. House of Representatives       U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means         Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515                Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairmen Wyden and Neal and Ranking Members Crapo and Brady:

Leadership 18 supports the bipartisan Legacy IRA Act (S. 243/H.R. 
2909), a bill to encourage charitable giving by enabling seniors to 
make tax-free contributions from their individual retirement accounts 
(IRA) to charities through life-income plans.

To operate effectively and advance our tax-exempt purpose, we are 
dependent on private philanthropy, including gift planning. A few years 
ago, when the IRA Charitable Rollover provision was made permanent, 
many of our organizations saw a dramatic increase in charitable giving 
from traditional IRAs. Data from FreeWill's online QCD giving platform 
shows the value of the current Charitable IRA Rollover as there was a 
390% increase in total number of gifts from 2019 to 2021. And yet, in a 
survey of 300+ nonprofit professionals, 23% said their QCDs came from 
high net worth or upper middle-class individuals. The Legacy IRA Act 
would expand this giving incentive to more middle-income seniors.

The undersigned CEOs support the Legacy IRA bill, which would allow 
seniors to make tax-free IRA rollovers to charities through life-income 
plans, such as charitable gift annuities. The senior's annual 
retirement income from the life-income plan is fully taxed. We believe 
this new giving option will be particularly attractive to middle income 
seniors, a critical demographic as seniors make up more than 40 percent 
of the donor base for most charities.

Leadership 18 is an alliance of CEOs responsible for leading some of 
the country's largest and most well-respected charities, non-profits, 
and faith-based organizations. As a group, member organizations have 
served over 400 million people, with 42.7 million staff and volunteers, 
and represent more than $80 billion in total revenue. We are a 
community of leaders who share a profound commitment to ensuring that 
all individuals have the opportunity to contribute to a vibrant 
America, and with opportunity and effort, can live their lives to their 
fullest potential.

Leadership 18 offers our support and is willing to work with you and 
other Members of Congress to enact the Legacy IRA bill on its own or 
attached to a larger legislative vehicle, such as the Securing a Strong 
Retirement Act. America is stronger when everyone has the opportunity 
to give, to get involved, and to strengthen their communities.

Sincerely,

Leadership 18

Signers:

Nancy A. Brown                      Sofia Chang
Chief Executive Officer             Chief Executive Officer
American Heart Association          Girl Scouts of the USA

Gail McGovern                       Stephanie J. Hull
President and CEO                   President and CEO
American Red Cross                  Girls Inc.

Artis Stevens                       Steven C. Preston
President and CEO                   President and CEO
Big Brothers Big                    Goodwill Industries
Sisters of America                  International, Inc.

Jim Clark                           Jonathan Reckford
President and CEO                   Chief Executive Officer
Boys and Girls Clubs                Habitat for Humanity
of America                          International

Sister Donna Markham                Eric D. Fingerhut
President and CEO                   President and CEO
Catholic Charities USA              The Jewish Federations
                                    of North America

Charlotte Haberaecker               Mike King
President and CEO                   President and CEO
Lutheran Services in America        Volunteers of America

Schroeder Stribling                 Suzanne McCormick
President and CEO                   President and CEO
Mental Health America               YMCA of the USA

Ramsey Alwin                        Margaret Mitchell
President and CEO                   Chief Executive Officer
National Council on Aging           YWCA USA

Commissioner Kenneth G. Hodder      Jody Levison-Johnson
National Commander                  President and CEO
The Salvation Army                  Social Current

                                 ______
                                 

                Help Seniors Increase Charitable Giving

                    Legacy IRA Act of 2021 (S. 243)

Background

First passed by Congress more than 15 years ago and made permanent in 
2015, the Charitable IRA Rollover is a tax provision making it easier 
for seniors to use traditional IRA assets to make charitable donations. 
This provision allows individuals starting at age 70\1/2\ to make 
direct donations to qualified 501(c)(3) charities up to $100,000 
annually from their IRAs. The donations are not counted as income.

Since then, nonprofits have reported a surge in this type of charitable 
giving. The IRA Charitable Rollover has generated millions of dollars 
to local and national charities in the past few years alone.

The Legacy IRA Act: A Win-Win for Donors and Charities

The Legacy IRA Act builds upon the IRA Charitable Rollover by allowing 
seniors to make tax-free IRA rollovers to charities through life-income 
plans, such as charitable gift annuities. The senior's annual 
retirement income from the life-income plan would be fully taxed. The 
bill allows seniors starting at age 65 to make a life-income plan gift 
up to $400,000 annually. Additionally, the bill raises the IRA 
Charitable Rollover annual cap to $130,000 and indexes this figure for 
inflation--an important step as the cap hasn't been increased since 
2006.

The bipartisan Legacy IRA Act would give seniors more flexibility to 
make charitable donations from their traditional IRA accounts. An IRA 
rollover through a life-income plan would provide the senior with a 
secure income for life. After the donor passes away, the charity 
receives the remainder of the gift to be used towards their mission. 
This new giving incentive is anticipated to be particularly attractive 
to middle-income seniors. Growing charitable giving from seniors is 
critical for nonprofits as seniors are more than 40 percent of the 
donor base for most charities. Increasing charitable giving will allow 
nonprofits to continue to provide critical services in local 
communities such as health research and patient education, food 
assistance, domestic violence services, childcare, youth homeless 
shelters, and cultural and arts programming.

Bill Status

The bipartisan Legacy IRA Act was introduced by Senators Cramer (R-ND) 
and Stabenow (D-MI). This coalition strongly urges Congress to pass the 
legislation on its own or as part of a broader retirement package. It 
is expected to raise $1 billion annually for charities.

In the House of Representatives, a modified version of the Legacy IRA 
Act (H.R. 2909) was introduced by Representatives Beyer (D-VA-08) and 
Kelly (R-PA-16). This proposal was included in the bipartisan Securing 
a Strong Retirement Act of 2021 (H.R. 2954), led by Ways and Means 
Committee Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Brady. The Securing a Strong 
Retirement Act of 2021 was unanimously approved by the committee in May 
2021. The Legacy IRA provision is estimated to cost $2.266 billion over 
ten years by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

This coalition strongly supports the bipartisan Legacy IRA Act and 
urges Congress to pass the legislation on its own or as part of a 
broader retirement package.

The Undersigned Coalition of National Nonprofits Supports the Bipartisan
                             Legacy IRA Act
Arab Community Center    Council on Foundations   National Association
 for Economic and                                  of College and
 Social Services                                   University Business
 (ACCESS)                                          Officers
 
ALS Association          Covenant House           National Community
                          International            Action Partnership
 
Alternate ROOTS          DANCE/USA                National Council of
                                                   Nonprofits
 
Alzheimer's Association  The Evangelical          National Health
 and the Alzheimer's      Lutheran Good            Council
 Impact Movement          Samaritan Society
 
American Alliance of     Girl Scouts of the USA   National Multiple
 Museums                                           Sclerosis Society
 
American Cancer Society  Girls Inc.               The Nonprofit Alliance
 Cancer Action Network
 
American Council for     Goodwill USA             OPERA America
 Gift Annuities
 
American Heart           Habitat for Humanity     Performing Arts
 Association              International            Alliance
 
American Lung            Hemophilia Federation    Providence St. Joseph
 Association              of America               Health
 
American Red Cross       Immune Deficiency        The Salvation Army USA
                          Foundation
 
Americans for the Arts   Independent Sector       ServiceSource, Inc.
 
Asian Pacific Community  JDRF                     Social Current
 Fund
 
Association of Art       Jewish Federations of    Theatre Communications
 Museum Directors         North America            Group
 
Association of           League of American       UNICEF USA
 Fundraising              Orchestras
 Professionals
 
Big Brothers Big         Lutheran Services in     United Philanthropy
 Sisters of America       America                  Forum
 
Boys and Girls Clubs of  March of Dimes           Volunteers of America
 America
 
Catholic Charities USA   Mental Health America    YMCA of the USA
 
Council for Advancement  National Alliance on     YWCA USA
 and Support of           Mental Illness
 Education
 
Council for Christian    National Association of
 Colleges and             Charitable Gift
 Universities             Planners
 


We urge Members of Congress to support the Legacy IRA Act. For more 
information about the bill, please contact Emily Horowitz at American 
Heart Association at [email protected].

                                 ______
                                 
                  Letter Submitted by Melanie Anthony

March 17, 2022

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6200

I have worked in the Oklahoma nonprofit sector since 1997 addressing 
food insecurity, the unhoused, mental health and economic development.

It is particularly important to keep the $300 deduction. I agree with 
Dr. Steuerle's statement that the peak of giving in 2020 did not meet 
the need of the charitable community.

Giving is critical because, at some point, it is important that those 
who working in the nonprofit sector, specially social services, are 
paid living wages. Those front-line workers are often paid at a low 
wage. Those who chose to work in the nonprofit sector, helping those in 
crisis, should not themselves find themselves struggling to meet their 
family needs.

Unless charitable giving increases to not only meet the needs of those 
in our various communities, especially those underserved and overlooked 
communities, we will continue to see an exodus of nonprofit employees.

Historically, when nonprofit professionals would leave their nonprofit, 
it was really about climbing the nonprofit job ladder. It would usually 
include a title change, minimal increase in salary and maybe a better 
work environment. The nonprofit sector has always been forced to work 
with minimal budgets unlike our corporate counterparts--as if serving 
others, having personal fulfillment and growth pay the rent, buy 
groceries and school supplies. They do not.

The nonprofit sector, particularly social services, are seeing workers 
get agitated, overwhelmed and burnout at rates not seen before. 
Nonprofit employees are leaving the sector in masses.

Any opportunity to continue to offer incentives to give to charity to 
increase charitable giving would allow nonprofits to not only meet the 
needs of those in crisis in their communities, but also invest in those 
doing the hard, forward-facing, often traumatic work.
Thank you,

Melanie Anthony

                                 ______
                                 
                  Association of Art Museum Directors

                    120 East 56th Street, Suite 520

                           New York, NY 10022

           Statement of Christine Anagnos, Executive Director

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) is composed of the 
directors of approximately 225 of the leading art museums in North 
America, including more than 200 in the United States. We are grateful 
for the opportunity to submit written testimony on charitable giving 
and trends in the nonprofit sector.

All AAMD members in the U.S. operate on a not-for-profit basis. Nearly 
all are organized under Section 501(c)(3) and qualify as public 
charities, though many also have hybrid governance structures in 
partnership with state and local governments as well as public and 
private colleges and universities. They generally depend on charitable 
giving for about a third of their operating budgets. Gifts both large 
and small come from those who support museums' work, though as at most 
charities, small gifts far outnumber large ones. Moreover, about 80 
percent of museum collection objects arrived as charitable gifts.

For that reason, AAMD supports federal incentives for charitable gifts 
of both cash and property and for donors of both large and small gifts. 
Chief among these incentives are the itemized charitable deduction; the 
deduction for non-itemizers, which was enacted as a temporary provision 
in 2020 and expired at the end of 2021; and the IRA Charitable 
Rollover, a relatively recent provision whose use is growing as more 
taxpayers become aware of it.

As may be clear, these incentives can be utilized by specific groups of 
taxpayers: itemizers, non-itemizers, and seniors. AAMD believes it only 
fair that all taxpayers are incentivized to give, and for that reason 
we support the retention of the itemized deduction, the reinstatement 
and expansion of the non-itemizer deduction, as provided by S. 618, 
introduced by Senator Lankford and cosponsored by Finance Committee 
members Cortez Masto, Hassan, Scott, and Stabenow; and the expansion of 
the IRA charitable rollover as provided by S. 243, introduced by Sen. 
Stabenow and cosponsored by Finance Committee members Cornyn and 
Daines. Both of the aforementioned bills are bipartisan and are 
supported across the charitable sector. We share the concern of many in 
the charitable sector that confining the availability of tax incentives 
to a narrow slice of upper-income taxpayers could deeply harm the 
vitality of civil society.

During the pandemic, art museums have profoundly changed how they 
interact with the public, finding new audiences online, often among 
people who were not visitors before. Whether filling time or looking 
for online educational programming for their children, people found 
what they were looking for in art museums. According to an extremely 
large-scale study conducted in the first months of the pandemic 
(culturetrack.com/covidstudy), 40 percent of art museums' online 
audience had not physically visited in the previous year. As a visitor 
cited in that study said:

``Right now, I am looking for things to do with my children that allow 
us to be together and to enjoy something I don't have to organize 
myself. I want them to learn and to experience the world.''

Similarly, during the social and political unrest of the past two 
years, art museums have found themselves in new and expanded 
conversations about their role in the community, as well as about how 
and for whom they have used their collections. Practices built on 
previously unquestioned assumptions are changing. An ever-
growing priority on audience and community needs has consequences for 
museums' physical plants as well curatorial and educational practices. 
To cite one example, the Portland (ME) Museum of Art changed its 
expansion plans, which had been necessitated by a growing collection 
and audiences: instead of simply adding gallery space, the new facility 
will include space for local nonprofits, with the aim of lacing the 
museum more fully into Portland's cultural and community life. To cite 
another, an exhibition currently at the Cleveland Museum of Art 
reexamines the art historical canon through new scholarship, focusing 
on six key works of Black art in the museum's collection, as well as an 
accompanying publication that delves into the materiality, making, and 
relevance of the works. Together, they seek to transform how art 
history is written, introduce visitors and readers to complex objects 
and theoretical frameworks, illuminate meanings and untold histories, 
and open new entry points into Black art.

Because of charitable giving, art museums are accessible. One-third of 
AAMD member museums offer free admission to all, and two-thirds offer 
free admission for children under 12. Those with admission fees nearly 
always offer some form of free admission (for example, a weekly or 
monthly free day) and discounts for seniors and students. Many museums 
participate in Museums for All, an initiative that provides free or 
reduced admission to people who present an Electronic Benefits Transfer 
card. AAMD estimates the average cost of admission at AAMD museums to 
be about five dollars or less. At the same time, the cost to museums 
per visitor is about $54, based on 2019 figures. Charitable giving 
subsidizes the difference.

While we do not have field-wide data on use of the non-itemizer 
deduction and IRA Rollover, anecdotes abound. For example:

The Des Moines Art Center reports that its highest level of membership 
growth was in the $250 to $550 range, which grew by 14 percent in 2021. 
It also reports good use of the charitable rollover.

The Cleveland Museum of Art reports that IRA Rollover gifts increased 
by 140 percent in 2021.

The Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, MD found that messages about the 
tax deduction in 2020 and 2021 were effective in generating a number of 
gifts of $300 and $600 from museum supporters. As for the IRA 
Charitable Rollover, the museum saw a 498% increase in gifts from FY20 
to FY21 and the number of participants increased by 127 percent. Gifts 
ranged from as low as seven dollars up to $100,000, with an average 
gift in 2020 of $981.

AAMD members share a commitment to serving the public, partnering with 
their community institutions, including health, human service, and 
education organizations, and applying the unique resources of the arts 
to serving a wide variety of purposes. Museums are anchors in their 
communities, often serving as the centerpiece of a neighborhood, 
providing jobs, attracting tourists as well as residents, and in a less 
literal sense, helping to form the community's identity--its sense of 
self.

For all of these reasons, AAMD urges Congress to retain the itemized 
charitable deduction; to reinstate and expand the universal charitable 
deduction, preferably on a permanent basis; and to expand the IRA 
charitable rollover.

                                 ______
                                 
                Association of Fundraising Professionals

                        4200 Wilson Blvd., #480

                          Arlington, VA 22203

                             (703) 684-0410

                             afpglobal.org

         Statement of Mike Geiger, MBA, CPA, President and CEO

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo and Members of the Senate 
Committee on Finance:

The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) appreciate your 
efforts to seek stakeholder and public feedback about charitable giving 
and trends in the nonprofit sector. AFP is pleased to present the 
following comments based not only on research--developed by ourselves 
as well as in collaboration with partners in the sector--but also on 
the comments and perspective of our more than 23,000 members in the 
United States.

AFP represents both individual fundraisers and charities that raise 
more than $100 billion annually. Our members work for a wide variety of 
organizations, from multi-national institutions to small, grassroots 
organizations, addressing every mission conceivable, from religion and 
social services, to education, healthcare, and the arts. Every member 
agrees to abide by AFP's Code of Ethics, the only enforceable 
fundraising code in the world.

Our members are on the ground, communicating with donors everyday and 
running capital campaigns, direct mail operations, major gifts meetings 
and email and social media initiatives. They see first-hand the impact 
of government policy on fundraising and charities and understand the 
importance of tax policy that incentivizes giving and volunteering.

Giving Trends and Challenges

Overall
At first glance, one might look at charitable giving numbers overall 
and think that the state of giving in the United States is very strong.

Giving USA 2021: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2020, 
published by Giving USA Foundation, reported that overall giving to 
U.S. charities in 2020 reached an estimated $471.44 billion, the 
highest level ever recorded. Giving was led by individuals, who 
accounted for roughly 70% of overall giving. That giving grew to record 
levels in 2020, despite the pandemic, is a testament to the generosity 
of the American people.

In addition, AFP's own Fundraising Effectiveness Project (FEP), 
administered by the AFP Foundation for Philanthropy in collaboration 
with GivingTuesday, found that giving increased by over 10.6% and the 
number of donors grew by 7.3% in 2020 compared to 2019. The FEP tracks 
data from almost 3,000 charities, ranging in budget size from $100,000-
$10 million, tending to exclude larger organizations such as hospital 
and universities and making the data more representative of the typical 
charity experience in the U.S.

However, these numbers, impressive as they are, overshadow an important 
trend that is slowly transforming our country's philanthropic 
tradition: Participation in charitable giving is declining. The Giving 
Environment: Understanding Pre-
Pandemic Trends in Charitable Giving, published by the Indiana 
University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI in 2021, found 
that just 49.6% of U.S. households made a charitable contribution in 
2018. That figure is a decrease of almost 17 percentage points from 
2000, when 66.2% of American households gave charitable donations.

Fewer Americans are giving to charity every year, but fortunately they 
are giving significantly more. Essentially, it is wealthy Americans--
what fundraisers call major donors and now even mega-donors--who are 
driving the increase in charitable giving every year.

The Fundraising Effectiveness Project's (FEP) preliminary 2021 data 
underscores this challenge. Gifts from small donors (less than $500) 
fell sharply and accounted for just 9.5% of all giving in 2021. The 
main drivers of giving, and the growth in giving seen in 2021, were 
again major donors.

This is not to say that the average American is not generous. 
Crowdfunding campaigns--where charities, other kinds of organizations 
and even individuals ask for very small donations from a very large 
group of donors--continue to be successful, and Americans are generous 
in these and other informal ways of giving and volunteering.

Nevertheless, this trend is a huge challenge for the charitable sector 
and for all of American society. Our charitable sector is a crucial 
partner with the governmental sector in meeting the needs of 
communities that are disadvantaged and straining to provide services. 
Our tradition of philanthropy is based on egalitarian principles where 
everyone contributes to the greater good. Philanthropy should not 
become the domain of only the wealthy. We need to encourage giving from 
all segments of our society, not just the wealthy, and tax policy is 
one means to do that.
2021
The Fundraising Effectiveness Project publishes quarterly data, and 
final figures from the fourth quarter of 2021 are still coming in. 
However, the FEP noted throughout 2021 that giving continued to grow--
significantly in the first quarter (roughly 10%) and then flattening 
out in the second and third quarter. The FEP is estimating that giving 
for 2021 will have grown slightly overall, roughly by 2.7% compared to 
2020 numbers, once all data is accounted for from participating 
charities.

However, it should be noted that giving, including the 2021 estimated 
increase by the FEP, is not uniform across the sector. Larger charities 
that are well-known tend to receive a majority of contributions. In 
2015, giving to the top 400 largest charities, as noted in The 
Chronicle of Philanthropy that year, exceeded $100 billion. In 2020, 
roughly $1 out of every $11 donated went to the 100 largest charities 
in the U.S., as detailed by The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

During the pandemic, this trend was even more pronounced, as larger 
charities, especially those in pandemic relief, health care and social 
services, saw their giving rates increase rapidly, while smaller 
organizations, and especially arts and humanities groups, saw their 
giving shrink. 2021 data from the FEP saw this trend slowly begin to 
reverse as the world recovered from the pandemic, with smaller 
charities finally beginning to see gains in their giving rates.

However, AFP member comments from our Fundraising Confidence Survey, 
January 2022 reveal that many charities, especially smaller 
organizations, have a long way to go in recovering from the pandemic. 
Fundraisers have been unable to meet with donors in-person, which is so 
important in developing relationships. Others report donor fatigue, 
whereby donors are overwhelmed by so many growing needs that originated 
from the pandemic and aren't as interested in giving for the moment.

In addition, just as the pandemic was winding down and fundraisers were 
feeling more optimistic, charities and their donors are now faced with 
skyrocketing gas prices, rising inflation costs, geopolitical conflict 
and weak consumer confidence. These challenges are likely to impact 
low- to mid-level donors the most, exactly the group of donors who are 
participating less in philanthropy.

Policy Changes to Encourage Giving

This daunting set of challenges, coupled with the household decline in 
charitable giving participation, could severely hinder the ability of 
the sector to meet the needs of communities across America. But 
Congress can help charities overcome these challenges and at the same 
time encourage more Americans to participate in philanthropy. AFP 
recommends that Congress support two important charitable tax giving 
incentives. Each will incentivize different groups of donors to give to 
their favorite causes and allow charities to continue to meet the needs 
of our communities.
Universal Charitable Deduction
The universal charitable deduction allows donors to take a tax 
deduction, up to a certain level, for their charitable gifts whether or 
not they itemize their taxes. The deduction incentivizes all donors to 
give but can be especially attractive for donors who make smaller level 
gifts, as they are typically taxpayers who do not itemize their taxes.

The universal charitable deduction has been enacted into law by 
Congress temporarily several times in the past only to expire and be 
reinstated by later Congresses. The latest version was created in 2020 
through both the CARES Act and the later Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, creating together a deduction of $300 for an individual taxpayers 
and $600 for married couples filing jointly. The deduction expired at 
the end of 2021.

Research from the Fundraising Effectiveness Project has found that the 
incentive in the universal charitable deduction was quite powerful for 
gifts of $300, the limit of the deduction for individual taxpayers.

      There was a 7.5% jump in $300 gifts in 2020 compared to 2019 
(the latest year without the universal charitable deduction).
      There was a 7.5% jump in $300 gifts in 2021 compared to 2019.

On December 31, the last day of the year when many charitable 
contributions are given so donors can take advantage of tax incentives, 
charities experienced a:

      33% jump in $300 gifts in 2020 compared to 2019.
      7% jump in $300 gifts in 2021 compared to 2019.

The data for gifts of $600, the limit for the deduction for couples 
filing jointly, also demonstrates the power of the incentive, though 
it's important to note that the couple's deduction was enacted in 
December 2020. Nevertheless, the data shows the difference the 
deduction had:

      There was a 1.2% decrease in $600 gifts overall in 2020 compared 
to 2019 (again, the couple's deduction was not available until December 
2020).
      Nevertheless, on December 31, 2020, there was still a 12% 
increase in gifts of $600 compared to the same day in 2019.

Then in 2021, when the couple's $600 deduction was available throughout 
the year:

      There was a 5.0% increase in $600 gifts overall in 2021 compared 
to 2019.
      There was a 5.1% increase of $600 gifts on December 31, 2021, 
compared to the same day in 2019.

While there are many factors that contribute to increased donations, 
one contributing factor was clearly the availability of the charitable 
deduction to nonitemizers. The universal charitable deduction works, 
and this data only accounts for two specific levels of gifts, just to 
show the deduction's impact.

Congress can help alleviate some of the difficulties the sector is 
facing by approving another universal charitable deduction.

AFP encourages Senators to support and approve the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act led by a bipartisan, bicameral group 
of lawmakers, including Senators James Lankford (R-OK), Chris Coons (D-
DE), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tim Scott (R-SC), Amy 
Klobuchar (D-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-
NV), as well as Reps. Chris Pappas (D-NH) and Jackie Walorski (R-IN). 
The legislation would raise the previous $300/$600 cap to roughly 
$4,000 for individuals/$8,000 for couples and make gifts to donor-
advised funds eligible for the universal charitable deduction.

We note that the deduction created through the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act is only effective until the end of 
2022. Given the impact of the deduction, we believe that it should be 
extended through, at least, the end of 2023.

The universal charitable deduction will democratize giving by further 
incentivizing all American taxpayers--regardless of their income--to 
give to charity, thereby ensuring that our country retains a strong and 
independent civil society. It will also provide needed resources for 
charitable and faith-based organizations to continue providing vital 
services to families, workers, and communities, especially those 
critically impacted by the ongoing pandemic and now facing challenges 
related to rising inflation and weak consumer confidence. We urge 
Congress to pass and enact the universal charitable deduction swiftly.
IRA Legacy Act
In 2015, Congress passed the PATH Act, which included the IRA 
Charitable Rollover provision that allows individuals age 70\1/2\ to 
make direct tax-free gifts of up to $100,000 annually to charities from 
their IRA.

The IRA charitable rollover provision is complementary legislation to 
the universal charitable deduction in that it is also a strong 
incentive for donors to give, but focuses on a different group of 
donors than the universal charitable deduction.

Seniors typically make up more than 40% of the donor base for a 
charity, and with the historically strong performance of the economy 
and the stock market often have significant funds in their IRAs. While 
some donors might balk at giving thousands of dollars in cash to a 
charity, transferring funds from their IRAs, especially if their 
retirement is taken care of, is eminently more attractive and doable.

The impact of the IRA Charitable Rollover is significant. Recent survey 
data from FreeWill's online giving platform found a 390% increase in 
total IRA Charitable Rollover gifts from 2019 to 2021. That increase is 
even more impressive given that required minimum distributions from 
IRAs were eliminated for 2020 as part of Congress' pandemic relief 
measures.

Given the IRA charitable rollover's effectiveness and the need for 
greater participation in philanthropy, AFP supports an expansion of the 
rollover, and specifically the bipartisan Legacy IRA Act (S. 243), 
sponsored by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND). 
The legislation would allow taxpayers age 65 and over to direct up to 
$400,000 annually in IRA distributions to charities, charitable gift 
annuities and charitable remainder trusts. A modified version of the 
Legacy IRA Act has been included as part of a bipartisan retirement 
package, the Securing a Strong Retirement Act (H.R. 2954) that has been 
approved by the House Ways and Means Committee. We urge the Senate 
Finance Committee to include S. 243 in a future retirement package.

Conclusion

The charitable deduction--created more than 100 years ago--is a 
powerful symbol of the American tradition and system of philanthropy. 
It represents a gesture of confidence on the part of the people by way 
of their elected representatives, an acknowledgement of the 
effectiveness of nonprofit and community action and a commitment to the 
longstanding tradition of philanthropy in America. The deduction binds 
together the interests and concerns of all of us for the betterment of 
our society.

The charitable deduction is the only deduction where the money a person 
spends or contributes doesn't benefit themselves directly. The mortgage 
deduction is for buying a house. Scholarship, education and health 
deductions relate to money spent to help a person's family. But the 
charitable deduction involves a selfless, generous motivation--giving 
to a cause that might never directly benefit the donor.

The deduction's enhancement value is clear: a calculation of the 
deduction shows that for every $1 of potential tax revenue invested 
through the deduction, the public and communities across America 
receive approximately $2.5 in philanthropic services. That rate of 
return is extraordinary. We should be investing more in the deduction 
and encouraging additional philanthropy though provisions such as:

      The Universal Charitable Deduction through the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act; and
      An expansion of the Charitable IRA Rollover through the Legacy 
IRA Act.

Thank you for your consideration and your work in keeping the American 
tradition of philanthropy strong and vibrant for decades to come.

Respectfully,

Mike Geiger, MBA, CPA
President and CEO
[email protected]

                                 ______
                                 
                 Statement Submitted by Paula J. Beugen
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo and Committee Members, thank you 
for the opportunity to submit this statement. Your attentiveness and 
action to support the nonprofit sector is vital to assuring a thriving 
nonprofit sector throughout the United States. I applaud and am 
grateful for the United States Committee on Finance's March 17, 2022 
hearing entitled Examining Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector. 
Appreciation is due to you as well as to the renowned leaders who 
testified in person at the hearing. Important and timely issues were 
raised for your consideration and further leadership. Take related 
action.

While I am greatly concerned about and active on a number of issues 
pertaining to the future of the entire nonprofit sector in the United 
States, volunteerism is the main focus of this brief statement to the 
Committee on Finance (Committee). My nearly 47 years of experience in a 
range of capacities in the volunteerism part of the sector prepares me 
to bring a particular perspective to the Committee.

A healthy nonprofit sector--including the millions of volunteers who 
are a key part of it--is essential to the well-being of our democracy. 
People who volunteer build relationships across communities and 
perspectives, gain greater understanding of issues confronting 
communities and become more informed voters. They learn and give a lot. 
They provide leadership and services that are not available through 
other means. They bring hope and often survival to many which is 
especially important during this daunting time in the life of our 
country.

Given the role volunteers play in the lives of people, communities and 
democracy a much greater focus on volunteerism by Congress is 
essential. Volunteers selflessly give of their time, talent, 
creativity, innovation and problem-solving abilities. Yet, minimal 
investment is made in assuring that volunteers who serve without a 
stipend have the resources and supports required to maximize the impact 
of their efforts. This is a great loss to all involved. We must 
implement strategies that help defray out-of-pocket volunteer-related 
expenses and strengthen the ability of nonprofit organizations to 
partner with volunteers in order to advance their mission-
accomplishment. Steps must be taken to strengthen the volunteer 
community and to make the opportunity to volunteer more accessible and 
equitable.

To illustrate, I reflect on the issue of the charitable driving mileage 
rate. In an article I wrote, ``Towards a More Cohesive Volunteerism 
Public Affairs Strategy: A Story, Steps and Lessons from Minnesota,'' 
published in e-volunteerism: The Electronic Journal of the Volunteer 
Community, Vol. IX, Issue 4, July 15th-October 14, 2009, some history 
around this issue was outlined. Noted in the article was that 
discussion of this topic was taking place back in 1981. According to 
the article, ``Efforts to advance this cause continued throughout the 
1980s and 1990s.''

In 1984 the former Minnesota Association of Volunteer Directors 
distributed an informal survey that was redistributed to 526 
volunteers. Responses were anonymous. What was learned from this group 
was at that time 20 percent of volunteers who responded to the survey 
would find it difficult to volunteer without an ``adequate tax 
deduction for charitable driving,'' according to the article. The 
situation is exacerbated today. Many organizations and leaders 
subsequently advocated and continue to advocate to raise the rate. I 
have heard volunteers discussing that they no longer can afford to be a 
volunteer driver. Raise the charitable driving rate to match the 
allowable business rate and keep it in parity with the business rate 
into the future.

The above issue is one of many volunteerism topics that need to be 
addressed. Let's work to eliminate the recent shortage of and decline 
in volunteerism. An independent, substantial sector of Americans who 
volunteer in high quality efforts is so crucial to the well-being, 
stability, hope and future of our nation. Invest in our precious 
resource--volunteers.

                                 ______
                                 
           BIPOC Executive Directors Coalition of Washington

                          c/o Byrd Barr Place

                             722 18th Ave.

                           Seattle, WA 98122

                      [email protected]

                    https://bipocedcoalitionwa.org/

         Statement of Ananda Valenzuela, Co-Executive Director

Thank you for the opportunity to share our insights, as co-founders of 
the BIPOC Executive Directors Coalition of Washington, a multicultural, 
cross-sector collaborative of 200+ Black, Indigenous, and People of 
Color (BIPOC) nonprofit leaders working in solidarity to promote 
wellness and restore resources in our communities.

We would like to amplify the excellent testimony shared by Susannah 
Morgan, CEO of Oregon Food Bank, and bring your attention to this quote 
in particular: ``I would like to just drive home the fact that hunger 
is a symptom. Its cause is poverty, and poverty itself has a cause, 
which is systemic inequities. It's not an accident that our communities 
of color are more likely to be hungry. It's not an accident that single 
moms are more likely to be hungry. It's because we've designed systems 
to prevent prosperity and allowed those to happen. And so I would say 
that actions--like the ones that you have suggested that redistribute 
wealth and tear down barriers to prosperity--are exactly what we need 
our federal government to do.''

Our coalition strongly agrees with the Oregon Food Bank that Congress 
must urgently take action on the following:

    1.  Reinstate the Child Tax Credit.

    2.  Modernize SNAP to reflect the true cost of healthy food.

    3.  Invest in housing and child care.

    4.  Raise revenue by requiring the wealthiest corporations, 
individuals and estates to pay what they owe.

    5.  Increase the amount private foundations must grant annually.

    6.  Ensure donor-advised funds have minimum annual distributions of 
at least 7% to 10% and spend-down timelines to ensure money is invested 
in communities and not sitting idly for decades.

As a society, we have been working to address the impacts of inequities 
without redesigning the structures and systems that create and 
perpetuate them. For generations, we have needed to do more and spend 
more to support the health and well-being of our communities without 
the adequate resources to do so. Wealthy corporations, philanthropies, 
and individuals benefit from the very systems that give rise to 
inequities. This must change in order to advance racial justice.

We look forward to continuing to be in dialogue with Congress about how 
best to address the systemic inequities barring us from meaningfully 
addressing the core challenges facing the nonprofit sector and BIPOC 
communities.

                                 ______
                                 
                Business Coalition for Fair Competition

                    10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 300

                           Fairfax, VA 22030

                             (703) 383-1330

                     www.governmentcompetition.org

The Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC) \1\ is a coalition 
of private sector firms, large and small, trade associations, think 
tanks, organizations, and individuals who support the competitive free 
enterprise system and seek relief from unfair government sponsored 
competition with private business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.governmentcompetition.org/.

BCFC is deeply concerned that some non-profit organizations operate 
activities in direct and unfair competition with for-profit, tax-paying 
private businesses. At a time when small business is struggling and job 
creation is not being maximized in the private sector, small business 
cannot afford to compete against non-profits that don't pay their fair 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
share of taxes.

Private enterprise constitutes the strength of the United States 
economic system and competitive private enterprises remain the most 
productive, efficient, and effective sources of goods and services.

There are thousands of legitimate non-profits that do exemplary work 
filling a societal need. The tax treatment of these organizations is 
not an issue for BCFC. However, when the organizations encroach on 
private business activities, there are a number of undesirable 
consequences.

Entities organized under various provisions in section 501(c) of the 
Internal Revenue Code are provided special tax ``exempt'' treatment 
were clearly intended to perform activities and provide services 
otherwise considered ``governmental'' in nature, not those that are 
commercially available. A 1954 report by this Committee noted:

        The exemption from taxation of money or property devoted to 
        charitable and other purposes is based upon the theory that 
        government is compensated for the loss of revenue by its relief 
        from financial burden which would otherwise have to be met by 
        appropriations from public funds and by the benefits resulting 
        from promotion of the general welfare.

        Source: (Unfair Competition: The Profits of Non-profits, James 
        T. Bennett, Thomas H. DiLorenzo, Hamilton Press, 1989, p. 26)

The problem is, this policy has not been adequately codified by 
Congress or efficiently implemented by the IRS. The situation has 
become so pervasive that unfair government-sponsored competition has 
been a top issue at every White House Conference on Small Business.

In 1980, the first White House Conference on Small Business made unfair 
competition one of its highest-ranked issues. It said, ``The Federal 
Government shall be required by statute to contract out to small 
business those supplies and services that the private sector can 
provide. The government should not compete with the private sector by 
accomplishing these efforts with its own or non-profit personnel and 
facilities.''

In 1986, the second White House Conference made this one of its top 
three issues. It said, ``Government at all levels has failed to protect 
small business from damaging levels of unfair competition. At the 
federal, state and local levels, therefore, laws, regulations and 
policies should . . . prohibit direct, government created competition 
in which government organizations perform commercial services. . . . 
New laws at all levels, particularly at the federal level, should 
require strict government reliance on the private sector for 
performance of commercial-type functions. When cost comparisons are 
necessary to accomplish conversion to private sector performance, laws 
must include provisions for fair and equal cost comparisons. Funds 
controlled by a government entity must not be used to establish or 
conduct a commercial activity on U.S. property.''

And the 1995 White House Conference again made this a priority issue 
when its plank read, ``Congress should enact legislation that would 
prohibit government agencies and tax-exempt and anti-trust exempt 
organizations from engaging in commercial activities in direct 
competition with small businesses.'' That was among the top 15 vote 
getters at the 1995 Conference and was number one among all the 
procurement-related issues in the final balloting.

Non-profit organizations unfairly compete with private, for-profit 
businesses by engaging in commercial activities, but not paying taxes.

Billions of dollars in economic activity occurs each year that is 
untaxed. This results in lost revenue to Federal, as well as state and 
local government agencies. And it creates an unlevel playing field for 
the private sector, particularly small business. When this occurs in 
universities, it unnecessarily drives up the cost of room, board, 
tuition and fees.

The 2013 IRS Colleges and Universities Compliance Project studied the 
unrelated business income tax (UBIT) for which tax-exempt entities, 
such as most universities, are required to pay on any activities and 
revenue unrelated to their tax-exempt status. The April 25, 2013 IRS 
report \2\ ``found increases to unrelated business taxable income for 
90 percent of the colleges and universities examined, totaling about 
$90 million. There were over 180 changes to the amounts of unrelated 
business taxable income reported by colleges and universities on Form 
990-T; and disallowance of more than $170 million in losses and net 
operating losses that could amount to more than $60 million in assessed 
taxes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/CUCP_FinalRpt_042513.pdf.

Non-profit organizations are provided special tax status under section 
501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. These groups are required to pay 
an ``unrelated business income tax'' or UBIT on its commercial or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``non-exempt'' activities. The IRS report showed this is not occurring.

The Federal Government first exempted charitable organizations from tax 
in 1913. In 1950, in response to outrageous examples of unfair 
competition, Congress changed the tax law by creating the UBIT. Under 
UBIT, revenues from sources unrelated to the non-profit's tax-exempt 
purpose are subject to taxation.

Attempts by government to address the problem of unfair competition 
have been few and far between, and those few measures that have been 
taken have been largely ineffective. The UBIT which was intended to 
level the playing field by taxing the revenues of non-profits has, for 
example, proven difficult if not impossible to enforce. The courts have 
not been able to give a rigorous and consistent definition of just what 
constitutes an ``unrelated'' business activity by a non-profit. And 
because the UBIT tax was to apply only to ``commercial activity which 
is not significantly related to the purposes for which the non-profit 
organization was established,'' enforcement and collection by the IRS 
has been less than successful. For their part, non-profits have taken 
an extremely expansive view of what constitutes a related purpose, 
making the under-reporting or non-reporting of revenues commonplace.

Unfair non-profit competition impedes the development of small business 
by making it hard for them to enter markets and compete. This is 
significant because two-thirds of all new jobs are created by 
businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Because commercial enterprises 
run by non-profits are exempted from taxes and receive other subsidies, 
taxpaying businesses must bear an extra burden by paying higher taxes 
than they would otherwise to make up for exemptions enjoyed by their 
``non-profit'' competitors. Unfair competition ends up crowding out of 
the market precisely those firms which are the principal source of new 
jobs--ultimately reducing the rate of economic growth.

Unfair non-profit competition takes many forms. It is YMCAs competing 
with private health clubs; credit unions competing with community 
banks; rural electric and telephone cooperatives competing with 
investor-owned utilities; and universities venturing out of the 
classroom and into hotels, mapping services, and testing laboratories. 
A few examples follow:

      Credit unions' tax-exemption currently costs the U.S. Treasury 
$2 billion annually. By contrast, the more than 6,000 community banks 
that are the lifeblood of towns across the country contribute $4 
billion annually in taxes that support our nation and those 
communities;
      A bicycle rental business in Anchorage, Alaska faced competition 
from a non-profit entity approved by state gaming regulators--a free 
bike loan program for downtown Anchorage, known as the Earth Bike 
Program. The program lasted 2 years and forced other bike rental 
businesses out of business, and in one case, leave the state;
      A privately owned inn in Fredericksburg, Virginia hosts 
functions such as banquets and weddings. The University of Mary 
Washington's Alumni Center not only competes for similar events and 
opportunities, but it also is building a hotel less than a mile away 
that will further compete with the hotels, motels and other lodging 
destinations that are not tax-exempt. The only reason provided by lost 
clients for choosing the university was the lower price thanks to the 
tax differential. University hotels and conference centers are 
proliferating across the country; and
      A laundry and cleaner in San Antonio, Texas faces competition 
for its laundry services from a non-profit, Federal tax-exempt Bexar 
County (government) cooperative entity. The unfair business practice 
involves, in addition to competing with and eliminating the opportunity 
for private business services, the co-op going outside its members to 
provide laundry services to for-profit businesses and hospitals 
throughout South Texas. It is damaging to a long-time minority owned 
and operated for-profit business to have to compete in this arena with 
its taxing entity, Bexar County.

Unfair university competition takes many forms. It is universities 
venturing out of the classroom and into activities unrelated to their 
core and exempt education mission, such as hotels, mapping services, 
bicycle repair, golf courses, gym and fitness centers, cultural 
resource assessments, testing laboratories and others. A few examples 
were highlighted in BCFC's 2013 \3\ and 2014 \4\ lists of the most 
egregious examples of unfair government competition as collected by 
media reports, include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs181/1102588223535/archive/
1116149070767.html.
    \4\ http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=2815dd0f-
8806-4b37-8be2-c63f7bc3d6e0
&c=8d26d950-49b1-11e4-96ee-d4ae5292c3f3&ch=8d2d9010-49b1-11e4-96ee-
d4ae5292c3f3.

      The University of Mary Washington's Alumni Center \5\ in 
Fredericksburg, VA not only competed for similar events and 
opportunities as provided by a neighboring small business in the 
wedding, banquet, lodging and catering business, but it also was 
building a hotel less than a mile away that would further compete with 
the hotels, motels and other lodging destinations that are not tax-
exempt. The only reason provided by lost clients for choosing the 
university was the lower price thanks to the tax differential. 
University hotels and conference centers are proliferating across the 
country;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ http://jepsonalumniexecutivecenter.umw.edu/events/weddings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia announced in 
December 2013 it would close its hotel, the Mason Inn, after losing $11 
million;\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20131206/NEWS/131209262/
1064/mason-inn-to-close-in-june-reopen-as-residential-
space&template=fairfaxTimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Towson University, a Maryland state University in the Baltimore 
suburbs, purchased air time on Washington, DC radio stations 
advertising a nursery school program \7\ for children 2, 3, and 4 years 
of age and a summer camp programs for pre-teens;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ http://www.towson.edu/daycare/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ``Bluffing'' to win its first contract, St. Mary's University 
(MN) performed \8\ commercially available mapping services for the 
National Park Service and other clients;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/article--c6c019aa-
74e2-11e3-a03f-0019bb29
63f4.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The University of Houston operates the National Center for 
Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM),\9\ mapping services utilizing aircraft 
equipped with Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR), a technology 
commercialized by NASA in the 1990s. Towson also runs a mapping program 
\10\ that has purchased television ads touting a software system that 
is otherwise commercially available;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://ncalm.cive.uh.edu/.
    \10\ http://www.towson.edu/innovation/cgis/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Believing that bicycle repair is inherent to the success of 
higher education, Virginia Tech University opened its own shop and 
hired a mechanic to pedal \11\ services to students in Blacksburg, VA 
in competition with local small business;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ http://r20.rs6.net/
tn.jsp?f=001n7O63zKQU6FBce6Ro9HNrwzqeIJiZCIEgKUh9cgTmdCWjC
4MJQm3GgNCmoxlyhvlzXKS1r8fRHfs2Sk8_vklJncTqQXA4Igs1FixMkWNllVd5UyxKOTfwL
Ian
RC05lVLl1DLdtK72h9UEWYTIlV1Gzp74CjP3OpHpOtIaV6GRkQ-x9v7LaBNuK7Tyiis_eI-
GgI-8r
Le4fWZBFbpT-lRWj0et3m9C-
vXBWaIAoDUqfOHJNSZfQ2i0S0fxcVhoSfO10MiGPD80YpezaRX
bJ6x0d1AqUD1PGpPpI8vqGW1P_baqAltcBxXP2VDIHWkO49k&c=&ch=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA operates \12\ a 
variety of charter bus and transit options to not only university 
students, but also to the general public including local school systems 
thereby in direct competition and duplication of the local market as 
would be provided by the small business operators; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.jmu.edu/transportation/regional-transportation/
charter-buses.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Elon University in North Carolina started Live Oak 
Communications,\13\ a communications agency that provides public 
relations, advertising, special event marketing, viral marketing, media 
relations, website development, video creation and graphic design 
services for businesses and not-for-profit organizations in the North 
Carolina region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/.

The previously referenced 2013 IRS report listed the following 
activities as within its scope of UBIT research: Fitness, recreation 
centers and sports camps; advertising; facility rentals; arenas; and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
golf.

Another form of university competition is in the schools' bookstore. 
These on-
campus, university-owned retail operations go far beyond selling 
essential textbooks to students, but compete with local, for-profit, 
tax-paying business in offering office supplies, clothes and apparel, 
computer equipment and goods under the blanket of the institution's tax 
exempt status. Finally, universities historically competed with travel 
and tour companies by offering foreign trips that looked more like 
vacations rather than instructional endeavors.

Schools of higher education are increasingly venturing away from their 
core missions of teaching and conducting basic research. Financial 
pressures, ranging from reduced government funding to pressures to 
limit tuition increases have led university presidents to transform 
academicians into entrepreneurs. Universities are generating revenues 
from commercial activities to supplement their budgets.

University engagement in commercial activities could be called the 
``Gatorade Syndrome.'' Ever since professors at the University of 
Florida invented the popular sports drink to hydrate football players 
practicing in the heat, academicians have been trying to find the next 
big discovery. Most simply consume tax dollars, divert scarce resources 
including tuition, and fail to turn profits. These university-
sponsored enterprises have cost their schools millions, exacerbating an 
unaffordable tuition system that has made a college education a 
financial burden, if not impossibility, for most students and their 
parents.

Universities enjoy significant advantages over for-profit companies. 
They are eligible for billions of dollars in grants from Federal and 
State governments. They often have the ability to secure non-
competitive, sole source contracts with government agencies. They pay 
no taxes. Their overhead--buildings, electricity, even equipment, is 
already paid for and is provided for ``free.'' Their student labor 
force is either unpaid or compensated at well below prevailing market 
wages. They carry no professional liability insurance, do not have to 
pay unemployment compensation and in many cases are exempt from social 
security contributions. When universities enter into contracts to 
perform services, they usually insist on ``best effort'' clauses, which 
absolve them of ever completely finishing a project. They are also 
recipients of millions of dollars in free or discounted hardware and 
software, donated from vendor firms so that students will learn on 
their systems, be proficient in their use upon graduation and instill a 
consumer loyalty that will translate into sales once these students 
move up in the ranks of their private sector employers. The advantages 
universities bring to the market make it virtually impossible for 
private firms to compete.

Private sector and for-profit colleges and universities face unfair 
competition from government institutions. In recent years, such private 
schools have been singled out for attack from a bevy of regulations 
proposed by the federal government that create an unfair and unlevel 
playing field. The latest effort comes in the form of a retooled 
``gainful employment'' regulation by the Department of Education that 
is impacting private sector schools and largely leaving traditional 
public and non-profit schools untouched. The ``gainful employment'' 
regulation prevents students--often low-
income, minorities, and veterans--from having access to thousands of 
programs at private sector higher education institutions.

In addition, federal actions, including the ``90/10 rule,'' regulations 
dealing with state authorization, and the definition of a credit hour 
all threaten to punish private sector schools to the advantage of 
traditional public institutions.

For too many years, the unfair government-sponsored competition issue 
has not been a top priority for Congress or Administrations of either 
party. The Small Business Administration's Office conducted a series of 
hearings and issued a report, ``Government Competition: A Threat to 
Small Business'' (March 1980), and ``Unfair Competition by Non-profit 
Organizations With Small Business: An Issue for the 1980s'' (June, 
1984). The last serious look at non-profits and the UBIT by the Ways 
and Means Committee was by Congressman J.J. Pickle (D-TX) in 1987-1988.

In February 2013, BCFC testified \14\ before this Committee including 
``unfair university competition'' and UBIT within the hearing \15\ 
entitled, ``Tax Reform and Charitable Contributions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ http://www.governmentcompetition.org/uploads/
BCFC_Testimony_Palatiello_House_Ways_
and_Means_Cmte_2-14-2013.pdf.
    \15\ http://waysandmeans.house.gov/event/update-new-time-camp-
announces-hearing-on-tax-reform-and-charitable-contributions/.

From April 18 through April 25, 1993, The Philadelphia Inquirer 
presented an exhaustive investigative exposition of the multibillion-
dollar world of America's so-called non-profit industries, exposing, in 
several different contexts, the abuses of their unique tax-exempt 
status. Certainly, this sweeping indictment by The Philadelphia 
Inquirer encompasses the world of non-profit sometimes run amok. 
However, as you, Mr. Chairman, contemplate future oversight hearings 
and legislation to reform this multibillion-dollar, non-tax-paying 
competition for many of America's struggling small businesses, you will 
find valuable factual, albeit dated, information in the Inquirer 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
series.

Source: (Non-profits: America's Growth Industry They're Called Non-
profit Businesses, But That Doesn't Mean They Can't Make Money. They 
Do--Billions Of Dollars. At The Same Time, Their Tax-exemptions Cost 
Government More Than $36 Billion A Year,'' by Gilbert M. Gaul and Neill 
A. Borowski, The Philadelphia Inquirer April 18, 1993)

In February 1987, a GAO report found:

      The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that $1.2 billion, or 
1.3 percent, of the $91 billion gross national product (GNP) in 1930 
could be attributed to non-profit institutions. This share grew to $131 
billion, or 3.3 percent, of the $3,989 billion GNP by 1985;
      A 1975 IRS Statistics of Income (SOI) study found that for tax-
exempt organizations (religious, schools and colleges, cultural and 
historical, other instructional, health-related services, scientific 
research, business and professional, farming and related, mutual 
organizations, employee or membership benefit, sports-
athletic-recreational and social, youth, conservation and 
environmental, housing, inner city or community, civil rights, 
litigation and legal aid, legislative and political advocacy, other 
activities directed to individuals, other activities directed to 
organizations, other purposes and activities, no activity reported) on 
average, 39% of their total activity receipts were business receipts; 
and
      Complete data do not exist to quantify the nature, extent, and 
impact of competition between non-profits and the private sector. 
However, the limited data available indicate that taxable businesses 
and some tax-exempt organizations are increasingly competing to provide 
similar services.
        Source: (GAO Briefing Report to the Joint Committee on 
        Taxation; ``Tax Policy: Competition Between Taxable Businesses 
        and Tax-Exempt Organizations'', February 27, 1987--GGD-87-40BR)

In March 1980, a report of the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
Advocacy Task Force Group on Government Competition with Small Business 
found:

      The activities of foundations and universities were of 
particular concern to a number of witnesses;
      In Fiscal Year 1978, the IRS audited approximately 17,000 of the 
150,000 required filings by non-profits. Unrelated business income was 
discovered in 1,800 or 10.6 percent of these 17,000 audited cases. Of 
the 1,800 audits where unrelated business income was discovered, 46 
percent (828 cases) resulted in successful action by IRS to levy 
additional taxes, and a combined total of $10 million was recovered. On 
average, the IRS recovered additional taxes at the rate of $12,078 per 
audited case where unrelated business income was discovered and 
recovery action succeeded; and
      The small business community's perception of the extent of abuse 
of the tax system by non-profits strongly suggests that a more 
extensive review of unrelated business income activities is 
warranted.Source: (``Government Competition: A Threat to Small 
Business'' Report of the SBA Advocacy Task Force Group on Government 
Competition with Small Business, March 1980)

This is a problem that is growing, not diminishing. From 1975 to 1990, 
the non-profit sector grew by 150 percent, while the gross domestic 
product grew about 50 percent.

University competition is part of a larger problem of unfair government 
sponsored and tax-subsidized competition with private enterprise 
including government (including the insourcing of contracts performed 
by tax-paying private sector firms out of the private sector for 
performance by Federal employees), non-profits, prison industries, etc. 
The Federal government and universities can lower costs and increase 
revenue by applying the `` `Yellow Pages' Test,'' a simple test that 
says if an activity is available from a private sector company found in 
the Yellow Pages, that activity should not be a responsibility of a 
college and university and, instead, should actually be performed by a 
tax-paying private sector firm.

In December 2012, BCFC attempted to bridge the impasse in negotiations 
on the fiscal cliff and sequestration by providing President Obama and 
Congressional leaders budget savings of $795 billion \16\ by simply 
utilizing tax-paying private sector firms for commercially available 
goods and services currently performed by a government or tax-
subsidized entity. The federal government can achieve $795 billion in 
savings simply by getting out of activities that duplicate or compete 
with the private sector, which subsidize unfair competition with 
private, for-profit companies, or by privatizing activities for which 
there are current or potential private sector providers. This includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs181/1102588223535/
archive/1111796462564.html.

      Enforce UBIT on commercial activities revenue of non-profits--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$36 Billion.

Institutions of higher education should not be able to use their tax-
exempt status to avoid paying income taxes on what are essentially 
commercial activities. These tax-subsidized entities should not be 
making the same kind of profits on activities that are virtually 
identical to those of a for-profit, tax-paying business.

The IRS should more vigorously enforce current rules governing the tax 
status of universities to assure that academic activities are indeed 
related to research and education, not commercial production. Here are 
five very specific recommendations.


    1.  The Department of the Treasury should be required to provide an 
annual public estimate of revenues lost through avoidance of UBIT.

    2.  The Treasury Department should provide an official public 
estimate of potential new revenues to the Treasury if the UBIT law were 
expanded to require all commercial operations of universities to pay 
their fair share of taxes.

    3.  The law should be modified or new legislation introduced that 
lets the Treasury Department collect taxes that insures that all 
commercial activities of universities are taxable. The IRS has only one 
option today--that is to revoke an organization's charter to do 
business. They simply can't administer the law the way it is.

    4.  Congress should amend the Higher Education Act to focus 
universities on their core missions--education and basic research. 
Legislation should be passed to apply a ``commerciality'' test to all 
non-core university activities. Any university that receives direct 
federal funding, or indirect funding through tax-exempt or ``non-
profit'' status, should be prohibited for using such institutions for 
the performance of commercial, tax generating activities otherwise 
available in the private sector.

    5.  Universities entering a commercial undertaking should be 
required to form a for-profit subsidiary that must obey all the same 
laws and regulations that apply to for-profit enterprises. It is only 
when we move beyond hidden subsidies and the ineffectual regulations of 
UBIT that both consumers and producers, and all taxpayers, will be able 
to enjoy the benefits of even-handed competition. In forming a 
commercial subsidiary, this would help implement a ``commerciality 
clause,'' and thus implement the `` `Yellow Pages' Test.''

Unfair non-profit competition with the private sector, and small 
business, is a public policy issue deserving of immediate attention and 
reform. This hearing will provide an important forum for the private 
sector to discuss the broader aspects of this issue. As Congress seeks 
ways to grow the economy and create private sector jobs, as well as 
prepare comprehensive tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate to 
make American business more competitive in the global market and 
simplify the tax code, BCFC respectfully recommends reform of the 
treatment of nonprofit organizations and UBIT so that unfairness is 
eliminated, appropriate revenue is raised, and counter-productive tax 
policy that disadvantages private, for profit companies, particularly 
small business, is implemented.

We commend your efforts to further explore private sector complaints in 
this area and advance the debate. The private sector seeks a 
competitive environment in which all participants play by the same 
rules including reforms to the tax code that enable, instead of hinder, 
the private sector.

                                 ______
                                 
                  California Association of Nonprofits

                      870 Market Street, Suite 985

                        San Francisco, CA 94102

                             (800) 776-4226

                       https://calnonprofits.org/

March 31, 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden
The Honorable Mike Crapo
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of Senate 
Committee on Finance:

On behalf of the California Association of Nonprofits (CalNonprofits), 
a policy alliance of more than 10,000 members, I write to express 
appreciation for your leadership in holding a hearing on charitable 
giving, a topic with vital importance to the sustainability of the 
nonprofit sector, and for considering reforms that will help ensure 
that much-needed resources get to charities more quickly.

Through our advocacy, CalNonprofits protects and enhances the ability 
of nonprofits to serve our communities. We advocate for sufficient 
public investment in our communities, and because private philanthropy 
is also an important funding source for nonprofits, we support efforts 
to bring greater accountability to charitable donation utilization and 
greater transparency to philanthropy overall.

The events of the past two years reinforce the important role that 
nonprofit organizations play in providing services, from serving food 
to the hungry to providing clothing and shelter for Americans in need. 
In California, there are more than 92,000 active nonprofits. We are key 
economic drivers, generating 15% of the Gross State Product; service 
providers, providing 32% of Medi-Cal services; and employers, employing 
more than 1.2 million Californians.

Nationwide, many nonprofits are struggling to meet increased community 
needs and cover higher programmatic costs--without a corresponding 
increase in resources. The nonprofit workforce remains deeply affected 
by the pandemic. Nonprofits need resources now more than ever.

Current charitable giving laws impede the flow of resources to 
nonprofits, and steps must be taken to increase that flow, especially 
at a time when our services are most needed. For example, current law 
allows donors to receive an upfront tax benefit for their charitable 
contributions, yet when funds are donated to vehicles such as donor-
advised funds (DAFs), they can accumulate indefinitely without being 
distributed to charities.

In other words, state and federal coffers experience significant losses 
as a result of these tax benefits, without the guarantee of comparable 
benefits to society of donated funds going to support charitable goals. 
Nationwide, more than $1.2 trillion sits in private foundations and 
$159 billion sits in DAFs. In fiscal year 2020 alone, contributions to 
DAFs totaled $47.85 billion, according to a 2021 National Philanthropic 
Trust report.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nptrust.org/reports/daf-report/.

We believe reform is needed to ensure that tax deductible donations get 
to charities in a timely way, so charities can use the funds to serve 
our communities. Society should benefit in a timely way that 
corresponds closely to the time when the tax deductions are enjoyed by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
donors.

We ask that the Committee support reforms to charitable giving laws so 
that policies are in place to free up resources currently held in 
philanthropic institutions, to get more funds to nonprofits, to align 
public benefit and public costs, and to help ensure necessary services 
for our communities.

We would welcome the opportunity to work with members of the Senate 
Committee on Finance and other policymakers as these conversations move 
forward. Thank you, again, for your leadership.

Sincerely,

Jan Masaoka, CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                        Center for Fiscal Equity

                      14448 Parkvale Road, Suite 6

                          Rockville, MD 20853

                      [email protected]

                      Statement of Michael Bindner

Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, thank you for the opportunity 
to address this issue. I will leave trend analysis to the witnesses. My 
concern is improving the taxation of this sector. Our current tax 
reform plan is attached for context. These comments repeat those 
offered in December to the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee on the 
Pandora Papers and those drafted for a hearing before the Oversight 
Committee on houses of worship, charities and nonprofits in June 2019 
that never took place.

There are two questions for the taxation of charitable contributions. 
The first is where the money comes from. The second is how the outgo 
should be taxed.

Under our proposed asset value-added tax, assets would be marked to 
market at initial public offering, option exercise and the first sale 
after inheritance, gift and donation. When assets are donated to 
charities and nonprofits, no tax will be paid. When these institutions 
sell these assets, taxes will be collected in full. Whether endowment 
income is taxed is an open question, although usually the asset value-
added tax would be levied.

Sales to employee-owned or cooperative firms will be zero rated, just 
as they are when a single owner sells out to an ESOP when transitioning 
out. We propose expanding this privilege to all asset sales. Note that 
as long as a business or family farm is kept in the family or sold to a 
cooperative, no tax is levied.

Large religious organizations, charities and nonprofits have become big 
business and need to be taxed accordingly, where appropriate. Some are 
legally held as the property of the minister or bishop. Taxing such 
entities as sole proprietors makes legal sense. While this could be 
seen as targeting certain religious organizations, such as the Catholic 
and Episcopalians, their choice of organizational form is not the fault 
of the public. As such, their tax treatment must match similar business 
classes.

Charities that have commercial operations will be subject to an Invoice 
VAT (I-VAT), as they essentially are under the TCJA provisions in 
question, like any other commercial company, particularly if these 
operations compete with type C, type S, partnership or sole proprietor 
firms that pay individual taxes at pass-through rates.

The I-VAT will be collected on commercial goods. This is essential 
after reform to provide visibility to their customers as to taxes 
imposed by the entire supply chain and a commercial vendor or 
independent agent must pay an I-VAT. Without such treatment, every 
business into some form of charitable organization overnight, this 
would not be advisable. Fiscal conservatism should not be synonymous 
with empowering tax evasion schemes.

Whether non-commercial operations are subject to an I-VAT depends on 
the extent they are used to fund entitlement spending and payroll taxes 
versus discretionary government spending. For example, if Social 
Security or Medicare were to become I-VAT funded, thus becoming zero 
rated at the border and replacing the payroll tax, then charitable 
organizations must continue to fund these operations, as they will 
benefit the employees of these organizations. If, however, entitlement 
services are funded through our proposed Subtraction VAT S-VAT, then 
there is an argument to leave the non-commercial activities of these 
entities VAT-exempt.

Political organizations and committees also would pay S-VAT on their 
payroll and their purchases would not be I-VAT exempt in the long term. 
Committees that give little to candidates should not be tax-exempt, as 
they are essentially corporations whose high salaries are essentially 
partnership income in disguise, without the corresponding risk. As 
such, they should be taxed at pass-through rates. If an S-VAT is 
enacted, ads through deductions for all individuals would be 
eliminated.

Charitable organization employees will continue to pay the employee 
contribution to Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, assuming it is not 
subsumed into our proposed Subtraction VAT (S-VAT).

Charitable organizations will pay the S-VAT because their employees 
will benefit from the programs funded by this levy or from offsets to 
it. For example, Catholic Charities employees might designate the 
Catholic school system as an alternative provider to public schools, 
which would allow Catholic Charities agencies to take a credit on this 
levy, which would otherwise be paid against their total value added.

Likewise, employees would be paid the same child tax credit as 
commercial employees--again as an offset to S-VAT levies. Health and 
higher education credits proposed for other enterprises would also be 
available to charitable organizations, as well as any other applicable 
credits. Note that because certain payroll and personal income taxes 
will be eliminated, the gross pay of charitable employees will decline 
in like manner to those of their commercial counterparts once tax 
reform is enacted.

Finally, this schema is as applicable to governmental organizations as 
it is to charitable organizations, with modifications. State 
governments would be the federal S-VAT, while federal organizations 
would pay the state S-VAT, both on the same basis relating to value 
added through payroll. These organizations would not pay the S-VAT to 
themselves, however their personnel systems should contain a similar 
range of benefits.

This schema provides a better explanation of how a Fair Tax might work 
on these levels, while also providing a rationale for adjusting 
government employee salaries and providing for non-governmental 
performance of services through the same type of alternative S-VAT 
programs.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to add our comments to the 
debate. Please contact us if we can be of any assistance or contribute 
direct testimony.

Attachment One--Tax Reform, Center for Fiscal Equity, December 7, 2021

Individual payroll taxes. Employee payroll tax of 7.2% for Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance. Funds now collected as a matching premium to a 
consumption tax based contribution credited at an equal dollar rate for 
all workers qualified within a quarter. An employer-paid subtraction 
value-added tax would be used if offsets to private accounts are 
included. Without such accounts, the invoice value added tax would 
collect these funds. No payroll tax would be collected from employees 
if all contributions are credited on an equal dollar basis. If employee 
taxes are retained, the ceiling would be lowered to $100,000 to reduce 
benefits paid to wealthier individuals and a $16,000 floor should be 
established so that Earned Income Tax Credits are no longer needed. 
Subsidies for single workers should be abandoned in favor of radically 
higher minimum wages. If a $10 minimum wage is passed, the employee 
contribution floor would increase to $20,000.

Wage Surtaxes. Individual income taxes on salaries, which exclude 
business taxes, above an individual standard deduction of $100,000 per 
year, will range from 7.2% to 57.6%. This tax will fund net interest on 
the debt (which will no longer be rolled over into new borrowing), 
redemption of the Social Security Trust Fund, strategic, sea and non-
continental U.S. military deployments, veterans' health benefits as the 
result of battlefield injuries, including mental health and addiction 
and eventual debt reduction.

Our proposed brackets have been increased from $85,000 to $100,000 
because this is the income level at the top of the 80% of tax paying 
households who earn the bottom third of adjusted gross income. Earners 
above this level are considered middle class. Likewise, the top 1% of 
income earners are at the $500,000 level, which will be used as the 
start of the highest rate.

Asset Value-Added Tax (A-VAT). A replacement for capital gains taxes, 
dividend taxes, and the estate tax. It will apply to asset sales, 
dividend distributions, exercised options, rental income, inherited and 
gifted assets and the profits from short sales. Tax payments for option 
exercises, IPOs, inherited, gifted and donated assets will be marked to 
market, with prior tax payments for that asset eliminated so that the 
seller gets no benefit from them. In this perspective, it is the 
owner's increase in value that is taxed. As with any sale of liquid or 
real assets, sales to a qualified broad-based Employee Stock Ownership 
Plan will be tax free. These taxes will fund the same spending items as 
income or S-VAT surtaxes.

This tax will end Tax Gap issues owed by high income individuals. A 26% 
rate is between the GOP 23.8% rate (including ACA-SM surtax) and the 
Democratic 28.8% rate as proposed in the Build Back Better Act. It's 
time to quit playing football with tax rates to attract side bets. A 
single rate also stops gaming forms of ownership. Lower rates are not 
as regressive as they seem. Only the wealthy have capital gains in any 
significant amount. The de facto rate for everyone else is zero. For 
now, however, a 28.8% rate is assumed if reform is enacted by a 
Democratic majority in both Houses.

Subtraction Value-Added Tax (S-VAT). These are employer paid Net 
Business Receipts Taxes. S-VAT is a vehicle for tax benefits, including

      Health insurance or direct care, including veterans' health care 
for non-
battlefield injuries and long term care.

      Employer paid educational costs in lieu of taxes are provided as 
either 
employee-directed contributions to the public or private unionized 
school of their choice or direct tuition payments for employee children 
or for workers (including ESL and remedial skills). Wages will be paid 
to students to meet opportunity costs.

      Most importantly, a refundable child tax credit at median income 
levels (with inflation adjustments) distributed with pay.

Subsistence level benefits force the poor into servile labor. Wages and 
benefits must be high enough to provide justice and human dignity. This 
allows the ending of state administered subsidy programs and 
discourages abortions, and as such enactment must be scored as a must 
pass in voting rankings by pro-life organizations (and feminist 
organizations as well). To assure child subsidies are distributed, S-
VAT will not be border adjustable.

The S-VAT is also used for personal accounts in Social Security, 
provided that these accounts are insured through an insurance fund for 
all such accounts, that accounts go toward employee ownership rather 
than for a subsidy for the investment industry. Both employers and 
employees must consent to a shift to these accounts, which will occur 
if corporate democracy in existing ESOPs is given a thorough test. So 
far it has not. S-VAT funded retirement accounts will be equal-dollar 
credited for every worker. They also have the advantage of drawing on 
both payroll and profit, making it less regressive.

A multi-tier S-VAT could replace income surtaxes in the same range. 
Some will use corporations to avoid these taxes, but that corporation 
would then pay all invoice and subtraction VAT payments (which would 
distribute tax benefits. Distributions from such corporations will be 
considered salary, not dividends.

Invoice Value-Added Tax (I-VAT). Border adjustable taxes will appear on 
purchase invoices. The rate varies according to what is being financed. 
If Medicare for All does not contain offsets for employers who fund 
their own medical personnel or for personal retirement accounts, both 
of which would otherwise be funded by an S-VAT, then they would be 
funded by the I-VAT to take advantage of border adjustability. I-VAT 
also forces everyone, from the working poor to the beneficiaries of 
inherited wealth, to pay taxes and share in the cost of government. 
Enactment of both the A-VAT and I-VAT ends the need for capital gains 
and inheritance taxes (apart from any initial payout). This tax would 
take care of the low-income Tax Gap.

I-VAT will fund domestic discretionary spending, equal dollar employer 
OASI contributions, and non-nuclear, non-deployed military spending, 
possibly on a regional basis. Regional I-VAT would both require a 
constitutional amendment to change the requirement that all excises be 
national and to discourage unnecessary spending, especially when 
allocated for electoral reasons rather than program needs. The latter 
could also be funded by the asset VAT (decreasing the rate by from 
19.5% to 13%).

As part of enactment, gross wages will be reduced to take into account 
the shift to S-VAT and I-VAT, however net income will be increased by 
the same percentage as the I-VAT. Adoption of S-VAT and I-VAT will 
replace pass-through and proprietary business and corporate income 
taxes.

Carbon Added Tax (C-AT). A Carbon tax with receipt visibility, which 
allows comparison shopping based on carbon content, even if it means a 
more expensive item with lower carbon is purchased. C-AT would also 
replace fuel taxes. It will fund transportation costs, including mass 
transit, and research into alternative fuels (including fusion). This 
tax would not be border adjustable unless it is in other nations, 
however in this case the imposition of this tax at the border will be 
noted, with the U.S. tax applied to the overseas base.

Tax Reform Summary

This plan can be summarized as a list of specific actions:

    1.  Increase the standard deduction to workers making salaried 
income of $35,000 and over, shifting business filing to a separate tax 
on employers and eliminating all credits and deductions--starting at 
7.2%, going up to 28.8%, in $50,000 brackets.

    2.  Shift special rate taxes on capital income and gains from the 
income tax to an asset VAT. Expand the exclusion for sales to an ESOP 
to cooperatives and include sales of common and preferred stock. Mark 
option exercise and the first sale after inheritance, gift or donation 
to market.

    3.  Employers distribute the child tax credit with wages as an 
offset to their quarterly tax filing (ending annual filings).

    4.  Employers collect and pay lower tier income taxes, starting at 
$100,000 at 7.2%, with an increase to 14.4% for all salary payments 
over $150,000 going up 7.2% for every $50,000 up to $250,000.

    5.  Shift payment of HI, DI, SM (ACA) payroll taxes to employers, 
remove caps on employer payroll taxes and credit them to workers on an 
equal dollar basis.

    6.  Employer paid taxes could as easily be called a subtraction 
VAT, abolishing corporate income taxes. These should not be zero rated 
at the border.

    7.  Expand current state/federal intergovernmental subtraction VAT 
to a full GST with limited exclusions (food would be taxed) and add a 
federal portion, which would also be collected by the states. Make 
these taxes zero rated at the border. Rate should be 19.5% and replace 
employer OASI contributions. Credit workers on an equal dollar basis.

    8.  Change employee OASI of 7.2% from $18,000 ($20,000 for $10 
minimum wage) to $100,000 income are optional taxes for Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance.

Attachment Two--Tax Administration, Treasury Budget, February 12, 2020

Shifting to a single system for all business taxation, particularly 
enacting invoice value-added taxes to collect revenue and employer-
based subtraction value-added taxes to distribute benefits to workers 
will end the need for filing for most, if not all, households. Any 
remaining high salary surtax would be free of any deductions and 
credits and could as easily be collected by enacting higher tiers to a 
subtraction VAT.

Subtraction VAT collection will closely duplicate the collection of 
payroll and income taxes--as well as employment taxes--but without 
households having to file an annual reconciliation except to verify the 
number of dependents receiving benefits.

Tax reform will simplify tax administration on all levels. Firms will 
submit electronic receipts for I-VAT and Carbon Added Tax (C-AT) 
credit, leaving a compliance trail. S-VAT payments to providers, wages 
and child credits to verify that what is paid and what is claimed match 
and that children are not double credited from separate employers.

A-VAT transactions are recorded by brokers, employers for option 
exercise and closing agents for real property. With ADP, reporting 
burdens are equal to those in any VAT system for I-VAT and A-VAT and 
current payroll and income tax reporting by employers.

Employees with children will annually verify information provided by 
employers and IRS, responding by a postcard if reports do not match, 
triggering collection actions. The cliche will thus be made real.

High salary employees who use corporations to reduce salary surtax and 
pay I-VAT and S-VAT for personal staff. Distributions from such 
corporations to owners are considered salary, not dividends.

Transaction-based A-VAT payments end the complexity and tax avoidance 
experienced with income tax collection. Tax units with income under 
$84,000 or only one employer need not file high salary surtax returns. 
Separate gift and inheritance tax returns will no longer be required.

State governments will collect federal and state I-VAT, C-AT, S-VAT 
payments, audit collection systems, real property A-VAT and conduct 
enforcement actions. IRS collects individual payroll and salary surtax 
payments, performs electronic data matching and receive payments and 
ADP data from states. SEC collects A-VAT receipts.

I-VAT gives all citizens the responsibility to fund the government. C-
AT invoices encourage lower carbon consumption, mass transit, research 
and infrastructure development. A-VAT taxation will slow market 
volatility and encourage employee ownership, while preserving family 
businesses and farms. Very little IRS Administration will be required 
once reform is fully implemented. All IRS employees could fit in a 
bathtub with room for Grover Norquist.

                                 ______
                                 
                     Colorado Nonprofit Association

                     789 Sherman Street, Suite 240

                            Denver, CO 80203

Dear Senate Finance Committee Members:

Thank you for all your work to support Coloradans and Americans 
throughout the pandemic, In advance of the upcoming hearing, I write on 
behalf of Colorado Nonprofit Association and its 1,100 nonprofit 
members to update you on the challenges that nonprofits in Colorado 
face and the continued need for relief and support.

Background

Because of the ongoing public health and economic crises, too many 
nonprofits in our state face increased demand for services, decreased 
revenue and increased expenses, and employee and volunteer shortages. 
This letter outlines those challenges and policy recommendations for 
the committee.
 Nonprofits Experienced Substantial Job Losses and Face Slow Job 
        Recovery
Before the pandemic, Colorado's nonprofits represented 5% of the 
state's private workforce, employed nearly 190,000 Coloradans, and 
contributed $40 billion of impact to Colorado's economy.\1\ While 
current employment and economic impact data for Colorado's nonprofits 
are not available, national trends indicate that nonprofits experienced 
substantial job losses in 2020 due to the pandemic and face a slower 
pace of job recovery than the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ http://www.cononprofitimpact.org/.

Recent studies on the impact of the pandemic on the nonprofit sector 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
indicated the following:

      40% reported reduced staffing levels per a 2021 Federal Reserve 
survey.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://fedcommunities.org/data/main-street-covid19-survey-
2021/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      13% of jobs, or 1.64 million jobs, lost by May of 2020.\3\ This 
means 25,000 Colorado nonprofit employees if job losses are presumed 
consistent with national data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ http://ccss.jhu.edu/research-projects/nonprofit-economic-data/
covid-nonprofit-employment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      337,500 job vacancies still remain as of February 2022.\4\ 5,000 
of which are vacancies for Colorado's nonprofits if job losses are 
presumed consistent with national data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The nonprofit sector has recovered 79% of jobs lost during the 
pandemic, which lags behind the total U.S. job recovery rate of 
87%.\5\, \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Ibid.
    \6\ https://www.denverpost.com/2022/03/14/colorado-employment-jobs-
pre-pandemic-levels/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      60% of nonprofits have vacancies between 10% and 30%. 16% have 
vacancies greater than 30% according to a December 2021 National 
Council of Nonprofits survey. Respondents cited salary competition 
(79%) and lack of child care as contributing to workforce shortages 
(23%).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-workforce-shortages-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charitable Giving Is Down on Federal Returns and up on State Returns

Our review of available national data indicates that charitable giving 
is not keeping pace with needs and rising expenses:

      0.8% decrease in giving between 2019 and 2020 if one major 
donor's contributions are removed from the 2021 Giving USA study.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ www.givinginstitute.org/resource/resmgr/gusa/2021_resources/
gusa_2021_press_release_
fina.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      42% of nonprofits with budgets under $500,000 and 29% with 
budgets over $500,000 experienced reduced donations in 2020 per the 
Urban Institute.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-trends-
and-impacts-2021/view/full_report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Nonprofits stating that donations are essential to their revenue 
stream were more likely to experience reduced donations in 2020 per the 
Urban Institute.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-trends-
and-impacts-2021/view/full_report.

Fewer Coloradans took the federal charitable deduction and deducted 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
less giving leading up to the pandemic:

      The number of Coloradans taking this deduction fell from 657,300 
to 278,050.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-historic-table-2 
for CO, 2017-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total giving fell from over $4.5 billion in 2017 to $3.5 billion 
in 2019.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-historic-table-2 
for CO, 2017-2019.

More Coloradans took the state charitable deduction and deducted more 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
giving following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:

      The number of Coloradans taking the state deduction increased 
from 153,000 in 2017 to 362,000 in 2018.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://cdor.colorado.gov/data-and-reports/statistics-of-
income-reports, table 25, 2017 and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Giving on state returns increased by from $247.6 million in 2017 
to nearly $821.7 million in 2018.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://cdor.colorado.gov/data-and-reports/statistics-of-
income-reports, table 25, 2017 and 2018.

Without the state deduction, declines in the number of donors and in 
overall charitable giving reported on Colorado tax returns would have 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
been much greater.

The Pandemic Negatively Impacts Volunteerism Rates in Colorado
Before the pandemic, more than 32% of Coloradans volunteered and 
contributed over 121 million hours of service.\15\ Nationally, the 
Urban Institute reports that regular volunteers declined by 23% in 
urban areas and 41% in rural areas in 2020.\16\ Although many 
businesses are fully open to the public again, we remain concerned that 
many nonprofits have not seen volunteerism return to pre-pandemic 
levels. Lack of access to child care, increased COVID-19 risks for 
adults with vulnerabilities, and increased mental health concerns still 
contribute to reduced numbers of volunteers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/
Volunteering_in_America_States_508.
pdf.
    \16\ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-trends-
and-impacts-2021/view/full_
report, p. 38-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Nonprofits Benefited From Pandemic Relief; Many Did Not
Although some nonprofits benefitted from federal and state COVID-19 
relief funds, most relief programs have been primarily targeted to 
specific industries or for-profit businesses generally. Our 
observations regarding pandemic-relief programs are the following:

      Over 5,600 Colorado nonprofits received nearly $900 million in 
forgiven PPP, which saved nearly 115,000 nonprofit jobs. However, our 
review of the data indicates that nonprofits received only 3% of the 
more than 192,000 PPP loans completed and 7% of the dollars loaned 
($1.04 billion out of $15.06 billion).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/
interactive-dashboards/paycheck
-protection-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Volunteer-run nonprofits and nonprofits with more than 500 
employees typically did not qualify for assistance through PPP. The 
requirement to demonstrate 25% revenue losses for PPP Second Draw loans 
also left out nonprofits impacted more by increased demand rather than 
revenue losses.
      Governor Polis' COVID-19 relief fund provided $24 million of 
assistance to nonprofits but this program expired at the end of 
2020.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://helpcoloradonow.com/covid_relief-fund/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Colorado's nonprofits tended to not use federal or state loan 
programs without any opportunity for forgiveness (e.g., Main Street 
Lending Program, CLIMBER loan fund, et al.). Most nonprofits prefer not 
to divert future funding from programs to pay debt.

Colorado Nonprofit Association is asking the Colorado General Assembly 
to allocate between $25 million and $50 million of American Rescue Plan 
Act (ARPA) funds for grants to support nonprofits' essential work. ARPA 
and Treasury regulations make it clear that governments may use these 
funds in partnership with charitable nonprofits to address many 
challenges in our communities. This is a small but meaningful 
percentage of the $5.8 billion allocated to Colorado's governments 
through the Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Fund.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/trends-policy-issues/
strengthening-state-and-local-economies-partnership-nonprofits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendations for the Senate Finance Committee

As long-term recovery from the pandemic is still fragile, the Senate 
Finance Committee can take several actions to support Colorado's 
nonprofits in the short and long-term.

      Restore the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) from the fourth 
quarter of 2021 through the end of 2022 (S. 3625). Colorado Nonprofit 
Association joined more than 1,500 organizations from all 50 states in 
signing onto the recent letter to Congress and the Biden Administration 
seeking pandemic relief for charitable nonprofits. Restoring the ERTC 
would help address nonprofit workforce shortages especially if the 
``gross receipts'' test is modified so more nonprofits can qualify. We 
also recommend adding child care and education subsidies as eligible 
expenses. Unlike for-profits, nonprofits cannot receive income tax 
relief from these costs.
      Continue and expand the charitable giving incentives enacted 
during the pandemic, including the universal charitable deduction for 
non-itemizers. Even though the pandemic continues to increase demand 
for nonprofits' services, several disaster-related giving incentives 
expired at the end of 2021. Colorado Nonprofit Association 
unequivocally supports renewal of the universal charitable deduction at 
least through 2022 and expansion through Universal Giving Pandemic 
Response and Recovery Act (S. 618). Passing this act will promote 
further giving by all American taxpayers of all incomes and generate 
needed resources for charitable and faith-based organizations to 
continue serving communities impacted by the pandemic.

We also ask that you speak up during the hearing in support of 
extending expired disaster-relief incentive. This includes allowing 
itemizers to deduct charitable donations up to 100% of their adjusted 
gross income and allowing corporations to deduct charitable donations 
up to 25% of taxable income.

      Protect levels of ARPA funding allocated to state and local 
governments. These funds will also help Colorado's governments and 
nonprofits meet the needs of our communities.
      Incentivize volunteerism by addressing unfair tax treatment of 
volunteer mileage. We ask for the volunteer mileage rate to be the same 
as the business rate (currently, 58.5 cents per mile) and for 
elimination of the tax on mileage reimbursements up to the business 
rate. The rapid increase in gas prices mean increased expenses for 
nonprofits reimbursing their volunteer drivers and increased expenses 
and income taxes for those drivers.\20\ The volunteer mileage rate (14 
cents per mile) disincentivizes many Americans from being regular 
volunteer drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/nonprofits-service-
organizations-gas-prices/73-fb4e061d-40e8-4858-97a4-007073250922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Champion the Nonprofit Sector Strength and Partnership Act of 
2022. This draft bill, sponsored by Congresswoman McCollum, would 
formalize and bolster the ability of the federal government to work in 
partnership with the nonprofit sector. Arguably, this is the most 
important way that Congress could enhance the mission-driven work of 
the nonprofit sector. However, we recognize that some effort would be 
needed to implement this bill and change this relationship between 
nonprofits and government.

Conclusion

As you consider the issues raised during the Senate Finance Committee 
hearing, we ask that you reflect on the important, sustaining work that 
Colorado's nonprofits performed throughout the pandemic. Nonprofits 
continue to face increasing demand for services with decreasing human 
and financial resources. In light of these unrelenting challenges, we 
ask that you consider these policy solutions and others that will 
strengthen the ability of nonprofits to meet the needs of Coloradans.

Sincerely,

Mark Turner
Senior Director of Public Policy

                                 ______
                                 
            Community Foundation Public Awareness Initiative

Today's Finance Committee hearing, ``Examining Charitable Giving and 
Trends in the Nonprofit Sector,'' is exploring current incentives for 
charitable giving and whether they can be designed more effectively, to 
motivate giving from more taxpayers across the income distribution at 
the lowest possible revenue cost. Community foundations are generally 
supportive of tax law changes, such as the Universal Giving Pandemic 
Response Act (i.e., the Lankford-Coons bill), that would expand the 
number of taxpayers receiving a tax incentive for their giving. We 
appreciate the Lankford-Coons bill was introduced with changes 
suggested by community foundations, such as making donor-advised funds 
(DAFs) eligible for charitable gifts under the Act.

We want to offer brief testimony today on one issue which affects all 
community foundations to varying degrees: the inability of donors to 
use a DAF for IRA Charitable Rollover (Qualifying Charitable 
Distribution) gifts under Section 408(d)(8). This seemingly small 
provision impacts many of our donors every year, and has the opposite 
impact in practice than was intended. It keeps more money locked up, 
rather than getting it out into the community; it reduces the ability 
of donors to support the charities of their choice; and it makes it 
harder for IRA rollover gifts to get to smaller charities that have had 
a harder time raising money after the 2017 tax reform law and the 
COVID-19 pandemic.

As the Finance Committee knows, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 
(PPA) defined DAFs for the first time and included a set of reforms at 
the urging of then-
Chairman Grassley and his staff. Since the PPA, for example, a donor 
cannot use a DAF to direct gifts to individuals, private foundations, 
or non-charitable purposes. A donor cannot recommend a gift that 
provides more than an incidental benefit to the donor-advisor. And most 
closely held business interests in a DAF must be sold within five 
years. As community foundation leaders, we support all these reforms.

The IRA Charitable Rollover was created by the PPA. Because the above 
reforms had not yet taken effect, the PPA said a taxpayer could not use 
the rollover for a gift to a DAF. A donor can use the rollover to give 
to a university endowment, where the money almost certainly isn't 
immediately utilized, or to the endowment of a local hospital or art 
museum--but they can't address a community's needs by contributing to a 
DAF at the local community foundation. Also, and most important, 
because most users of the rollover pick a single charity for their 
gift, the opportunity to donate to multiple local charities through a 
single gift transaction is lost.

This exclusion inhibits community foundations from helping our donors 
efficiently get money to local nonprofits they support. Because DAF 
payout rates are substantial, the prohibition on DAFs doesn't promote 
greater giving. Instead, the DAF prohibition restricts donor 
flexibility by (1) codifying a preference of some charities over 
others, and (2) making it difficult for a donor to be broad-based in 
their giving.

Here is what happens every year at community foundations across the 
country. A donor comes in and wants to direct a Qualifying Charitable 
Distribution into a DAF, and we tell them it's not allowed. This 
frustrates the donors, who don't understand the restriction. After this 
initial disappointment, one of three things happens:

    1.  The community foundation attempts a workaround, in which a 
donor makes their rollover gift directly to the foundation, either to 
an unrestricted fund or field-of-interest fund (where donors can't 
recommend specific charities) or a fund like a designated fund (where 
donors can recommend specific charities, but only a portion of the 
funds may be granted out each year);

    2.  The donor will go to another 501(c)3 charity for their gift, 
but more likely than not, it will be a single, large charity which 
could put the gift into their own endowment (i.e., it won't get spent 
immediately to address immediate community needs); or

    3.  The donor becomes discouraged and doesn't make a charitable 
gift.

None of these outcomes are optimal for charitable giving. Therefore, 
our partnership of community foundations, representing nearly 150 
foundations of all sizes in 47 states, has been leading an effort to 
help Members of Congress understand how the DAF exclusion hurts their 
constituents. Fixing this provision, either in tax or retirement 
legislation, will have negligible revenue impact, but it will have a 
positive charitable impact in communities across the country as donors 
learn that they can easily divide up their rollover gifts.

One of our participating CEOs, Roxie Jerde of the Community Foundation 
of Sarasota County, offers the following observations:

        The Sarasota Community is heavily populated with middle-class 
        retirees who engage in philanthropic grantmaking. Most of our 
        donors are in their 70s and utilize the IRA charitable rollover 
        (QCD) in their annual giving. Our donors regularly make grants 
        in $100, $500, and $1,000 increments to 30-40 organizations 
        each year. IRA custodians do not want to cut QCD checks in 
        these increments for this volume of giving. Donors are confused 
        when they are told they cannot distribute the QCD into their 
        DAF to make these grants. Further, our donors want to support 
        grassroots organizations benefiting under-represented 
        communities, but they want the oversight offered by our 
        foundation concerning the use and impact of grant dollars. They 
        get this oversight by granting through their DAFs. We have seen 
        donors revert to granting to long-term institutional 
        organizations when told they cannot grant their QCDs into their 
        DAFs, thus causing grassroots organizations to suffer.

One of the recent trends in charitable giving, which today's hearing 
reinforces, is how the 2017 tax law concentrated charitable giving 
incentives among higher-
income people, who tend to give large gifts to big institutions. But 
what about the smaller organizations that may benefit from $250, $500, 
or $1,000 gifts, such as the ones Roxie Jerde is referencing? People 
are not going to give their entire Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) 
from their IRA to the small charity. The best tool for this small-
dollar giving is the donor-advised fund: Let the taxpayer put their RMD 
in their DAF, and then recommend grants as they wish to as many 
charities as they choose. It makes giving easier--and when giving is 
easy, people give more.

The key takeaway is this: Whether someone uses the Rollover to make one 
$30,000 gift, ten $3,000 gifts, or thirty $1,000 gifts, the federal tax 
implications are the same. Why not let donors have the flexibility to 
make their own choices? Why not make it easy for them to give to 
multiple charities?

The IRA Rollover fix has broad support in the charitable field, 
including the Council on Foundations, the Alliance for Charitable 
Reform (Philanthropy Roundtable), National Philanthropic Trust, Jewish 
Federations of North America, United Way, and other leading charitable 
groups. Removing the prohibition will help promote community 
philanthropy at a time the charitable sector is being asked to do 
more--and it will make the rollover work better because it will allow 
people to use the rollover to get gifts to smaller charities.

There are some advocates who have recently expressed concerns over the 
growth of DAFs as a popular philanthropic vehicle. We believe DAFs are 
flexible tools that promote philanthropy, and that the critics are 
misguided. But we can't stress enough that the issues sometimes raised 
in the DAF context--assertions about inactive funds, how high-net-worth 
people use DAFs, tax treatment of complex assets, etc.--these issues 
simply do not come up in the IRA rollover context. Qualifying 
Charitable Distributions are limited to taxpayers aged over 70\1/2\; 
limited to $100,000 per year; and because the money is coming directly 
from an IRA (i.e., marketable securities), complex assets like real 
estate and closely held business stock aren't an issue. Billionaires 
aren't using the rollover; middle-class Americans are.

Our donors want to get money out the door, and they want to get money 
to smaller charities. The donor-advised fund is the most effective tool 
to do that. Fixing the IRA charitable rollover by eliminating the DAF 
prohibition would be a way to incentivize charitable giving and get 
more money to small, local charities at very modest revenue cost.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns.

              CFPAI Participating Foundations (March 2022)

Alabama

Christopher Nanni, Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham, 
Birmingham.

Arizona

Steve Seleznow, Arizona Community Foundation, Phoenix.
Jenny Flynn, Community Foundation for Southern Arizona, Tucson.

Arkansas

Heather Larkin, Arkansas Community Foundation, Little Rock.

California

Ashley Swearengin, Central Valley Community Foundation, Fresno.
Dan Baldwin, Community Foundation for Monterey County, Monterey.
Sheryl Alexander, Community Foundation Sonoma County, Santa Rosa.
Pam Calloway, East Bay Community Foundation, Oakland.
Kristen Beall, Kern Community Foundation, Bakersfield.
Rhea Suh, Marin Community Foundation, Novato.
Shelly Hoss, Orange County Community Foundation, Newport Beach.
Jennifer Fleming DeVoll, Pasadena Community Foundation, Pasadena.
Linda Beech Cutler, Sacramento Region Community Foundation, Sacramento.
Mark Stuart, San Diego Area Foundation, San Diego.
Nicole Taylor, Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Mountain View.

Colorado

Tatiana Hernandez, Community Foundation Boulder County, Boulder.
Javier Soto, Denver Foundation, Denver.
Gary Butterworth, Pikes Peak Community Foundation, Colorado Springs.

Connecticut

William Ginsberg, Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, New 
Haven.
Juanita James, Fairfield County's Community Foundation, Norwalk.

Delaware

Stuart Comstock-Gay, Delaware Community Foundation, Wilmington.

District of Columbia

Tonia Wellons, Greater Washington Community Foundation, Washington, DC

Florida

Mark Brewer, Central Florida Foundation, Orlando.
Sarah Owen, Collaboratory (formerly Southwest Florida Community 
Foundation), Fort Myers.
Theresa Grimison, Community Foundation for Brevard, Melbourne.
Jennifer O'Flannery Anderson, Community Foundation of Broward, Ft. 
Lauderdale.
Eileen Connolly-Keesler, Community Foundation of Collier County, 
Naples.
Barzella Papa, Community Foundation of North Central Florida, 
Gainesville.
Katrina Rolle, Community Foundation of North Florida, Tallahassee.
Nina Waters, Community Foundation for Northeast Florida, Jacksonville.
Danita Dias, Community Foundation for Palm Beach and Martin Counties, 
West Palm Beach.
Roxie Jerde, Community Foundation of Sarasota County, Sarasota.
Marlene Spalten, Community Foundation of Tampa Bay, Tampa.
John Attaway, GiveWell Community Foundation, Lakeland and Winter Haven.
Mark Pritchett, Gulf Coast Community Foundation, Sarasota.
Jeffrey Pickering, Indian River Community Foundation, Vero Beach.
Rebecca Fishman Lipsey, Miami Foundation, Miami.
Duggan Cooley, Pinellas Community Foundation, Largo.

Georgia

Kathryn Dennis, Community Foundation of Central Georgia, Macon.
Betsy Covington, Community Foundation of the Chattahoochee Valley, 
Columbus.
Frank Fernandez, Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta, Atlanta.
Randy Redner, Community Foundation of Northeast Georgia, Duluth.
David Carlton, Community Foundation of South Georgia, Thomasville.

Hawaii

Micah Kane, Hawaii Community Foundation, Honolulu.

Idaho

Steve Burns, Idaho Community Foundation, Boise.

Illinois

Helene Gayle, Chicago Community Trust, Chicago.

Indiana

Brian Payne, Central Indiana Community Foundation, Indianapolis.
Rose Meissner, Community Foundation of St. Joseph County, South Bend.
Stephanie Overbey, Kosciusko County Community Foundation, Warsaw.
Tom Kilian, Hamilton County Community Foundation, Fishers.

Iowa

Kristi Knous, Community Foundation of Greater Des Moines, Des Moines.
Les Garner, Greater Cedar Rapids Community Foundation, Cedar Rapids.
Randy Moore, Quad Cities Community Foundation, Bettendorf.

Kansas

Shelly Prichard, Wichita Community Foundation, Wichita.

Louisiana

Chris Meyer, Baton Rouge Area Foundation, Baton Rouge.
Raymond Hebert, Community Foundation of Acadiana, Lafayette.
Andy Kopplin, Greater New Orleans Foundation, New Orleans.

Maryland

Shanaysha Sauls, Baltimore Community Foundation, Baltimore.

Massachusetts

Peter Taylor, Berkshire-Taconic Community Foundation, Great Barrington.
Lee Pelton, Boston Foundation, Boston.
Katie Zobel, Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts, 
Springfield.
Beth Francis, Essex County Community Foundation, Danvers.
Carolyn Stempler, Greater Worcester Community Foundation, Worcester.
Kim Heard, SouthCoast Community Foundation, New Bedford.

Michigan

Mariam Noland, Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, Detroit.
Isaiah Oliver, Greater Flint Community Foundation, Flint.
Carrie Pickett-Erway, Kalamazoo Community Foundation, Kalamazoo.

Minnesota

R.T. Rybak, Minneapolis Foundation, Minneapolis.
Eric Jolly, Minnesota Philanthropy Partners (St. Paul Foundation and 
Minnesota Community Foundation), St. Paul.

Mississippi

Jane Alexander, Community Foundation for Mississippi, Jackson.

Missouri

Brian Fogle, Community Foundation of the Ozarks, Springfield.
Debbie Wilkerson, Greater Kansas City Community Foundation, Kansas 
City.
Amelia Bond, Greater St. Louis Community Foundation, St. Louis.

Montana

Mary Rutherford, Montana Community Foundation.

Nebraska

Donna Kush, Omaha Community Foundation, Omaha.

Nevada

Gian Brosco, Nevada Community Foundation, Las Vegas.
Claudia Andersen, Parasol Tahoe Community Foundation, Incline Village.

New Hampshire

Richard Ober, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Concord.

New Jersey

Hans Dekker, New Jersey Community Foundation, Morristown.

New Mexico

Sue Colliton, Santa Fe Community Foundation, Santa Fe.

New York

Cali Brooks, Adirondack Foundation, Lake Placid.
Clotilde Dedecker, Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo, Buffalo.
John Eberle, Community Foundation for the Greater Capital Region, 
Albany.
Sally Cross, Community Foundations of the Hudson Valley, Kingston and 
Poughkeepsie.
Peter Dunn, Central New York Community Foundation, Syracuse.
Lorie Slutsky, New York Community Trust, New York City.
Jennifer Leonard, Rochester Area Community Foundation, Rochester.

North Carolina

Elizabeth Brazas, Community Foundation of Western North Carolina, 
Asheville.
Michael Marsicano, Foundation for the Carolinas, Charlotte.
Jennifer Tolle Whiteside, North Carolina Community Foundation, Raleigh.
Lori O'Keefe, Triangle Community Foundation, Durham.
LaTida Smith, Winston-Salem Foundation, Winston-Salem.

North Dakota

Eric Wilkie, FM Area Foundation, Fargo.

Ohio

John Petures, Akron Community Foundation, Akron.
Ronald Richard, Cleveland Foundation, Cleveland.
Douglas Kridler, Columbus Foundation, Columbus.
Cynthia Andrews, Community Foundation Lorain County, Elyria.
Mike Parks, Dayton Foundation, Dayton.
Ellen Katz, Greater Cincinnati Foundation, Cincinnati.
Keith Burwell, Toledo Community Foundation, Toledo.

Oklahoma

Nancy Anthony, Oklahoma City Community Foundation, Oklahoma City.
Phil Lakin, Tulsa Community Foundation, Tulsa.

Oregon

Max Williams, Oregon Community Foundation, Portland.

Pennsylvania

McCrae Martino, Community Foundation of Westmoreland County, 
Greensburg.
Frances Sheehan, Foundation for Delaware County, Media.
Karen Bilowith, Erie Community Foundation, Erie.
Sam Bressi, Lancaster County Community Foundation, Lancaster.
David Pedri, Luzerne Foundation, Luzerne.
Pedro Ramos, Philadelphia Foundation, Philadelphia.
Lisa Schroeder, Pittsburgh Foundation, Pittsburgh.

Rhode Island

Neil Steinberg, Rhode Island Foundation, Providence.

South Carolina

JoAnn Turnquist, Central Carolina Community Foundation, Columbia.
Darrin Goss, Coastal Community Foundation, North Charleston.

South Dakota

Stephanie Judson, South Dakota Community Foundation, Pierre.

Tennessee

Robert Fockler, Community Foundation of Greater Memphis, Memphis.
Michael McClamroch, East Tennessee Foundation, Knoxville.

Texas

Mike Nellis, Austin Community Foundation, Austin.
David Scullin, Communities Foundation of Texas, Dallas.
Katie Alford, Community Foundation of Abilene, Abilene.
Matthew Randazzo, Dallas Foundation, Dallas.
Kyle Penney, East Texas Communities Foundation, Tyler.
Stephen Maislin, Greater Houston Community Foundation, Houston.
Rose Bradshaw, North Texas Community Foundation, Fort Worth.
Guy McCrary, Permian Basin Area Foundation, Midland.
Matt Lewis, San Angelo Area Foundation, San Angelo.
Marjie French, San Antonio Area Foundation, San Antonio.
Ashley Allison, Waco Foundation, Waco.

Utah

Alex Eaton, Community Foundation of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Vermont

Dan Smith, Vermont Community Foundation, Middlebury.

Virginia

Heather Peeler, ACT for Alexandria, Alexandria.
Jennifer Owens, Arlington Community Foundation, Arlington.
Eileen Ellsworth, Community Foundation for Northern Virginia, Oakton.
Debbie DiCroce, Hampton Roads Community Foundation, Norfolk.

Washington

Beth Stipe, Community Foundation of North Central Washington, 
Wenatchee.
Shelly O'Quinn, Innovia Foundation, Spokane.
David Bley, Seattle Foundation, Seattle.
Mauri Ingram, Whatcom Community Foundation, Bellingham.

West Virginia

Susie Nelson, Community Foundation of the Ohio Valley, Wheeling.

Wisconsin

Curt Detjen, Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region, Appleton.
Sue Bornick, Eau Claire Community Foundation, Eau Claire.
Ellen Gilligan, Greater Milwaukee Foundation, Milwaukee.
Jamie Schloegel, La Crosse Community Foundation, La Crosse.
Liz Powell, Racine Community Foundation, Racine.

Wyoming

Craig Showalter, Wyoming Community Foundation, Laramie.

                                 ______
                                 
            Council for Advancement and Support of Education

                     1201 Eye Street, NW, Suite 300

                       Washington, DC 20005-3915

                            +1-202-328-2273

                         https://www.case.org/

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education thanks Chairman 
Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and committee members for this opportunity 
to share our comments on charitable giving and trends facing 
educational institutions, a major subsector of the overall nonprofit 
sector in the United States. CASE strongly supports the renewal and 
expansion of a universal charitable deduction to improve the American 
tax system and encourage all Americans, regardless of income, to make 
charitable gifts to colleges, universities, independent schools, and 
other charitable organizations.

CASE is the global association for professionals in advancement--alumni 
relations, communications, fundraising, marketing, and advancement 
services--who share the goal of championing education to transform 
lives and society. Advancement professionals are critical to securing 
philanthropic support that solves institutional challenges and help 
colleges, universities, and independent schools achieve their teaching, 
research, and public service missions. CASE's membership includes 
approximately 3,100 colleges and universities, primary and secondary 
independent and international schools, and nonprofit organizations in 
80 countries around the world, with more than 2,800 of our member 
institutions located in the United States.

Charitable donations help colleges, universities, and independent K-12 
schools achieve their teaching, research, and public service missions. 
According to our most recent Voluntary Support of Education survey, 
donors generously contributed $52.9 billion to U.S. colleges and 
universities in the fiscal year that ended June 20, 2021, up from $49.5 
billion in the previous fiscal year. This 6.9% increase in giving was 
buoyed largely by donations to restricted endowments, which often fund 
scholarships. Support over the last two years in particular targeted 
immediate needs for students and in communities as institutions worked 
to serve the public in a variety of vital ways during the pandemic. 
Donations help educational institutions fund scholarships and other aid 
for low-income students, advance ground-breaking research, and 
strengthen academic programs and faculty retention. Private support 
raised from individuals is an essential funding source for both private 
and public colleges and universities and private independent schools.

Donors make charitable gifts to educational institutions in a variety 
of ways, often restricting how their gifts are used. Some make gifts to 
support an institution's current operations through the annual fund. 
Other donors, typically major donors, create endowed funds that provide 
a steady and reliable support long-term funding source in support of 
students, teaching, research, and other programs that would otherwise 
have to be paid for by tuition or other funding. And still others make 
planned gifts, gifts that allow an individual to make a larger gift 
from their lifetime income or estate that benefit the institution. All 
of these gifts are critical in helping educational institutions achieve 
their missions to the benefit of society.

We encourage the committee to consider the following proposals to help 
incentivize additional giving to educational institutions.

Renew and Expand the Charitable Deduction for Nonitemizers

CASE is a strong supporter of providing a charitable giving incentive 
to all Americans. The charitable deduction is unique in that it 
encourages individuals to give away a portion of their income for the 
public good. U.S. tax policy should encourage all Americans, regardless 
of income, to make donations to educational institutions and other 
charitable organizations.

We were very pleased that Congress enacted a modest, temporary 
charitable deduction for nonitemizers, also known as a universal 
charitable deduction, as part of pandemic relief legislation. This 
provision, which allowed non-itemizing taxpayers to deduct cash gifts 
of up to $300 for individuals ($600 for joint filers), was a good first 
step in encouraging the nearly 90 percent of American taxpayers who do 
not itemize to donate more to charity. Colleges, universities, and 
independent schools communicated the availability of the universal 
deduction to their students, faculty, alumni, and other key supporters.

Unfortunately, the temporary universal charitable deduction expired on 
December 31, 2021, leaving a majority of American taxpayers without a 
charitable giving incentive. Educational institutions have had to cease 
discussing this opportunity with donors given the uncertainty around 
whether the provision will be renewed and extended.

CASE strongly supports the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and 
Recovery Act (S. 618), which would renew the universal charitable 
deduction and increase the cap to one third of the standard deduction 
($4,000 for individuals, $8,000 for joint filers). We are grateful for 
the bipartisan leadership and support of Senators Lankford, Coons, 
Collins, Cortez Masto, Klobuchar, Lee, Shaheen, Scott, and other 
cosponsors, including Senators Brown, Hassan, and Stabenow on the 
Finance Committee, in moving this measure forward. We urge the 
committee and Congress to move quickly to renew and expand the 
universal charitable deduction so that all American taxpayers are 
incentivized to give more to educational institutions and other 
charitable organizations.

 Avoid Caps, Floors and Other Proposals that Limit the Value of the 
                    Charitable Deduction

We also encourage the committee to avoid enacting other limitations on 
the charitable deduction that would discourage giving to educational 
institutions. Donors already face limits on the charitable 
contributions. A donor's deduction for charitable contributions cannot 
exceed more than 50 percent of the donor's Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). 
The limits are even more stringent--contributions cannot exceed more 
than 30 percent of a donor's AGI--for gifts made to private non-
operating foundations and some gifts of capital gain property. Donors 
can carryover amounts in excess of the limits for up to five years, and 
many do carryover large gifts.

Proposals that directly limit the value of the charitable deduction, 
such as capping the value of the charitable deduction at 28 percent for 
high-income donors, reduce the incentive for donors to give additional 
dollars to educational institutions and other charitable organizations. 
Donors who give little or nothing to charity would be unaffected by 
such a cap. Instead, such a proposal would target the most generous 
high-income donors, individuals and families who want to make large 
gifts to educational institutions or other charitable organizations. 
Why would Congress want to penalize individuals who want to give more 
of their wealth away to benefit the public good?

Unfortunately, some have mislabeled the charitable deduction as a tax 
break for the wealthy. As Chairman Wyden has said on many occasions, 
``the charitable deduction is a lifeline, not a loophole.'' Limiting 
the charitable deduction would not hurt high-income donors, many of 
whom would likely decide to give less if a cap or other limit was 
enacted. Students and others served by educational institutions and 
charitable organizations would ultimately be hurt by limits to the 
charitable deduction.

The committee should also avoid enacting other limits on the deduction, 
including floors. A floor on charitable donations, such as a percentage 
of AGI floor, could disproportionately impact giving by low- and 
middle-income donors. Gifts by these donors make a tremendous 
difference for our institutions, particularly in supporting general 
operations. And many of today's low- and middle-income donors will make 
larger gifts as they progress through their careers.

Expand the IRA Charitable Rollover to Life Income Gifts

CASE has been a long-time supporter of the current law IRA charitable 
rollover, a provision in the tax code that allows taxpayers age 70\1/2\ 
and older to distribute up to $100,000 annually from their individual 
retirement accounts (IRAs) to eligible charitable organizations, 
including colleges, universities, and independent schools, without 
having to count those distributions as income. This provision has 
generated significant new giving from seniors who want to use their IRA 
funds to support educational institutions.

The committee can encourage additional giving by supporting the 
bipartisan Legacy IRA Act (S. 243), legislation that would expand the 
current IRA charitable rollover by allowing individuals age 65 and 
older to direct up to $400,000 annually from their IRAs to educational 
institutions through split-interest entities such as charitable gift 
annuities and charitable remainder trusts. The Legacy IRA Act will 
allow more seniors to benefit from the IRA charitable rollover and will 
help colleges, universities, and independent schools raise additional 
funds to support their missions. We applaud Senators Stabenow (D-MI) 
and Cramer (R-ND) and other cosponsors including Senators Cornyn and 
Daines on the Finance Committee, for their leadership on the Legacy IRA 
Act.

 Eliminate the Net Investment Income Excise Tax on Private Colleges and 
                    Universities

Enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the net 
investment income excise tax (also known as the ``endowment tax'') 
requires private colleges and universities with more than 500 tuition-
paying students and endowment assets of at least $500,000 per student 
to pay a 1.4 percent tax on their net investment income. College and 
university endowments are collections of hundreds or thousands of 
charitable funds managed and invested to serve current and future 
needs. Endowments provide a steady and reliable long-term funding 
source in support of students, teaching, research, and other programs 
that would otherwise not exist, or have to be paid for by tuition or 
other funding sources.

Instead of bringing down college costs, the net investment income tax 
does the opposite. This tax redirects charitable funds away from their 
intended purposes and discourages donor generosity, making it more 
difficult for institutions to raise and manage endowed funds that are 
essential to supporting institutions as they work to offer high-
quality, affordable, accessible education. We urge the committee to 
repeal this misguided tax.

We believe now, more than ever, education is the most effective away to 
advance humanity, maintain a civil society, enable the United States to 
return to its leadership role in the community of international 
scholarship and knowledge generation, and tackle myriad challenges that 
our world faces. Policies that encourage Americans to give generously 
to colleges, universities, and independent schools will be critical to 
helping our institutions meet this calling. We thank the committee for 
the opportunity to share our views and comments, and we look forward to 
working with you and your staff to identify additional ways to 
strengthen charitable giving.

                                 ______
                                 
                         Council on Foundations

                         1255 23rd St, NW, #200

                          Washington, DC 20037

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony for the 
record on the subject of ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in 
the Nonprofit Sector.'' We commend the committee for holding this 
hearing during a pivotal moment for nonprofits and their philanthropic 
partners.

The Council on Foundations is a nonprofit leadership organization of 
more than 800 grantmaking foundations and corporations. We work to 
build trust in philanthropy, expand pathways to giving, engage broader 
perspectives, and help create solutions that will lead to a better 
future for all.

A robust charitable sector is a core component of American society. 
Each year, philanthropy invests tens of billions of dollars in 
community organizations throughout the United States and around the 
world to advance the greater good. In 2020, charitable giving by 
individuals totaled more than $324 billion--the highest amount to 
date--and giving by foundations reached a high of $88.5 billion, 
according to a GivingUSA report.\1\ In fact, total giving has grown 
consistently over the last 40 years, and the World Giving Index \2\ 
recently named the U.S. the most generous country of the past decade. 
Our culture of giving has resulted in vital investments that support 
nonprofit organizations, fuel innovation, fund critical research and 
projects, supply needed resources when disasters strike, and much more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://givingusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/
GUSA2021_Infographic_Digital.pdf.
    \2\ https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-
publications/caf_wgi_10th_
edition_report_2712a_web_101019.pdf.

Unfortunately, multiple crises are facing our communities here at home 
and abroad, and demand for support and vital services has reached 
record levels. At the same time, nonprofits are struggling to keep 
their doors open because of workforce shortages, declines in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
volunteers, funding shortfalls, and the rising costs of goods.

When crisis hits, philanthropy and our charitable partners have 
demonstrated an unwavering commitment to swiftly act to serve our 
communities. But our support alone isn't enough. Foundations and their 
nonprofit partners need the government to enact policies that will 
enable them to provide the resources and support our communities so 
desperately need. Specifically, we encourage Congress to:

Expand and Extend Charitable Giving Incentives

The Council urges Congress to strengthen giving tools available to all 
Americans. Additional incentives for charitable giving will continue to 
make a difference as nonprofits respond to the needs in their 
communities. COVID relief legislation included a temporary $300 
charitable deduction for nonitemizers, which likely contributed to the 
28 percent increase in gifts of $300 on December 31, 2020 reported by 
the Fundraising Effectiveness Project.\3\ With the share of non-wealthy 
Americans who donate shrinking, a universal charitable deduction is an 
incentive for all taxpayers, and not just the small number who itemize, 
to give. The Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 
618) would expand the charitable deduction for those who do not 
itemize--approximately 90 percent of taxpayers--up to one-third the 
standard deduction. It would also recognize gifts to donor-advised 
funds (DAFs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://afpglobal.org/fundraising-effectiveness-project-giving-
increases-significantly-2020-
even-donor-retention-
rates#::text=%E2%80%9CIt%27s%20striking%20that%20on%20December,
than%2015%25%20throughout%20the%20year.

In addition, as part of COVID relief legislation, Congress increased 
the adjusted gross income (AGI) limitation for individual cash gifts to 
public charities as well as the amount of charitable donations 
corporations can deduct. Unfortunately, gifts to DAFs and supporting 
organizations were excluded, limiting donors' flexibility just as 
charities need additional funding to keep their operations going. The 
Council urges Congress to extend the increased limits for individuals 
and corporations to ensure that all charitable vehicles, especially 
those that have long provided vital and flexible resources to their 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
communities, are available to donors at this critical time.

The fallout from the pandemic is far from over, and as additional 
crises emerge, Congress must continue to incentivize giving to the 
charitable organizations doing the on-the-ground work of community, 
economic, and public health recovery. These incentives have the 
potential to unlock billions of dollars to flow to nonprofits and into 
communities that desperately need them.

Protect the Long-Term Flexibility of Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs)

DAFs are a crucial tool for the community foundations doing the day-to-
day work of rebuilding. In times of crisis, DAFs have historically been 
the most resilient giving tool, continuing to make grants at relatively 
high levels even when recessions deflate other forms of charity. This 
flexibility has allowed community foundations and other DAF sponsors to 
step up in response to the COVID-19 crisis, with DAF grants to 
nonprofits surpassing $30 billion for the first time in 2020.

In addition, donor-advised funds play a vital role in democratizing 
philanthropy. They empower middle-income Americans to take control of 
their charitable giving, allowing them to plan out their philanthropy 
for the medium- and long-term while still giving sponsoring 
organizations the flexibility to respond to the emerging needs of their 
communities.

The pandemic has highlighted the ability of sponsoring organizations 
such as community foundations to respond to local crises as they emerge 
while continuing to address long-term needs. The Community Foundation 
for the Ohio Valley (CFOV), for example, has maintained its support for 
programs in rural Appalachia while also responding to new challenges 
related to the pandemic. In addition to continuing support for local 
nonprofits, providing personal protective equipment for volunteers and 
workers at children's and homeless shelters, and raising and deploying 
$300,000 to help with COVID-related food insecurity and mental health 
issues, CFOV employed an emergency fund to support after school 
programs and gaps in broadband. Simultaneously, CFOV developed 
partnerships with local organizations to assess long-term community 
needs, including education, healthcare, and living-wage jobs.

In addition, we encourage Congress to ensure distributions from an 
individual retirement account (IRA) to donor-advised funds qualify as 
part of the IRA charitable rollover. Current law prohibits donors from 
contributing to a DAF even though DAFs are a flexible and efficient 
philanthropic tool to support community philanthropy. This provision 
would provide donors and grantmakers with an important option to 
maximize the value of IRA charitable donations and allow them to 
support communities in need with financial resources.

We urge Congress to support the continued flexibility of DAFs to 
address the emerging and long-term needs of communities across the 
country. We recommend that Congress seek to expand the overall 
philanthropic giving environment with the aim of delivering more to 
those in need--without damaging the charitable vehicles that allowed 
for record-breaking giving in 2020, just as Americans needed it most.

Strengthen Support for the Nonprofit Sector

Nonprofits are the backbone of our communities, and too many are 
struggling to find and maintain qualified staff, fulfill their 
missions, and meet the ongoing needs of their communities.

Foundations have stepped up to support nonprofit organizations. Some, 
such as the San Diego Foundation, created funds specifically for 
pandemic relief. The San Diego Foundation's COVID-19 Community Response 
Fund, developed in partnership with local leaders from government, 
business, nonprofits, and schools, granted $64 million in 2020, 
including 387 grants to over 250 nonprofit organizations working on the 
frontlines of the pandemic. But foundations cannot do this important 
work alone. Congress has a duty to support nonprofits and ensure they 
can not only survive the pandemic but also thrive in its aftermath.

The Council strongly encourages Congress to prioritize legislation that 
will strengthen the nonprofit sector and provide resources to 
organizations and communities, including passing the Work Opportunities 
and Resources to Keep Nonprofit Organizations Well (WORK NOW) Act (S. 
740). The WORK NOW Act would provide nonprofits with the funds they 
need to continue to serve their communities in a time of uncertainty 
and upheaval.

The Council also urges Congress to pass the Legacy IRA Act (S. 243). 
This legislation would enable retiring Americans to make tax-exempt 
contributions from their IRA accounts to charities through life-income 
plans. Empowering middle-income seniors with an additional option for 
their philanthropy would help encourage needed charitable dollars to 
flow to community organizations.

Last, the Council strongly supports the Workforce Development through 
Post-
Graduation Scholarships Act (S. 2191). This legislation would allow 
foundations to help address the student debt crisis head-on by ensuring 
post-graduation scholarships are treated the same as traditional 
scholarships. These scholarships would provide foundations with an 
additional tool to incentivize graduates to return to regions in need 
of their skills, creating the opportunity for business growth in 
regions that have been impacted by economic upheaval. This legislation 
is a win for graduates and for struggling communities.

The United States is the most charitable country in the world, and the 
nonprofit and charitable sectors play an essential role in our culture. 
We ask that Congress work to ensure this critical role is not eroded by 
the COVID-19 pandemic, disasters natural or manmade, or the associated 
economic crises by deploying every tool available to ensure nonprofit 
organizations can continue to respond to local needs.

Thank you again for this opportunity to include testimony on the 
record. We appreciate this committee's leadership and its focus on the 
struggles that charitable organizations and the nonprofit sector face 
as economic and social upheaval continue. The Council on Foundations 
can provide any of the material cited in this testimony and stands 
ready to work with you to rebuild in the wake of crisis.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Enright
President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                        Food Donation Connection

                             P.O. Box 22787

                          Knoxville, TN 37933

          Statement of Jim Larson, Vice President, Development

Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, on behalf of Food Donation 
Connection (``FDC''), thank you for holding this important hearing, 
``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector.'' FDC 
greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide this statement for the 
record.

Who We Are

Since 1992, FDC has assisted food service companies with the 
development and implementation of Harvest Programs designed to provide 
an alternative to discarding surplus food.

We have coordinated the donation of over 750 million pounds of quality 
prepared food from food service providers located in the United States, 
Canada, Poland, Spain, as well as in other countries. In 2021, 1,300 
business entities through 14,000+ food-service locations (restaurants, 
airports, travel plazas, retailers, hotels, universities, hospitals, 
distribution centers) donated 65 million pounds of prepared surplus 
food to 10,000 hunger relief organizations.

Our team members have experience with major restaurant chains and 
retailers in operations and food quality. Our entire full-time staff of 
30 team members is ServSafe certified in food safety.

What We Do

FDC manages food donation programs for food service companies 
interested in donating food. The donating process is based on donors 
receiving economic benefit through tax savings in addition to 
involvement with community and corporate goodwill.

Donors are linked to those in need through existing non-profit hunger 
relief organizations.

FDC administers these programs through the use of an efficient 
communication and reporting network. Program responsibilities include 
linking donor locations with food rescue groups or those feeding the 
needy, assisting in the development of product quality and handling 
standards, tax valuation, donation reporting and ongoing monitoring and 
follow-up to ensure program implementation and growth.

FDC coordinates food donation programs for Pizza Hut, KFC, Whole Foods, 
Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, The Capital Grille, Eddie V's, Yard 
House, Bahama Breeze, Seasons 52, Cheddar's, Red Lobster, McDonald's, 
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Auntie Anne's, Chick-fil-A, HMSHost, Einstein 
Bros Bagels, Wawa, Outback Steakhouse, Fleming's Prime Steakhouse, 
Bonefish Grill, Carrabba's and others.

 Need for Regulatory Guidance Regarding Contributions of Food Inventory

As noted in the Joint Committee on Taxation document accompanying this 
hearing,\1\ contributions of food inventory are entitled to an enhanced 
deduction under Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which 
is intended by Congress to help compensate potential donors for the 
administrative costs associated in making inventory donations. These 
costs include the identification and selection of appropriate food 
banks and other hunger relief agencies as well as the preparation, and 
packaging of food in accordance with applicable food safety 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Present Law and Background 
Relating to the Federal Tax Treatment of Charitable Contributions'' 
(JCX-2-22) (March 11, 2022).

Regulatory guidance, however, is necessary to clarify an issue created 
by the current Treasury Regulations and ensure that that Section 
170(e)(3) works as intended such that donors of food inventory are (i) 
allowed to recover their ``basis'' in contributed inventory, and (ii) 
able to compute the enhanced deduction. This clarification will help 
donors satisfy the increased demand on food banks and other hunger 
relief agencies in light of the continuing impact of the COVID-19 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
crisis and the recent increase in inflation.

FDC, along with a number of other organizations, has worked for a 
number of years to secure this needed regulatory guidance. A guidance 
project to address the issue was included in every Treasury Department/
Internal Revenue Service Priority Guidance Plan from 2015-2016 to 2020-
2021. In addition, H.R. 8817, The Preserving Charitable Incentives Act, 
a bipartisan bill introduced in the House of Representatives, includes 
a provision encouraging the issuance of this important guidance as soon 
as possible.

Despite the time and resources that the government has dedicated to 
this guidance project, guidance has not yet been issued and the project 
was surprisingly dropped from the 2021-2022 Priority Guidance Plan 
without explanation. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that the need 
for this guidance should be given a priority in light of the current 
food insecurity in the country. Thus, we respectfully request your 
assistance in encouraging the Treasury Department and the Internal 
Revenue Service to prioritize and issue this important guidance as soon 
as possible.

                                 ______
                                 
                         Girl Scouts of the USA

                       Public Policy and Advocacy

                   816 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 5

                          Washington, DC 20006

                            P: 202-659-3780

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chairman                            Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building  219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

March 16, 2022

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo and Senate Finance Committee 
Members:

On behalf of Girl Scouts of the USA, thank you for calling a hearing on 
charitable giving and trends in the nonprofit sector. We look forward 
to the testimony of nonprofit experts and to understand the interests 
and concerns of committee members.

I am pleased Dan Cardinali, President and CEO of Independent Sector 
(IS), is speaking on behalf of the nonprofit community. We are an 
active member of IS and appreciate his comprehensive explanation of the 
sector's priorities.

As you investigate the nonprofit sector's well-being, it is important 
to consider that many funding sources support nonprofit rebuilding and 
growth as organizations recover from the pandemic. Among those varied 
sources, two provisions have been especially helpful for Girl Scout 
councils across the country: the universal charitable deduction and the 
Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC).

Charitable giving has been one important lifeline for the nonprofit 
community throughout the pandemic. As you know, Congress enacted a $300 
charitable deduction for nonitemizers in March 2020. Donors responded 
to this change with about a 28% increase in gifts of $300 on December 
31, 2020--the exact amount of the deduction. Congress extended the 
universal charitable deduction through 2021, but unfortunately, the 
temporary provision expired at the end of last year.

I am grateful to the sponsors and cosponsors of the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618), including members of this 
committee--Senators Lankford, Cortez Masto, Tim Scott, Stabenow, and 
Hassan. This bill would further incentivize giving by increasing the 
cap, extending the deduction through 2022, and including gifts to 
donor-advised funds. However, this bill is only a temporary response to 
a long-term issue. We must ensure the sustainability of the universal 
charitable deduction for the years to come. Congress must renew and 
extend the universal charitable deduction to ensure nonprofits have a 
reliable way to secure donations to support their missions. Girl Scout 
councils around the country rely in part upon charitable giving to 
continue their work of supporting their community and building girls of 
courage, confidence, and character.

In addition to charitable giving, Girl Scout councils relied upon the 
Employee Retention Tax Credit to help fund operations and maintain 
staff who provide programming for girls, support volunteers and 
continue to sustain our Movement. The ERTC allowed at least half of our 
Girl Scout councils to redirect $50 million toward staff and 
operations, primarily in 2021. However, the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (Title VI, Section 80604) retroactively halted the ERTC, 
cutting off one calendar quarter of the tax credit. On behalf of Girl 
Scouts of the USA, I strongly urge you to reinstate that credit. The 
Employee Retention Tax Credit Reinstatement Act (S. 3625) is an 
important first step to help nonprofits rebuild from the pandemic as it 
reinstates the ERTC for fourth quarter 2021, but there is more to be 
done. Beyond this bill, I will continue to ask Congress to allow 
nonprofits to access ERTC for 2022 and to modify nonprofit eligibility 
beyond the current ``gross receipts'' test to better reflect how 
nonprofits operate.

The ERTC is a tailored relief provision designed to help organizations 
that demonstrate need--only those that meet the criteria for decline in 
revenue and employee retention are eligible to receive the credit. It 
is now--retroactively--repealed, with detrimental impacts to staff, 
operations and the communities they serve. Girl Scouts continues to 
contribute to our nation's relief, recovery, and rebuilding, and ERTC 
has been an important financial component that helps drive our success.

Thank you for your support of the nonprofit sector and for your 
dedication to helping girls across the country. I urge you to consider 
our important requests, which would ensure that the Girl Scout Movement 
can continue to provide girls with an unmatched leadership development 
experience. If you or your staff have questions, please do not hesitate 
to reach out to me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Sue Santa
Senior Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy

                                 ______
                                 
                   Statement Submitted by Jon Heymann
Non-profits are the heart and soul of a city. Without them, we would 
never know what is occurring in the neediest neighborhoods and 
communities--those communities that most people never walk in, shop in, 
or worship in.

From the homeless shelters to the afterschool programs, to the early 
learning centers, to the hospitals, to the mental health services,

      These non-profits do the research no one else does.
      These non-profits do the work no one else is equipped to do.

They love mercy, they do justice, and they walk humbly in the midst of 
our communities. Sadly, they have been called parasites and leaches of 
the public coffers, taking needed resources that could otherwise be 
used for potholes, business incentives, downtown development, as well 
as the services of our first responders--police, fire, and EMT.

So, yes, we have our first responders (Police, Fire, etc.), we have 
business development, we have our school system, we have our colleges 
and post-secondary certification programs (plumbing, electrical, etc.) 
to fill the high wage, high demand, high skilled jobs.

But what do non-profits do that no one else does--let me repeat that--
that no one else does--not government, not churches, not first 
responders, not schools nor colleges? Simply this: non-profits, 
especially as it relates to children. take a laser-tight focus on the 
gaps that prevent kids from being EDUCATED, SAFE, and HEALTHY. They 
study these gaps; they create efficiencies to plug these gaps; they 
develop processes and activities to fill these gaps. Furthermore, they 
monitor, measure and evaluate the impact of these activities in order 
to create the greatest Return on Investment (ROI) of their funding. 
Where would we be if it were not for the after-school programs, 
mentoring activities, summer camps, mental health services, as well as 
the hospitals, etc?

Child serving non-profits. No one else in our cities builds and 
rebuilds the countless thousands of young lives that otherwise would 
lost to the streets, the gangs, the courts, the jails, and the morgues.

Our marching orders are simple: (1) make a massive positive difference, 
(2) for the greatest number of children, (3) in the shortest period of 
time. All non-profits worthy of our support should be evaluated against 
those three measures.

But non-profits must wrestle with a dreadful assumption: there are not 
enough resources to meet all the needs of all the children in all the 
neighborhoods. So we find ourselves in a constant state of ``triaging'' 
our communities, grappling with identifying the most critical needs 
that deserve our immediate attention, and then, how do we bring these 
best practices to scale.

Non-profits creatively and judiciously leverage their financial 
resources to add funding for their critical services and their 
underpaid staff. Here are examples of investments, and the leveraged 
resources that go into filling the gaps to help kids become educated, 
safe and healthy.

      Early Learning Coalitions make sure millions of impoverished 
children can attend a ``Quality Star Rated'' EL Center and be ready for 
kindergarten.
      Healthy Families matches local city dollars to do hospital and 
home visit to moms of brand new babies to avoid abuse and neglect.
      Mental and Behavioral Health programs have totally redesigned 
their delivery models in order to reduce the stigma and to bring their 
mental health services closer (proximity) to students with mental and 
behavioral health issues.
      Federal funding for afterschool programming has increased 
support for non-profit afterschool programs, as well as the all-day 
summer camps to prevent the ``Summer Loss.''
      Nutrition. Because of childhood obesity and diabetes, non-
profits operate some of the largest nutrition programs that includes 
providing nutritious snacks and meals to afterschool kids, summer camp 
kids and thousands of kids throughout our local communities at a 
variety of sites: churches, community centers, etc.
      Garnering funding to get uninsured children KidCare medical 
insurance for working parents that fall below the poverty line. ``Get 
well, stay well; be well.'' When healthy well kids attend school more 
consistently, working parents don't miss as much work.
      Non-profits have talked the monumental tasks of improving their 
Data sharing, increasing participation, and improving their quality.
      Non-profits also demonstrate how their programs are improving 
both Crime Prevention and Economic Development.

Lastly, the non-profit staff are often the very first people to 
confront the traumatic and dangerous environment of the children that 
they serve, whether it's domestic violence and discord, mental health 
emergencies, bullying, school violence, depression, suicide, gangs, 
etc., etc., etc.

Clearly, non-profit staff are ``Essential Personnel'' and clearly 
should be considered First Responders.

                                 ______
                                 
Letter Submitted by Aaron Horvath, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford 
  University Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society; and Jean Lin, 
   Ph.D., Assistant Professor, California State University, East Bay
March 22, 2022

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6200

Dear Senate Committee on Finance,

The following is a statement for the record in regard to the March 17, 
2022 Committee Hearing, ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in the 
Nonprofit Sector.'' This brief report, prepared in May 2020 and 
provided below, shares details from ongoing research on how nonprofit 
organizations around the country rose to meet the challenge of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. We observe that nonprofits of all sorts (ranging 
from soup kitchens to performance troupes to boxing clubs) proved to be 
mainstays of community survival in two crucial regards. First, they 
provided public health information, dispelled rampant misinformation, 
and helped communicate how broad directives applied to community-
specific circumstances. Second, they adapted their services, both 
finding new ways to address longstanding needs (e.g., providing food 
and shelter) and innovating entirely new pandemic-related services 
using the resources available on hand (e.g., making and distributing 
masks).

As we've found in our research, nonprofits served as a critical piece 
of social infrastructure, one that propped up American communities at a 
time when the public and commercial sectors were struggling to muster a 
comprehensive response to an unprecedented situation. Despite all this 
activity--which nonprofits undertook at great cost to themselves--
efforts to support these organizations have been underwhelming. 
Certainly the Paycheck Protection Program, the nonitemizer deduction, 
and the Employee Retention Tax Credit have helped buoy the sector 
through difficult moments. But congressional inaction has allowed these 
critical measures to lapse. More must be done to sustain nonprofit 
organizations, especially as they continue to face fallout from the 
pandemic, including financial shortfalls, inflationary pressures, and a 
host of workforce challenges.

We offer the following report as an illustration of what we stand to 
lose should these and other critical measures not be extended. If we 
fail to sustain our civic institutions at this critical moment, we risk 
not having them around to sustain us when the next crisis hits.

Sincerely,

Aaron Horvath and Jean Lin

                                 ______
                                 
May 20, 2022

Report: Nonprofits across the U.S. are helping their communities to 
survive the pandemic. But will nonprofits themselves survive?

Aaron Horvath, Stanford University
Jean Lin, Cal State East Bay

``In our 150-year history,'' writes a San Francisco homeless services 
nonprofit in a Facebook post, ``we . . . have never faced a challenge 
like COVID-19.'' It's an ominous claim for an organization that's 
weathered two outbreaks of the bubonic plague (in 1900 and 1907), the 
1918 flu, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But earlier this month, COVID-19 
nearly forced the organization to close. One of the organization's 
shelters became the unwitting epicenter of the city's largest 
coronavirus outbreak. Ninety-five homeless clients and ten staff tested 
positive for the disease. Within two weeks, the shelter had 
successfully moved its clients to isolated living arrangements, hired a 
hazmat crew to clean the facility, and reopened its doors in service of 
a renewed purpose: housing for homeless guests recovering from the 
virus. In concluding its Facebook post, the shelter was defiant: even 
the pandemic ``#CantStopGood.''

At a time when government is struggling to keep pace with the pandemic, 
civic organizations are providing a patchwork of social welfare--both 
improvising new means of continuing longstanding, essential community 
services and innovating entirely new services in response to unmet 
community needs. Through an ongoing study of 800 nonprofits operating 
in regions around San Francisco (CA), Dallas (TX), Detroit (MI), 
Lancaster (PA), Miami (FL), and Sioux Falls (SD), we are finding that, 
beneath a surface of closed offices and canceled events, nonprofits are 
demonstrating surprising resilience in the face of unprecedented 
adversity. Despite dwindling funds and little support on the horizon, 
these organizations--be they knitting clubs, soup kitchens, or 
repertory theatres--are serving as a critical lifeline in the fight 
against a global pandemic.

Nonprofits are adapting in several ways. They are rearranging 
schedules, workforces, and physical spaces to continue providing 
essential services. Responding to a tenfold growth in demand, a 
nonprofit serving the low-income Latino population of Lancaster 
converted its sit-down dining facility into a ``Grab & Go'' model. 
Likewise, organizations that, before the pandemic provided in-person 
services to homebound seniors--such as providing medicine, food, and 
companionship--have reorganized their operations around a delivery 
model, even sourcing microwaves and refrigerators to donate to 
recipients in need. One Detroit-area senior center moved its extensive 
catalogue of fitness classes online, airing some, like ``Gentle Moves 
Yoga,'' on a local TV station twice daily. As one organization puts it, 
``our programs have not been canceled; they're just different.''

Many nonprofits have also pivoted to meet previously unimaginable 
community needs. A science museum in Florida hosted a virtual Q&A with 
an infectious disease specialist in order to dispel rumors, 
misinformation, and other common misunderstandings about COVID-19. They 
also enrolled their powerful computer servers in a grassroots effort to 
model SARS-CoV-2 proteins--crucial in the race to develop a vaccine. A 
Miami-area business association established a ``rapid relief fund'' 
providing $500 grants to low-income families otherwise ineligible for 
state aid.

A youth boxing gym in Michigan--a state overwhelmed by infections--has 
braved snow and sleet to deliver 1,000 gallons of hand sanitizer 
throughout the region. The organization's leadership took it upon 
itself to inform the community as well. As the executive director of 
that organization put it: we ``spent countless hours on the phone 
debunking myths, putting together lists of Facebook-based COVID myths, 
calling family after family, and kid after kid--anyone who might have a 
tendency to believe Internet gossip.'' Parents who are otherwise weary 
of public health authorities are now masking up.

In California, costume designers at a Santa Clara theatre company are 
crafting masks for state employees, postal workers, and other 
vulnerable populations. They've helped to address a PPE shortfall by 
distributing 4,000 masks since early April. And, in the lighthearted 
spirit of musical theatre, they've even released a song: ``Maskmaker, 
Maskmaker, make me a mask!''

Put in historical perspective, one might see nonprofits' collective 
contributions to pandemic relief as akin to the auto industry's 
contributions to American war efforts during World War II. Where 
carmakers repurposed their factories to produce plane engines, 
artillery, and armor, nonprofits are deploying staff, volunteers, and 
facilities to produce masks, create care packages, and provide other 
essential services. But where the work of GM and Chrysler was 
underwritten by Uncle Sam, nonprofits are acting on their own volition, 
often without sufficient support, and performing services that, in this 
unsteady economic moment, are unsustainable and may prove financially 
ruinous. The economic fallout of the pandemic threatens to further 
undercut already precarious funding streams, and nonprofits are facing 
grave difficulties staying afloat.

As nonprofits bend over backwards to serve their communities during the 
crisis, who is bending over backwards for them?

To be sure, the CARES Act offers charitable provisions--emergency 
funding, loan forgiveness, and donation incentives. But efforts to 
access federal support have been hampered by red tape and delay. 
Philanthropic foundations, often touted for funding what public funders 
miss, have relaxed their grant restrictions, allowing grantees greater 
flexibility. But the rules governing philanthropic endowments will 
likely impede any substantial increase in the total dollar amount of 
foundation giving.

If nonprofits cannot secure continued support, their ability to respond 
to community needs will be undermined and the already formidable fault 
lines of inequality will grow even wider. Communities will suffer when 
neither the state nor nonprofits take the lead.

Social service provision and the protection of public health has 
historically fallen to governments. But COVID-19 struck during a period 
of public welfare cutbacks when nonprofits were already shouldering an 
undue burden. The political climate and unknown duration of the current 
emergency do not afford nonprofits the luxury of suspending work until 
normalcy resumes. What's become clear over the past several months is 
that the whole gamut of nonprofit services are starting to look 
essential--both for the maintenance of life and the maintenance of 
communities in which we live.

                                 ______
                                 
                         Idaho Nonprofit Center

                   5257 W. Fairview Ave., Suite #260

                            Boise, ID 83706

March 17, 2022

The Honorable Mike Crapo
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Crapo,

On behalf of the Idaho Nonprofit Center and the 7,268 charitable 
nonprofits in our state and their more than 60,000 employees, I write 
in advance of the upcoming hearing, ``Examining Charitable Giving and 
Trends in the Nonprofit Sector,'' to thank you for your past support 
for pandemic relief, to update you on the ongoing challenges that 
nonprofits are facing, and to explain the need for targeted relief 
within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.

Idaho has prided itself as a state with a small government footprint 
and where solutions to problems are solved by local communities 
themselves. As such, Idaho nonprofits have played an immense role in 
providing services and community solutions both before and during the 
pandemic. In short, we're proud to say that Idaho runs on nonprofits. 
But nonprofits need your help.

The Idaho Nonprofit Sector Before and During the Pandemic

Data from the Idaho Nonprofit Center's 2020 State of the Sector Report, 
compiled in partnership with the University of Idaho, shows that prior 
to the pandemic, 10% of all private sector jobs in Idaho were with 
nonprofits. More than 7,000 nonprofit organizations produced 64,073 
jobs and paid $4.25 billion in total employee compensation. Notably, 
Idaho nonprofits utilized $4.1 billion from out-of-state funding 
sources (e.g., Federal grants).

The pandemic has taken a toll on all Idahoans. Surveys conducted over 
the past two years demonstrate that Idaho nonprofits have borne an 
outsized burden, both as employers and as providers of essential 
programs and services:

      95% of nonprofits canceled events and expected reduced revenues 
as a result.
      58% of respondents report an increase in demand for services.
      42% of respondents report that the cost of providing services 
has increased.
      36% of organizations report that their financial reserves have 
decreased.
      31% of organizations reported decreased individual donations.
      51% of organizations reported decreased earned income.

Also, data is not back yet for our forthcoming 2022 State of the Sector 
Report, but nonprofit job loss is an expected outcome. Nationally, the 
nonprofit sector was still more than 450,000 short of pre-pandemic 
levels, according to the report COVID-19 Jobs Update, December 2021 \1\ 
from the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University. 
That report found, ``as of the end of 2021, nonprofits have recovered 
approximately 72.1% of the jobs estimated to have been lost as of May 
2020.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://ccss.jhu.edu/december-2021-jobs/.

With the above context, now address three areas of challenges that 
nonprofits are facing and propose tax policy solutions for your 
consideration: the lack of resources, the lack of staff, and the lack 
of volunteers--all of which are essential to advancing nonprofit 
missions.

Charitable Giving Tax Incentives

Charitable giving nationwide has not kept up with need and rising 
expenses. The 2021 Giving USA report found that individual giving 
decreased by nearly 0.8 percent in 2020 compared with 2019, when one 
major donor's contributions are removed from the data. A separate 
analysis, the Nonprofit Trends and Impacts 2021 \2\ from the Urban 
Institute, found that small nonprofits were under particular stress. 
``Forty-two percent of organizations with budgets under $500,000 
experienced decreased donations in 2020, compared with 29 percent of 
organizations with budgets of $500,000 or more.'' Nonprofits that said 
donations were essential to their revenue stream were also more likely 
to experience decreased donations in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-trends-
and-impacts-2021/view/full_
report.

There are no up-to-date sources of Idaho giving data. We can look to 
the results of the Idaho Gives day, put on by the Idaho Nonprofit 
Center, that is the state's largest multi-day giving event. Last year 
16,000+ donors contributed $3.9 million to 600+ nonprofits in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state. Here is a breakdown in recent years:

      2019 ``Idaho Gives'' Giving Total: $1.9M.
      2020 ``Idaho Gives'' Giving Total: $3.9M.
      2021 ``Idaho Gives'' Giving Total: $3.9M.
      2019 Average gift size: $154/person.
      2021 Average Gift size: $250/person.

Note that the average donation increased to $250, right in line with 
the universal charitable deduction amounts available to those who claim 
the standard deduction on their tax forms. We believe these numbers for 
``Idaho Gives'' tell a story--the public was likely incentivized to 
give more to 600+ Idaho nonprofits when the universal charitable giving 
deduction was in effect in 2020 and 2021.
Tax Policy Solutions
In the aftermath of virtually every natural disaster since Hurricane 
Katrina, Congress has recognized the value of nonprofit relief and 
recovery efforts by enacting charitable giving incentives that 
encourage some individuals and corporations to help cover some of the 
costs of these community-based services. The COVID-19 pandemic and 
resulting economic crises have certainly qualified as natural disasters 
and Congress--a bipartisan basis--swiftly enacted giving incentives for 
those who itemize and corporations. Recognizing the catastrophic impact 
of health and economic crises, Congress went further by enacting, and 
then expanding and extending, the universal charitable or nonitemizer 
deduction to ensure that all taxpayers, including those who claim the 
standard deduction received a tax benefit for giving back to their 
communities by supporting the work of charitable nonprofits.

Regrettably, each of these disaster-related giving incentives was 
allowed to expire at the end of 2021. Yet, the pandemic continues to 
disrupt services, individuals in our communities continue to come to 
their local nonprofits for support, and private giving to these 
frontline organizations still has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. 
We anticipate that the need to restore and improve these giving 
incentives will be extensively discussed during the Senate Finance 
Committee hearing on Thursday. We want to be clear that the Idaho 
Nonprofit Center strongly supports renewal of the universal charitable 
(non-itemizer) deduction at least through 2022. Indeed, we fully 
endorse the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act,\3\ S. 
618, because it will further promote giving by all American taxpayers--
regardless of their income--and generate needed resources for 
charitable and faith-based organizations to continue providing vital 
services to families, workers, and communities, especially those 
critically impacted by the ongoing pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/618/
text?q=%7B%22search%22%3
A%5B%22s618%22%2C%22s618%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1.

Similarly, we ask that you speak up during the hearing in support of 
extending the two additional disaster-relief giving incentives that 
expired on December 31, 2021--the provision permitting individuals who 
itemize to deduct charitable donations up to 100% of their adjusted 
gross income and the measure allowing corporations to deduct charitable 
donations up to 25% of taxable income.

Nonprofit Workforce Shortages Crisis

One of the greatest challenges that nonprofits of every type of mission 
are experiencing is the inability to hire and retain qualified workers. 
A Federal Reserve survey \4\ found that 40% of responding organizations 
reported that staffing levels are down. This past fall, the National 
Council of Nonprofits conducted a survey of the difficulties nonprofits 
across the country were confronting in retaining staff and filling 
vacancies. Three out of five (60%) survey respondents reported 
vacancies of between 10% and 30%, according to the NCN report, The 
Scope and Impact of Nonprofit Workforce Shortages,\5\ published in 
December. Another 16% reported vacancies greater than 30%. Nationwide, 
nonprofits explained the causes of the vacancies as salary competition, 
typically with employers outside the nonprofit sector (79%) and the 
inability of potential employees to find child care (23%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://fedcommunities.org/data/main-street-covid19-survey-
2021/.
    \5\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-workforce-shortages-report.pdf.

The survey responses of Idaho nonprofits make clear that these 
workforce challenges are no mere inconveniences; they are hurting the 
people the organizations serve. ``We are a small senior center 
providing over 2600 meals per month to both congregate diners as well 
as to home bound seniors,'' shared a human services provider, 
explaining, ``We have a small staff of 3 to accomplish this task in a 
dilapidated kitchen with equipment that is over 20 years old and 
falling apart.'' Regarding the workforce shortage, they noted, ``In 
addition, we have recently lost 2 staff members, making our situation 
even more critical.'' Another Idaho nonprofit summarized the problem: 
``Service needs are increasing while staff and resources are 
decreasing.'' They added, ``Having to turn clients away due to staffing 
is getting harder, our staff are working more hours to meet the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
needs.''

Idaho nonprofits similarly report significant challenges. Nearly 40% of 
nonprofits surveyed in late 2021 said hiring is ``difficult or very 
difficult'' right now. A nonprofit human service provider in the state 
shared, ``It is much harder to find qualified employees to fill 
roles,'' adding, ``It will likely be at least one more full year before 
we get back to previous staffing levels that are adequate.''
Tax Policy Solutions
The Idaho Nonprofit Center and dozens of Idaho nonprofits joined more 
than 1,500 organizations from all 50 states in signing onto the recent 
letter to Congress and the Administration seeking Pandemic and 
Workforce Shortage Relief for Charitable Nonprofits.\6\ Among other 
things, that letter calls on Congress to address critical staffing 
shortages at nonprofits by retroactively restoring the Employee 
Retention Tax Credit, as proposed in the bipartisan ERTC Reinstatement 
Act (S. 3625), and extend this refundable payroll tax credit through 
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-work
force-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advocacy%
20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.

To the address the impact of the unique impact of nonprofit workforce 
shortages on individuals and communities, we ask that you modify 
nonprofit eligibility under the ERTC beyond the current ``gross 
receipts'' test to ensure more nonprofits qualify. We also request that 
Congress revise the definition of eligible payroll expenses under the 
ERTC to include child care and education subsidies to reflect the 
increased costs charitable organizations experienced as they struggle 
to maintain or expand services. We believe this improvement is 
justified because, unlike for-profit employers, tax-exempt nonprofits 
are not currently able to receive income-tax relief for providing those 
employee benefits. Our proposal provides a level of tax fairness and 
parity that does not currently exist.

Volunteers Have Not Returned

A unique aspect of charitable organizations is that they can expand 
their impact by leveraging the commitment of armies of volunteers who 
are dedicated to the work of nonprofits in their communities. Pre-
pandemic estimates by AmeriCorps \7\ indicate that the volunteerism 
rate in Idaho was 37.9%, contributing 48.6 million hours of service. 
Nationally and in Idaho, nonprofits reported throughout the pandemic 
that volunteerism dropped precipitously. Now, however, as many 
businesses return to public operations, many nonprofits still have not 
seen their volunteers return to pre-pandemic levels. Data from surveys 
conducted by the Idaho Nonprofit Center confirm that 60% nonprofits 
report a decrease in volunteers during the pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/
Volunteering_in_America_States_508.
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Policy Solutions
As discussed in the recent nonprofit letter on policy priorities,\8\ 
Congress can incentivize volunteerism by eliminating unfair tax 
policies. Specifically, we seek an increase in the Volunteer Mileage 
Rate for nonprofit volunteer drivers to the business rate (58.5 cents/
mile) for 2022 and the elimination of the tax on mileage reimbursements 
up to the business rate. The rapid increase in gas prices mean that 
many nonprofits will need to reimburse their volunteers for driving on 
the charity's behalf. Yet, those drivers will be forced to pay income 
tax on any reimbursement rate greater than the volunteer mileage 
statutory rate of 14 cents per mile. This existing tax policy, enforced 
at both the federal and state levels, imposes a disincentive on all but 
the most well-off volunteers. It is unfair, harmful to the missions of 
charitable organizations, and must be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-work
force-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advocacy%
20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

As you consider the issues raised during the Finance Committee hearing, 
we ask that you reflect in the important, sustaining work that Idaho 
nonprofits performed throughout the pandemic and recognize that our 
challenges are far from over. Most for-profit businesses and government 
offices have or soon will reopen to something amounting to normal 
business. Most charitable organizations--particularly those addressing 
the immediate needs of our residents--never closed. Yet, at this stage 
in the pandemic when demand for nonprofit services remains high, 
Idaho's nonprofits remain short of resources to meet normal as well as 
pandemic-related expenses. But we don't just lack adequate resources; 
our nonprofits lack the staff and volunteers to meet the very high 
needs, which is resulting in waiting lists, denial of services, and 
outright closures of local nonprofits. In light of these compelling 
challenges, we ask that you champion tax-policy solutions, at the 
hearing and in the Senate, that will restore and enhance the charitable 
giving incentives and the Employee Retention Tax Credit, and remove tax 
disincentives for volunteers to support the missions of nonprofits in 
their communities.

Sincerely,

Kevin Bailey, CEO
[email protected]
208-424-2229

                                 ______
                                 
                     Indiana Philanthropy Alliance

                       32 East Washington Street

                      Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of Committee, 
thank you for holding the ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in 
the Nonprofit Sector'' hearing on March 17, 2022.

Indiana is home to the second largest private foundation in the country 
and has the most independent community foundations in the United 
States--including at least one in all 92 Indiana counties. Indiana 
Philanthropy Alliance represents these foundations as well as a rich 
variety of generous family, private, public, and corporate foundations, 
and other social investors.

The philanthropic sector plays an important role in promoting and 
supporting the quality of life for Hoosiers. Over 1,200 foundations 
annually distribute more than $2 billion to nonprofits in support of a 
broad range of health, educational, cultural, human service, 
environmental, and other causes, with 76% going to Indiana-based 
organizations. Not only are these grantmakers investing in Indiana 
nonprofit organizations, they convene local leaders, collaborate on 
critical issues, seek innovative solutions, share knowledge, and 
advocate on behalf of local community needs. Additionally, nonprofit 
organizations are a major economic force in Indiana. On average, 1 in 
10 Hoosiers are employed by the nonprofit sector.

It is an honor to represent the interests of Indiana's philanthropic 
sector and encourage charitable giving for every Hoosier. Given the 
opportunity, giving in Indiana has the potential to improve lives now 
and for generations to come.

With this in mind, Indiana Philanthropy Alliance respectfully asks for 
consideration of the following legislative proposals under the 
Committee's jurisdiction:

Oppose the Accelerating Charitable Efforts Act (ACE Act)

To increase charitable contributions, we must find ways to make giving 
easy. Fewer restrictions and more incentives clears the way for 
organizations to think creatively, build partnerships, and quickly 
bring more resources to the needs of our communities.

The ACE Act (S. 1982/H.R. 6595) purports to increase resources for 
charities. However, the provisions within the bill would do the 
opposite--harming the exact charitable organizations and communities 
its authors seek to help.

The bill's payout requirement on donor-advised funds (DAF) seeks a 
solution to a problem that does not exist while creating complexity and 
administrative burdens for community, private, and family foundations. 
This payout assumes a gross underspend from DAFs, without any 
substantiating data, while running counter to what is well-documented. 
In fact, grantmaking from DAFs to qualified charities totaled almost 
$35 billion in 2020 (a 117% increase since 2016) with a 23% average 
payout. Research conducted on these funds within the Hoosier state by 
Indiana Philanthropy Alliance and national nonprofit data clearinghouse 
Candid found DAF payouts by community foundations topped 9%. 
Additionally, 37% of all Indiana community foundation grants in 2020 
were from DAFs, totaling over $68.4 million going back into local 
communities. While ACE Act includes an exception for community 
foundation DAFs under $1 million, this leaves out a significant and 
growing number of community foundation DAFs over this threshold. In 
Indiana, there are at least 63 such DAFs, and in 2021, they paid out an 
estimated 7%.

Under the current rules governing philanthropy, organizations can save 
and invest to not only address today's needs, but to ensure there will 
be a safety net when the next crisis occurs. However, by requiring 
certain DAF dollars to be exhausted within 15 years, the ACE Act would 
set a dangerous precedent of eliminating endowments and the benefit of 
exponential value growth over time. By failing to provide a safety net 
for the future, we will be leaving communities vulnerable to future 
disasters--like we have seen during COVID-19.

The ACE Act alters the structure of philanthropy without regard for 
unintended consequences. The proposed legislation would require 
foundations, many with three or fewer employees, to undertake a new 
system of accounting, increasing administrative costs. It would also 
eliminate donor privacy for some, while holding family foundations to 
stricter standards than other private foundations, creating a second 
unnecessary set of guidelines to monitor the same aspects of foundation 
operations.

Encourage Giving with Universal Charitable Deduction

Indiana Philanthropy Alliance urges the Committee to support 
legislation making the charitable deduction available to all 
taxpayers--regardless of their tax rate or whether they itemize. This 
includes The Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act, S. 
618, H.R. 1704. Such tax incentives encourage individuals to give away 
more of their income, devoting it to their community's needs rather 
than their own.

Section 2204 of the CARES Act, signed into law in March 2020, permitted 
eligible individuals who do not itemize deductions to deduct $300 of 
qualified charitable contributions throughout 2020. In December 2020, 
Congress extended the universal charitable deduction availability 
through 2021 and increased the cap to $600 for joint filers.

Since March 2020, charitable giving--especially of gifts less than the 
$300 cap--has increased significantly. According to data collected by 
the Fundraising Effectiveness Project, on December 31, 2020, there was 
a 28% increase of gifts of exactly $300, as compared with the previous 
year. Plus, gifts of $250 or less increased by more than 15% in the 
fourth quarter of 2020. While we know there are many factors that 
contribute to increased donations, one very compelling factor is likely 
the availability of the charitable deduction to nonitemizers.

Support Current Distribution Requirements by Private Foundations

Indiana Philanthropy Alliance urges the Committee to support the 
current 5% payout level for private foundation distributions that 
allows for the availability of funds for distribution in perpetuity. 
Previous national studies have shown that the current payout is optimum 
for supporting the long-term position of a foundation and ensuring the 
availability of charitable grantmaking for the future. This 5% is 
merely a minimum, and it's important to note that private foundations 
can, and often do, choose to pay much more. For example, Ball Brothers 
Foundation--a private foundation based in Muncie, Indiana--was 
established in 1926 with $3.5 million. 2022 marks Ball Brothers 
Foundation's highest payout in history--$10 million. This incredible 
gift was injected into the local community at a critical moment in time 
and would not have been possible with higher mandatory payouts draining 
the foundation's principal.

Recognize Nonprofit Cemeteries as Public Charities

Indiana Philanthropy Alliance urges the Committee to support the Grave 
Injustice Parity Act, H.R. 6226, which would amend the tax code to 
recognize nonprofit cemeteries as public charities. This bill would 
make nonprofit cemeteries less reliant on local, state, and federal 
dollars. It also simplifies the tax code by creating parity for 
501(c)(13) cemeteries across all sections of the tax code listing 
deductible charities.

Under the current tax code, nonprofit cemeteries--not categorized as 
religious or municipal--are categorized as 501(c)13 organizations, not 
501(c)3 public charities. This is a problem because not only are these 
cemeteries restricted from receiving estate gifts from people wanting 
to maintain family burial sites, they also cannot receive gifts from 
public or private foundations. Additionally, community foundations, 
which manage endowments benefiting public charities, cannot hold 
designated funds or endowments for these cemeteries. There are over 
12,000 such cemeteries in existence in the U.S., with Indiana ranking 
6th highest in the nation with 607.

This change would have a negligible effect on federal revenues while 
continuing to allow charitable dollars to flow towards charities. The 
Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation found the 10-year loss of 
federal revenue as a result of this legislation would be less than $2 
million.

Permit Foundations to Provide Post-Graduation Scholarship Programs

Like many other states, Indiana has a talent problem in rural 
communities--with 240,000 vacant positions (Jan. 2022, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics). Further exacerbating this problem, about 10,000 people 
leave the state each year after they graduate (20% of graduates). 
Without an adequate workforce, economic growth cannot occur. To 
strengthen Indiana's economy, efforts must be made to incentivize 
workers to return to their communities after graduation.

Indiana Philanthropy Alliance urges the Committee to support 
legislation (including the Workforce Development Through Post-
Graduation Scholarships Act, S. 2191/H.R. 4095) that permits 
foundations to provide post-graduation scholarship programs. Doing so 
promotes talent attraction and retention in communities by providing 
student loan forgiveness to college students after graduation. Such 
legislation will combat ``brain drain,'' stimulate regional economic 
growth, and address the growing student debt crisis.

A post-graduation scholarship is a type of charitable grant that 
foundations would make to attract individuals who have career skills 
needed in a particular region, encouraging them to make their homes and 
build their careers in that community. It would function much like a 
traditional scholarship but would pay off a portion of student loans 
held by an individual who has completed a degree or technical program 
that qualifies them to work in a chosen career field needed in a 
community.

                                 ______
                                 
               Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving
March 17, 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden
The Honorable Mike Crapo
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairmen Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of Senate 
Committee on Finance:

On behalf of the Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving (IACG),\1\ 
a coalition of philanthropists, leaders of major foundations, non-
profits, and others who represent a broad spectrum of interests across 
the philanthropic community, we appreciate your leadership on how to 
strengthen America's working charities, including by considering 
reforms that will ensure more money reaches these charities faster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://acceleratecharitablegiving.org/.

The crises of the last several years have reinforced the important role 
that our nation's charities play in providing needed services to our 
communities, from serving food to the hungry to providing clothing and 
shelter for Americans in need. It has become increasingly clear, 
however, that some of our antiquated charitable giving laws no longer 
work as intended, and steps must be taken to increase the pace and flow 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of resources to charitable organizations.

With more than $1 trillion sitting in private foundations and donor-
advised funds (DAFs) for which donors already have received tax 
deductions, and almost 90 percent of Americans not receiving any tax 
benefit for their charitable giving, one report showed that more than 
one-third of nonprofits \2\ throughout the country are in jeopardy of 
closing within two years. In addition, the nonprofit workforce is still 
roughly 459,000 jobs \3\ below its pre-pandemic level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-puts-1-in-3-nonprofits-
financial-jeopardy-93d410c99425f0ac54b3190a656db200.
    \3\ http://ccss.jhu.edu/december-2021-jobs/.

Now more than ever, we must restore the connection between charitable 
tax benefits and benefits to charities. Our coalition has come together 
in support of the following common-sense reforms \4\ that we believe 
could significantly increase the flow of resources to working 
charities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://acceleratecharitablegiving.org/reforms/.

      For private foundations, close loopholes to better ensure that 
distributions qualifying for the payout requirement are available for 
use by working charities; and encourage greater payout through reforms 
to the excise tax.
      For DAFs, adopt measures to ensure that DAF account balances are 
distributed to working charities within a reasonable period of time.
      For individuals, incentivize greater giving by improving and 
extending the new non-itemizer charitable deduction in a cost-effective 
way.

We look forward to working with members of the Senate Committee on 
Finance and policymakers across the spectrum as this conversation moves 
forward.

Sincerely,

Members of the Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving

                                 ______
                                 
                      Iowa Council of Foundations

                            6919 Vista Drive

                       West Des Moines, IA 50266

                                  and
                          United Ways of Iowa

                         1111 9th Street, #295

                          Des Moines, IA 50134

     Statement of Kari McCann Boutell, President, Iowa Council of 
  Foundations; and Deann Cook, President and CEO, United Ways of Iowa

On behalf of over 14,000 nonprofits and over 147,000 nonprofit 
employees working in organizations across Iowa, we submit this 
statement to encourage additional nonprofit supports and charitable 
giving incentives following the Senate Finance Committee hearing, 
``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector.'' We 
appreciate the variety of programs and incentives that have aided the 
charitable sector during the pandemic.

We have heard from members of our networks and the broader nonprofit 
community in Iowa about the lifeline that programs like the Paycheck 
Protection Program and the Employee Retention Tax Credit were over the 
last two years. Those programs helped keep doors open but many 
nonprofits are still struggling with ongoing challenges. The sector 
needs targeted supports to fully recover and sustain operations to 
continue providing critical services for our state.

Our organizations jointly advocated for targeted relief for Iowa 
nonprofits in the early months of the pandemic. We were able to secure 
$10 million in CARES Act funding to establish the Iowa Nonprofit 
Recovery Fund. In administering that grant program, we learned that 
many Iowa nonprofits experienced a sharp decrease in revenue at the 
same time they were experiencing a sharp increase in demand for 
services. Periodic nonprofit surveying completed by the Iowa Economic 
Development Authority and the University of Northern Iowa's Institute 
for Decision Making tells us that these trends are persisting two years 
later. That, coupled with rising costs and workforce shortages, has 
many nonprofits struggling to meet demands.

We see the following strategies as the most valuable ways Congress can 
support the charitable sector now and moving forward:

      We urge you to support the Universal Giving Pandemic Response 
and Recovery Act (S. 618).
      We urge you to support the retroactive restoration of the 
Employee Retention Tax Credit, as proposed in the bipartisan ERTC 
Reinstatement Act (S. 3625).
      We urge you to increase the Volunteer Mileage Rate for nonprofit 
volunteer drivers to the business rate (58.5 cents/mile) for 2022 and 
eliminate the tax on mileage reimbursements up to the business rate.

We thank you for your support of the charitable sector and ask for your 
continued commitment to nonprofit recovery and charitable giving 
incentives to strengthen the critical work of Iowa nonprofits. Please 
reach out if we can provide additional information or help answer any 
questions.

                                 ______
                                 
                  Jewish Federations of North America

                     The Max M. Fisher Headquarters

                         25 Broadway, Suite 700

                           New York, NY 10004

                             p 212-284-6548

                             f 212-271-6741

                   https://www.jewishfederations.org/

The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) appreciate the 
opportunity to submit a statement for the record relating to the Senate 
Finance Committee's March 17, 2022, hearing titled ``Examining 
Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector.'' We applaud the 
leadership of Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 
Committee for holding this hearing highlighting issues important to the 
charitable sector.

Background on JFNA

JFNA represents 146 Jewish Federations and over 300 Network 
communities, which raise and distribute more than $3 billion annually, 
and, through planned giving and endowment programs, support social 
welfare, social services, and educational needs in society. The 
Federation movement, collectively among the top 10 charities on the 
continent, protects and enhances the well-being of Jews worldwide 
through the values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), tzedakah 
(charity and social justice) and Torah (Jewish learning).

In the fields of caregiving, aging, philanthropy, disability, foreign 
policy, nonprofit security and health care, we are thought leaders and 
advocates. We promote a public-private partnership to support thousands 
of agencies serving more than a million clients of all backgrounds, 
Jewish and non-Jewish alike, including hospitals, nursing homes, 
community centers, family and children's service agencies, and 
vocational training programs.

At a time when Jews are less economically and physically secure than a 
decade ago, JFNA leads a continental response, providing assistance and 
rapidly raising and distributing funds to serve the most vulnerable 
among us. We have provided immediate relief and long-term assistance to 
Jewish and non-Jewish victims of natural and manmade disasters around 
the globe, including Houston, the Philippines, Haiti, Japan, and, now, 
in Ukraine.

Current Tax Policy Priorities

JFNA appreciates the opportunity to highlight the below tax policy 
issues important to our Federations and the nonprofit sector.
Universal Charitable Deduction
The Jewish Federations strongly supports the renewal and expansion of 
the universal charitable deduction and the Universal Giving Pandemic 
Response and Recovery Act (S. 618). As the nonprofit sector works to 
recover from the crippling effects of the COVID pandemic, it is 
critically important to ensure that Americans who donate to charities 
and religious organizations can receive a tax deduction at an amount 
higher than the most recent $300 deduction level (before the provisions 
expired last year).

A significant amount of charitable giving and grantmaking at our Jewish 
Federations are conducted through donor-advised funds, which is why we 
strongly support the provision in S. 618 that enhances the non-itemizer 
provision by including gifts to donor-advised funds. We believe this 
would allow for more charitable grantmaking and assist communities and 
nonprofits during times of crisis.
Preserving and Strengthening Donor-Advised Funds
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) are an efficient philanthropic tool that 
allow Jewish Federations to raise and grant charitable dollars for the 
benefit of our local communities. In 2020, Jewish Federations 
collectively granted more than $1.5 billion from DAFs, and Federations 
typically achieve a payout rate for DAFs that is well over 20 percent.

DAF grants are particularly important during emergencies. Responding to 
COVID-19, Federations raised supplemental funds that exceeded $200 
million with more than $80 million coming directly from grants from 
DAFs. Federation DAF distributions were up 10% in 2020 compared to 
2019, mostly because of the pandemic. More recently in response to 
Hurricane Ida, JFNA raised and distributed $250,000 in the fall of 2021 
to provide assistance in the Gulf Coast with more than half of that 
funding originating from DAFs. In the last several weeks, we have 
already raised and distributed $24 million in Ukrainian relief with 
much more to come. A very significant percent of that funding will have 
originated from donor-advised funds.

JFNA urges Congress to protect and preserve DAFs as an important 
philanthropic tool and we encourage policymakers to reject legislation 
that would disincentivize DAFs and suppress charitable grantmaking. 
Attached is a recent letter led by the Jewish Federations signed by 
more than 300 charitable groups rejecting legislation that would 
negatively impact DAFs. DAF grants have been vital to helping 
nonprofits weather the COVID pandemic and continue their charitable 
mission.
Employee Retention Tax Credit
The Jewish Federations support extending and modifying the Employee 
Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) as one way to assist nonprofits in 
combating the effects of the COVID pandemic and the staffing shortages 
currently faced by charitable organizations.

Prior to the pandemic, charitable nonprofits employed more than 12 
million people, making the nonprofit sector the third largest industry 
in the country--larger than the construction, financial services, and 
manufacturing industries. As of December 2021, there were 450,000 fewer 
employees in the nonprofit sector as charitable organizations report 
significant difficulties retaining staff and filling vacancies. As the 
economy seeks to recover from the COVID pandemic, having a fully 
staffed charitable sector is critical.

To alleviate this workforce crisis in the charitable sector, the Jewish 
Federations encourage Congress to:

      Retroactively restore the Employee Retention Tax Credit, as 
proposed in S. 3625, the ERTC Reinstatement Act,
      Extend this refundable payroll tax credit through 2022, and
      Modify nonprofit eligibility beyond the current ``gross 
receipts'' test and define eligible payroll expenses to include 
childcare and education subsidies to reflect the increased costs 
charitable organizations are experiencing as they struggle to maintain 
or expand services to meet the local needs throughout the health and 
economic crisis.
Legacy IRA Act
The Jewish Federations support S. 243, the Legacy IRA Act. The 
legislation would permanently expand the current IRA charitable 
rollover by allowing seniors starting at age 65 to make tax-free IRA 
rollovers to charities through life-income plans (charitable gift 
annuities or charitable remainder trusts). The legislation would also 
increase the annual rollover limit to $400,000 by which seniors can 
give to charities through their IRA.

The current IRA charitable rollover has been a successful philanthropic 
tool as it has generated millions of dollars in new charitable 
contributions. Expanding the provision will only further charitable 
giving and benefit local nonprofits during this critical time. We 
encourage Congress to pass this bipartisan piece of legislation.

                                 ______
                                 

Attachment:

August 2, 2021

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chair                               Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building  219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:

On behalf of the more than 300 undersigned national and community 
organizations representing each of the 50 states, we write to express 
our opposition to the Accelerating Charitable Efforts Act. This 
legislation recently introduced by Senators Angus King (I-ME) and 
Charles Grassley (R-IA) as S. 1981 would undermine important charitable 
tax incentives in ways that could be devastating to the vulnerable 
community members supported by our philanthropy.

S. 1981 seeks to place restrictions on private foundations and donor-
advised funds (DAFs), which are a fast-growing tool for philanthropists 
at all levels to make multi-generational commitments to charity. DAFs 
are the simplest, most flexible, and most economical way for 
philanthropists to make these gifts. Supporters of DAFs call them 
``greenhouses'' rather than ``warehouses'' for charitable giving. They 
encourage donors and their families to develop long-term giving plans 
and ensure that charities have the resources to realize their 
philanthropic visions far into the future.

Among the significant benefits of DAFs are that they allow charitable 
gifts to grow over time and thus have a much bigger impact, provide a 
simpler and less expensive vehicle than setting up and running a 
private foundation, and use funds--which are donated irrevocably--
exclusively for charitable purposes. National data from the 2020 DAF 
Report shows that DAFs annually allocate an average of 20% of their 
assets on hand to qualified charities--by contrast, foundations are 
required to distribute 5% of their funds per year.

The core argument promoted by supporters of the Accelerating Charitable 
Efforts Act is that DAFs keep funds locked up and unavailable to meet 
pressing needs. This is not borne out by our experience in which grants 
from DAF holders resulted in the immediate spending of more than $200 
million to alleviate suffering from the pandemic.

The Accelerating Charitable Efforts Act would limit DAFs by requiring 
that their funds be spent within a prescribed time-period (such as 15 
years), limiting the life of a DAF, delaying the charitable tax 
deduction until the funds are disbursed, and not permitting the donor 
to deduct the fair market value of property given to a DAF. These 
provisions would reduce the incentive for donors to use DAFs, pave the 
way for their elimination, and sharply curtail philanthropic giving to 
charities and their beneficiaries. Moreover, the various restrictions 
proposed by the legislation would serve to add to the administrative 
burdens and expenses of those charities that sponsor DAF programs. In 
short, it would diminish rather than enhance our communities' and their 
donors' ability to support urgent charitable needs throughout our 
country and across the globe.

The legislation would also restrict the useful ways that private 
foundations use DAFs to further their charitable missions, as well as 
disallow foundations from treating certain administrative expenses 
(such as salaries and expenses paid to family members) as a qualifying 
distribution. As opposed to seeking to expand these important 
philanthropic tools, the legislation would inhibit their important 
charitable work.

We have grave concerns with the Accelerating Charitable Efforts Act and 
look forward to working with you and your colleagues to advance the 
interests of the charitable sector and enact policy solutions that 
promote, rather than suppress, both short-term and long-term 
philanthropy. We would welcome the opportunity to brief you and your 
staff on our position on this bill. To discuss this legislation, please 
reach out to The Jewish Federations of North America (Stephan.Kline@
JewishFederations.org) or the Community Foundation Public Awareness 
Initiative ([email protected]).

Sincerely,

The Jewish Federations of North America
The Community Foundation Public Awareness Initiative


                         National Organizations
ADL                                  Girls Inc.
Agudath Israel of America            Good News Communications, Inc.
American Jewish Committee            HIAS
American Lung Association            Hillel International
American Red Cross                   JCC Association of North America
Arthritis Foundation                 Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Association of Jewish Aging          Jewish Women International
 Services
B'nai B'rith International           Lutheran Center for Religious
                                      Liberty
BBYO                                 Lutheran Services in America
Citygate Network                     Mennonite Health Services
Council for Christian Colleges and   National Coalition Supporting
 Universities                         Eurasian Jewry
Council for Health and Human         National Philanthropic Trust
 Service
Ministries (United Church of         Network of Jewish Human Service
 Christ)                              Agencies
Dance/USA                            One Mission Society
Disabled Children's Fund             OPERA America
DonorsTrust                          Philanthropy Roundtable
Easterseals                          Stewardship Matters
Evangelical Council for Financial    U.S. Council of Muslim
 Accountability                       Organizations
Faith and Giving                     Union for Reform Judaism
 



                Regional, State, and Local Organizations
Aaron Family JCC of Dallas (TX)      CREATE Foundation (Tupelo, MS)
Adath Israel (Cincinnati, OH)        Dallas Hebrew Free Loan Association
                                      (TX)
Adath Israel of the Main Line        Dayton Foundation (OH)
 (Merion Station, PA)
Adirondack Foundation (Lake Placid,  East Texas Communities Foundation
 NY)
Arizona Community Foundation         East Valley JCC (Chandler, AZ)
Arkansas Community Foundation        Eau Claire Community Foundation
                                      (WI)
Associated: Jewish Community         Erie Community Foundation (PA)
 Federation of Baltimore (MD)
Baltimore Jewish Council (MD)        Fargo-Moorhead Area Foundation (ND)
Birmingham Jewish Federation (AL)    Federated Jewish Charities of
                                      Charleston, Inc. (WV)
Birmingham Jewish Foundation (AL)    Federation for Jewish Philanthropy
                                      of Upper Fairfield County (CT)
Brindza Family Fund (Yorktown, VA)   Federation Housing (Philadelphia,
                                      PA)
Capin Advisory Services (Grayson,    Flint Jewish Federation (MI)
 GA)
Cedar Village Foundation             Foundation for Delaware County (PA)
 (Cincinnati, OH)
Central New York Community           Foundation for the Charlotte Jewish
 Foundation                           Community (NC)
Chabad at Dartmouth (Hanover, NH)    Gesher Jewish Day School (Fairfax,
                                      VA)
Charleston Jewish Federation (SC)    Gratz College (Wyncote, PA)
Cincinnati Community Kollel (OH)     Greater Miami Jewish Federation
                                      (FL)
City Mission of Findlay (OH)         Greater New Orleans Foundation (LA)
Cleveland Foundation (OH)            Greater Toledo Community Foundation
                                      (OH)
Combined Jewish Philanthropies of    Greensboro Jewish Federation (NC)
 Greater Boston (MA)
Communities Foundation of Texas      Guardians of the Sick (Brooklyn,
                                      NY)
Community Foundation Boulder County  Gulf Coast Community Foundation
 (CO)                                 (FL)
Community Foundation for Brevard     Hawaii Community Foundation
 (FL)
Community Foundation for Greater     Hebrew Congregation of St. Thomas
 Buffalo (NY)                         (VI)
Community Foundation for Northeast   Hebrew Day School of Ann Arbor (MI)
 Florida
Community Foundation for Northeast   Hillel at Temple University
 Georgia                              (Philadelphia, PA)
Community Foundation for the         Holland Rescue Mission (MI)
 Greater Capital Region (Albany,
 NY)
Community Foundation of Acadiana     Houston Jewish Community Foundation
 (Lafayette, LA)                      (TX)
Community Foundation of Collier      Idaho Community Foundation
 County (FL)
Community Foundation of Greater      Indianapolis Jewish Community
 Birmingham (AL)                      Relations Council (IN)
Community Foundation of Jackson      JCADA (Rockville, MD)
 Hole (WY)
Community Foundation of Northern     JCC of Greater Baltimore (MD)
 Colorado
Community Foundation of Sarasota     JCRC of Atlanta (GA)
 County (FL)
Community Foundation of St. Joseph   JCRC of Greater Washington (DC)
 County (IN)
Community Foundation of Tompkins     JCRC/AJC (Detroit, MI)
 County (NY)
Community Foundations of the Hudson  JEVS Human Services (Philadelphia,
 Valley (Poughkeepsie, NY)            PA)
Community Foundation of Western      Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode
 Massachusetts                        Island
Congregation Agudat Achim            Jewish Cemeteries of Greater
 (Schenectady, NY)                    Cincinnati (OH)
Congregation Beth Abraham-Jacob      Jewish Communal Fund (New York, NY)
 (Albany, NY)
Congregation Beth El (Bangor, ME)    Jewish Community Federation of
                                      Richmond (VA)
Congregation Beth Shalom (Missoula,  Jewish Community Foundation of
 MT)                                  Greater Kansas City (KS)
Congregation Bnai Israel (Little     Jewish Community Foundation of
 Rock, AR)                            Greater MetroWest NJ
Congregation Brothers of Israel      Jewish Community Foundation of
 (Newtown, PA)                        Greater Phoenix (AZ)
Congregation Etz Chaim (Marietta,    Jewish Community Foundation of San
 GA)                                  Diego (CA)
Congregation Sha'arei Torah          Jewish Federation of Greater
 (Cincinnati, OH)                     Harrisburg (PA)
Jewish Community Foundation of       Jewish Federation of Ocean County
 Southern Arizona                     (NJ)
Jewish Community Foundation of the   Jewish Federation of Omaha
 Minneapolis Jewish Federation (MN)   Foundation (NE)
Jewish Community Foundation, Inc.    Jewish Federation of Orange County
 (Cherry Hill, NJ)                    (CA)
Jewish Community of Louisville Inc.  Jewish Federation of Palm Beach
 (KY)                                 County
Jewish Community Relations Council   Jewish Federation of Princeton
 of Columbus (OH)                     Mercer Bucks (NJ, PA)
Jewish Community Relations Council   Jewish Federation of Reading/Berks
 of Greater Charleston (SC)           (PA)
Jewish Community Relations Council   Jewish Federation of Sacramento
 of Minnesota and the Dakotas         (CA)
Jewish Community Relations Council   Jewish Federation of San Antonio
 of Southern New Jersey               (TX)
Jewish Community Relations Council   Jewish Federation of San Diego
 of the United Jewish Federation of   County (CA)
 Tidewater (VA)
Jewish Community Services            Jewish Federation of Somerset,
 (Baltimore, MD)                      Hunterdon and Warren Counties (NJ)
Jewish Endowment Foundation of       Jewish Federation of South Palm
 Louisiana                            Beach County (FL)
Jewish Family and Children's         Jewish Federation of Southern
 Services, San Francisco Bay Area     Arizona
 (CA)
Jewish Family and Children's         Jewish Federation of Southern NJ
 Service (Cherry Hill, NJ)
Jewish Family and Community          Jewish Federation of St. Louis (MO)
 Services of Pittsburgh (PA)
Jewish Family Service of Colorado    Jewish Federation of the Berkshires
                                      (Pittsfield, MA)
Jewish Family Service of Greater     Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass
 Dallas (TX)                          (Lexington, KY)
Jewish Family Service of Greater     Jewish Federation of the Greater
 New Orleans (LA)                     San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
                                      (CA)
Jewish Family Service of             Jewish Federation of the Lehigh
 Metropolitan Detroit (MI)            Valley (PA)
Jewish Family Service of Somerset,   Jewish Federation of the Virginia
 Hunterdon and Warren Counties (NJ)   Peninsula
Jewish Family Services of            Jewish Federation of Western
 Northeastern New York                Massachusetts
Jewish Federation and Foundation of  Jewish Fertility Foundation
 Northeast Florida                    (Atlanta, GA)
Jewish Federation Association of     Jewish Foundation of Greensboro
 Connecticut                          (NC)
Jewish Federation in the Heart of    Jewish Foundation of Memphis (TN)
 New Jersey (South River, NJ)
Jewish Federation of Broward County  Jewish Foundation of Nashville (TN)
 (FL)
Jewish Federation of Central         Jewish Home of Cincinnati (OH)
 Massachusetts
Jewish Federation of Chicago (IL)    Jewish Interfaith Education
                                      Council, Inc. (Sioux Falls, SD)
Jewish Federation of Cincinnati      Jewish Kids Groups (Atlanta, GA)
 (OH)
Jewish Federation of Cleveland (OH)  Jewish Long Beach (CA)
Jewish Federation of Cumberland,     Jewish Museum of Maryland
 Gloucester and Salem (NJ)
Jewish Federation of Delaware        Jewish Nevada
Jewish Federation of Eastern         Jewish Silicon Valley
 Connecticut
Jewish Federation of El Paso (TX)    Jewish United Fund (Chicago, IL)
Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids    Jewish Volunteer Connection
 (MI)                                 (Baltimore, MD)
Jewish Federation of Greater Ann     Jewish Women's Fund of Atlanta (GA)
 Arbor (MI)
Jewish Federation of Greater         JEWISHcolorado
 Atlanta (GA)
Jewish Federation of Greater         JewishColumbus
 Charlotte (NC)
Jewish Federation of Greater         JFBP LLC (New York, NY)
 Chattanooga (TN)
Jewish Federation of Greater Dallas  Johns Hopkins Hillel (Baltimore,
 (TX)                                 MD)
Jewish Federation of Greater Des     JVS Career Services (Cincinnati,
 Moines (IA)                          OH)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Katz JCC (Cherry Hill, NJ)
 Hartford (CT)
Jewish Federation of Greater         La Crosse Community Foundation (WI)
 Houston (TX)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Long Island Community Foundation
 Indianapolis (IN)                    (NY)
Jewish Federation of Greater Kansas  Lubavitch of Montgomery County (PA)
 City (KS and MO)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Mack's Center for Jewish Education
 MetroWest NJ                         (Baltimore, MD)
Jewish Federation of Greater Naples  Main Line Reform Temple (Wynnewood,
 (FL)                                 PA)
Jewish Federation of Greater New     Mayerson JCC (Cincinnati, OH)
 Orleans (LA)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Memphis Jewish Federation (TN)
 Philadelphia (PA)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Michigan Hillel
 Phoenix (AZ)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Milwaukee Jewish Federation (WI)
 Pittsburgh (PA)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Minneapolis Jewish Federation (MN)
 Portland (OH)
Jewish Federation of Greater         N. E. Miles Jewish Day School
 Rochester (NY)                       (Birmingham, AL)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Nancy and David Wolf Holocaust and
 Rockford (IL)                        Humanity Center (Cincinnati, OH)
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa   New Life Mission (Melbourne, FL)
 Barbara (CA)
Jewish Federation of Greater         New York Community Trust
 Seattle (WA)
Jewish Federation of Greater Toledo  North Louisiana Jewish Federation
 (OH)
Jewish Federation of Greater         Ohio Jewish Communities
 Washington (DC, MD, VA)
Jewish Federation of Howard County   Omaha Community Foundation (NE)
 (MD)
Jewish Federation of Lee and         Open Door Mission (Glens Falls, NY)
 Charlotte Counties (FL)
Jewish Federation of Madison (WI)    Oregon Community Foundation
Jewish Federation of Metropolitan    Parasol Tahoe Community Foundation
 Detroit (MI)                         (NV)
Jewish Federation of Nashville and   Philadelphia Foundation (PA)
 Middle Tennessee
Jewish Federation of New Hampshire   Philadelphia Friendship Circle (PA)
Jewish Federation of New Mexico      Pikes Peak Community Foundation
                                      (CO)
Jewish Federation of Northern New    Pinellas Community Foundation (FL)
 Jersey
 


                                 ______
                                 
                     League of American Orchestras

                       520 8th Avenue, Suite 2005

                           New York, NY 10018

                    https://americanorchestras.org/

              Statement of Simon Woods, President and CEO 
                     League of American Orchestras

The League of American Orchestras thanks the Senate Committee on 
Finance for holding a hearing dedicated to ``Examining Charitable 
Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector.'' Given the prolonged 
duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the nonprofit 
sector, the Committee's hearing is a particularly important opportunity 
to commit to federal policy action that will respond to the unique and 
urgent needs of America's nonprofit sector. The League of American 
Orchestras leads, supports, and champions America's orchestras and the 
vitality of the music they perform. Its diverse membership runs the 
gamut from world-renowned orchestras to community groups, from summer 
festivals to student and youth ensembles, from conservatories to 
libraries, from businesses serving orchestras to individual 
participants in symphonic music. Founded in 1942 and chartered by 
Congress in 1962, the League links a national network of thousands of 
instrumentalists, conductors, managers and administrators, board 
members, volunteers, and business partners.

Orchestras deliver on their nonprofit mission in communities nationwide 
through their vibrant artistry, community partnerships, and commitment 
to lifelong learning through music. Like thousands of other nonprofits 
in the arts, education, and human services, and other local 
organizations, the more than 1,600 American orchestras in communities 
across the United States are classified as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 
organizations. This exemption and the incentive to give private 
donations are essential to sustaining the capacity of orchestras as 
employers, community partners, artistic innovators, and providers of 
lifelong learning. Even as orchestras faced unprecedented challenges 
throughout the course of the pandemic, their resilience and creativity 
are evidenced in their ongoing contributions to their communities and 
innovative strategies to deliver on their nonprofit mission under the 
most extraordinary circumstances. At the height of COVID-19 
restrictions on participation in live performance events, orchestras 
innovated to provide safe live arts experiences, online performances, 
and learning opportunities nationwide. Entering the 2020-21 season, 
orchestras participating in a survey indicated that digital orchestra 
music was being delivered to at-home audiences in the form of live-
streamed concerts (81%), streaming of archival recordings (41%), and 
new creative content curated specifically for social media (59%)--much 
of it free of charge (64%). Orchestras continue to offer both live 
performance events and online offerings, often partnering with 
caregivers, schools, and community-based organizations to reach in-
person and online audiences.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


.epsOrchestras are part of the wider nonprofit economic engine that 
supports workforces and community revitalization amid COVID-19 
recovery. Orchestra expenses totaled more than $2.1 billion in 2019. 
Their economic impact far exceeds that amount as orchestras create 
jobs, engage in commerce with local businesses, and spur local 
expenditures on related goods and services. Orchestras support a 
substantial workforce in communities across the country, engaging a 
large ensemble of 80 or more musicians for concerts, supported by a 
creative workforce of composers, administrative staff, stage 
technicians, ushers, and other professionals. America's adult and youth 
orchestras employ a dynamic team of teaching artists, community 
engagement professionals, and expert program staff that deliver 
lifelong learning through music.

As part of the nonprofit charitable sector, orchestras depend upon 
private philanthropy and civic support to fuel programs that serve 
community needs. Orchestras are 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, 
exist in all 50 states, serving virtually every community, with annual 
budgets ranging from less than $30,000 to more than $100 million. Two 
thirds of all orchestras have budgets under $300,000. The artistic 
presentations, educational offerings, and community-based programming 
generated by the orchestra workforce is supported by a critical 
combination of public and private support, and not by ticket sales 
alone. Support from donors across the economic spectrum is essential to 
making this work possible, as orchestras respond to the needs of 
communities and form partnerships through education, artistic, economic 
development, and social service programs. When examining giving to 
orchestras by individual donors who are not trustees, there is evidence 
of a broad base of community support for the orchestras' work; each 
year from 2010 through 2014, roughly 75% of the gifts made by non-
trustee individuals were under $250, including 45% under $100, and 30% 
in the $100-$249 range. Community members with a wide range of economic 
means find value in their local orchestras and invest in their 
sustainability.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made charitable giving even more essential. 
Prior to the onset of the pandemic, private giving accounted for 43% of 
orchestra revenues. Like for-profit businesses, orchestras suffered 
severe earned revenue losses that threatened their workforces and their 
missions. By the summer of 2020--even before the full force of the 
pandemic was felt--orchestras responding to a League survey reported 
that private giving accounted for 51% of the revenues that support the 
orchestras' workforces and mission. While decisions about operations 
during the pandemic have been closely connected to local and state 
public health mandates and each orchestra's individual financial 
situation continues to vary based on the return to live in-person 
performances, very many continue to suffer significant pandemic-related 
revenue losses. As infection rates fell on the retreat of the Delta 
variant, orchestras began to make gains in ticket sales, which provided 
hope for recovery in the longer term. However, the return of audiences 
from week to week was uneven, and the onset of the Omicron variant has 
had a severe and long-reaching impact on orchestras' financial capacity 
and workforce. Orchestras recently surveyed by the League are 
projecting ongoing revenue declines and increasing costs. When asked to 
look ahead to their potential organizational capacity for their fiscal 
year 2023 operations, only 35% were confident or very confident that 
philanthropy would sustain at its current level and only 32% were 
confident or very confident that ticket revenue would recover to its 
2019 level.

We urge the Committee to partner with the nonprofit sector to ensure 
that any future pandemic-related or long-term support for the small 
business sector is structured so that nonprofit organizations are 
assured eligibility. Careful attention by Congress to nonprofit 
eligibility for COVID relief was essential to unlocking access to 
relief for orchestras and other nonprofit organizations. Federal 
support has made it possible to keep doors open, utility bills paid, 
and many workers on payroll, but the duration of the pandemic continues 
to strain all revenue sources and new and renewed federal assistance is 
needed. We are extremely grateful for the federal support to-date that 
has provided essential assistance during such an unprecedented and 
prolonged public health crisis. Of orchestras responding to a recent 
League of American Orchestras survey, 92% reported that federal relief 
had a significant or very significant impact on their ability to 
maintain their performance and other program activity, and 90% reported 
that these funds had a significant or very significant impact on their 
ability to retain their workforce. In addition to Shuttered Venue 
Operators Grants and dedicated National Endowment for the Arts funding, 
nonprofit access to forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans, 
Employee Retention Tax Credits, enhanced charitable giving incentives, 
and other forms governmental assistance have helped to see orchestras 
through the first two years of the pandemic. However, most forms of 
federal relief expired at the end of 2021, and the need for help 
persists.

Orchestras and the wider nonprofit sector will be essential 
contributors to our nation's recovery from the pandemic and must be 
supported by federal policies that restore and further strengthen the 
sector nationwide. The League of American Orchestras is closely 
partnered with the National Council of Nonprofits, Independent Sector, 
and the Charitable Giving Coalition in support of comprehensive policy 
action to increase support for the nation's charitable sector, and we 
support the written recommendations submitted to this committee by 
those organizations. We urge the Committee to lead Congressional action 
on policies that are urgently needed, and to seek partnership with the 
nonprofit sector to ensure that long-term federal leadership 
proactively supports our nation's charitable and philanthropic sectors.

This Committee can support the following action on active proposals 
related to tax policy and the nonprofit sector:

      Increase charitable giving by reinstating and making permanent 
the above-the-line, universal charitable deduction. Federal COVID-19 
Relief recognized how important giving incentives are by including in 
the CARES Act a $300 ``universal charitable deduction'' available to 
all taxpayers and extending that provision in the COVID-19 Economic 
Relief Bill along with allowing up to a $600 deduction for joint filers 
in 2021. Expanding and making this provision permanent will grow the 
capacity of the nonprofit arts sector to support communities. While the 
initial impulse to give comes from the heart, studies have repeatedly 
shown that charitable giving incentives have a significant impact on 
how much and when donors contribute.

      Reinstate the ability for individuals who itemize on their taxes 
to deduct up to 100% of their adjusted gross income for charitable 
contributions, and the ability of corporations to deduct up to 25% of 
taxable income.

      Enact the Legacy IRA Act, which would expand the Charitable IRA 
Rollover to treat donations made by retirees to gift annuity programs 
as pre-tax income.

      Reinstate the Employee Retention Tax Credit for the fourth 
quarter of 2021 and extend its duration, modifying nonprofit 
eligibility beyond the current ``gross receipts'' test. Orchestras are 
among the many nonprofit employers that have been counting on quarter 
four 2021 access to the ERTC to support the decisions they made to 
bring employees back on the payroll and increase operating capacity to 
serve their communities.

      Enact the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which would encourage 
new gifts by living composers and conductors, including original 
manuscripts, marked scores, and performance notes. For composers and 
conductors considering whether to contribute their works and archives 
to a charitable organization or to make them available to private 
collectors, the ability to take a fair-market value tax deduction may 
be the key incentive that allows the artist to contribute their work to 
a nonprofit cultural organization.

      Enact the Performing Artist Tax Parity Act of 2021, which would 
reinstate deductions for unreimbursed employee business expenses. 
Across occupations, comprehensive tax reform passed into law in 2017 
eliminated the opportunity to deduct unreimbursed employee business 
expenses that exceed 2% of adjusted gross income. For musicians who are 
employees, this means that the costs of supplies, instruments, 
professional dues, and other expenses essential to employment are no 
longer tax-deductible.

      Support dedicated relief resources for nonprofit organizations 
and their workforce, as proposed in the WORK Now Act.

On behalf of the 1,200 nonprofit orchestras and 400 nonprofit youth 
orchestras across the nation, the League of American Orchestras is 
incredibly grateful for the leadership from this Committee to examine 
ways that the federal government can support our nation's nonprofit 
sector. Enhanced federal incentives for charitable giving and 
leadership to support the strength and growth of nonprofit 
organizations, will support orchestras' workers, operating costs, and 
mission-critical activity. Thank you for this opportunity to share ways 
in which this Committee and the broader federal government can increase 
support for the nonprofit sector.

                                 ______
                                 
                     Michigan Nonprofit Association

                     330 Marshall Street, Suite 200

                           Lansing, MI 48912

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance

On behalf of the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the more than 
50,000 charitable nonprofits in our state, I write in advance of the 
upcoming hearing, ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in the 
Nonprofit Sector,'' to thank you for your past support for pandemic 
relief, to update you on the ongoing challenges that nonprofits are 
facing, and to explain the need for targeted relief within the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.

In the face of the ongoing public health and economic crises, too many 
Michigan nonprofits are still struggling to meet increased demands for 
services, confronting a combination of decreased revenue, expenses that 
are higher than pre-pandemic, and nonprofit workforce and volunteer 
staffing shortages. See the results of the National COVID-19 Community 
Impact Survey \1\ administered by the Federal Reserve System. The 
relief provided by Congress made the difference for many organizations 
by replacing revenues lost due to declines in individual and corporate 
giving, fees for service, and canceled fundraising events. The largest 
of these by far was forgivable loans under the Paycheck Protection 
Program. More than 6,500 Michigan nonprofits received nearly $1 billion 
in forgiven PPP loans in 2020 and 2021, according to Small Business 
Administration data.\2\ Those funds saved about 170,000 nonprofit jobs, 
the SBA reports, which enabled these organizations to serve our 
communities. However, the PPP program and most other pandemic relief 
programs have expired, yet the need for, and burdens on, charitable 
organizations remain great.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://fedcommunities.org/data/main-street-covid19-survey-
2021/.
    \2\ https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/
interactive-dashboards/paycheck-protection-program.

With the above context, we bring to your attention three areas of 
challenges that nonprofits are facing and propose tax policy solutions 
for your consideration: the lack of resources, the lack of staff, and 
the lack of volunteers--all of which are essential to advancing 
nonprofit missions.

Charitable Giving Has Not Kept Up

Charitable giving nationwide has not kept up with need and rising 
expenses. The 2021 Giving USA report \3\ found that individual giving 
decreased by nearly 0.8 percent in 2020 compared with 2019, when one 
major donor's contributions are removed from the data. A separate 
analysis, the Nonprofit Trends and Impacts 2021 from the Urban 
Institute, found that small nonprofits were under particular stress. 
``Forty-two percent of organizations with budgets under $500,000 
experienced decreased donations in 2020, compared with 29 percent of 
organizations with budgets of $500,000 or more.'' Nonprofits that said 
donations were essential to their revenue stream were also more likely 
to experience decreased donations in 2020. In Michigan, our data show 
nonprofits with budgets under $1,000,000 report that financial support 
generated by individual donations is down 46 percent. With donations 
cut in half, many of Michigan's small nonprofits find themselves in 
dire need of financial assistance with only 3 to 6 months of operating 
cash on hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://store.givingusa.org/pages/annual-subscription.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Policy Solutions
In the aftermath of virtually every natural disaster since Hurricane 
Katrina, Congress has recognized the value of nonprofit relief and 
recovery efforts by enacting charitable giving incentives that 
encourage some individuals and corporations to help cover some of the 
costs of these community-based services. The COVID-19 pandemic and 
resulting economic crises have certainly qualified as natural disasters 
and Congress--on a bipartisan basis--swiftly enacted giving incentives 
for those who itemize and corporations. Recognizing the catastrophic 
impact of the health and economic crises, Congress went further by 
enacting, and then expanding and extending, the universal charitable or 
nonitemizer deduction to ensure that all taxpayers, including those who 
claim the standard deduction received a tax benefit for giving back to 
their communities by supporting the work of charitable nonprofits.

As a cosponsor of the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery 
Act,\4\ S. 618, you know well the benefits of the nonitemizer 
charitable giving incentive. Like you, the Michigan Nonprofit 
Association fully endorses this important piece of legislation because 
it will further promote giving by all American taxpayers--regardless of 
their income--to give to the work of charitable nonprofits, thereby 
ensuring that our country retains a strong and independent civil 
society. It will also provide needed resources for charitable and 
faith-based organizations to continue providing vital services to 
families, workers, and communities, especially those critically 
impacted by the ongoing pandemic. We ask that you make a strong 
statement in support of S. 618 during Thursday's hearing and encourage 
your colleagues to join you in supporting this bill to strengthen our 
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/618/
text?q=%7B%22search%22%
3A%5B%22s618%22%2C%22s618%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1.

Similarly, we ask that you speak in support of extending the two 
additional disaster-relief giving incentives that expired on December 
31, 2021--the provision permitting individuals who itemize to deduct 
charitable donations up to 100% of their adjusted gross income and the 
measure allowing corporations to deduct charitable donations up to 25% 
of taxable income.

Nonprofit Workforce Shortages Crisis

One of the greatest challenges that nonprofits of every type of mission 
are experiencing is the inability to hire and retain qualified workers. 
The Federal Reserve survey, referenced above, found that 40% of 
responding organizations reported that staffing levels are down. As of 
December 2021, the nonprofit sector was still more than 450,000 short 
of pre-pandemic levels, according to the report COVID-19 Jobs Update, 
December 2021 \5\ from the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns 
Hopkins University. The report found, ``as of the end of 2021, 
nonprofits have recovered approximately 72.1% of the jobs estimated to 
have been lost as of May 2020.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://ccss.jhu.edu/december-2021-jobs/.

This past fall, the National Council of Nonprofits conducted a survey 
of the difficulties nonprofits across the country were confronting in 
retaining staff and filling vacancies. Three out of five (60%) survey 
respondents reported vacancies of between 10% and 30%, according to the 
NCN report, The Scope and Impact of Nonprofit Workforce Shortages,\6\ 
published in December. Another 16% reported vacancies greater than 30%. 
Nationwide, nonprofits explained the causes of the vacancies as salary 
competition, typically with employers outside the nonprofit sector 
(79%) and the inability of potential employees to find childcare (23%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-workforce-shortages-report.pdf.

The survey responses of Michigan nonprofits make clear that these 
workforce challenges are no mere inconveniences; they are hurting the 
people the organizations serve. A related challenge is payment 
schedules. A nonprofit healthcare provider shared, ``Child Welfare 
program consists of taking care of foster care children, licensing of 
foster care homes and we have had 50% turn over within the last year 
(COVID) and we are not able to find fully licensed social workers to 
service our mental health and substance abuse/addiction clients.'' A 
Marquette human services provider explained, ``We have significantly 
raised our entry wage and created a pay scale for staff,'' adding, ``We 
continue to not be able to compete with state wages and benefits for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the exact same job.''

To another Michigan human service provider, ``The most significant 
problem is granted funds are coming in extremely slow.'' In particular, 
``Granting municipalities and government agencies have not awarded 
funds for the 2021-2022 program year, which began in July 2021.'' 
Almost needless to say, the nonprofit observed, ``This has hindered our 
ability to hire and extend program hours.''

Finally, a professional at an education-focused nonprofit had this 
plea: ``Please help to support the concerns within [the nonprofit 
policy priorities letter].\7\ As a servant to the community, it is 
becoming much more difficult to address the needs of our impoverished 
community with limited staffing. Increasing wages at the beginning of a 
program year is easy, but the financial struggle is finding funding 
throughout the program year for new hires. This would be considered a 
financial, unforeseen cost, which has proven to be difficult to 
resolve.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-work
force-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advocacy%
20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Policy Solutions
The Michigan Nonprofit Association and dozens of Michigan nonprofits 
joined more than 1,500 organizations from all 50 states in signing onto 
the recent letter to Congress and the Administration seeking Pandemic 
and Workforce Shortage Relief for Charitable Nonprofits.\8\ Among other 
things, that letter calls on Congress to address critical staffing 
shortages at nonprofits by retroactively restoring the Employee 
Retention Tax Credit, as proposed in the bipartisan ERTC Reinstatement 
Act (S. 3625) and extending this refundable payroll tax credit through 
2022. To the address the unique impact of nonprofit workforce shortages 
on individuals and communities, we ask that you modify nonprofit 
eligibility under the ERTC beyond the current ``gross receipts'' test 
to ensure more nonprofits qualify. We also request that Congress revise 
the definition of eligible payroll expenses under the ERTC to include 
childcare and education subsidies to reflect the increased costs 
charitable organizations experienced as they struggle to maintain or 
expand services. We believe this improvement is justified because, 
unlike for-profit employers, tax-exempt nonprofits are not currently 
able to receive income-tax relief for providing those employee 
benefits. Our proposal provides a level of tax fairness and parity that 
does not currently exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-work
force-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advocacy%
20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volunteers Have Not Returned

A unique aspect of charitable organizations is that they can expand 
their impact by leveraging the commitment of armies of volunteers who 
are dedicated to the work of nonprofits in their communities. Pre-
pandemic estimates by AmeriCorps \9\ indicate that the volunteerism 
rate in Michigan was 29.4%, contributing 185.9 million hours of 
service. Nationally and in Michigan, nonprofits reported throughout the 
pandemic that volunteerism dropped precipitously. Now, however, as many 
businesses return to public operations, many nonprofits still have not 
seen their volunteers return to pre-pandemic levels. Volunteering is 
still depressed--parents have additional family demands, older 
Michiganders and others from vulnerable populations have safety 
concerns with returning to in-person volunteering, and in general 
people are stressed and have reduced time and energy to volunteer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/
Volunteering_in_America_States_508.
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Policy Solutions
As discussed in the recent nonprofit letter on policy priorities,\10\ 
Congress can incentivize volunteerism by eliminating unfair tax 
policies. Specifically, we seek an increase in the Volunteer Mileage 
Rate for nonprofit volunteer drivers to the business rate (58.5 cents/
mile) for 2022 and the elimination of the tax on mileage reimbursements 
up to the business rate. The rapid increase in gas prices means that 
many nonprofits will need to reimburse their volunteers for driving on 
the charity's behalf. Yet, those drivers will be forced to pay income 
tax on any reimbursement rate greater than the volunteer mileage 
statutory rate of 14 cents per mile. This existing tax policy, enforced 
at both the federal and state levels, imposes a disincentive on all but 
the most well-off volunteers. It is unfair, harmful to the missions of 
charitable organizations, and must be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-
workforce-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advoca
cy%20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Rescue Plan Act Resources

Before closing, I want to raise an important issue that, while not 
within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, is of critical concern to 
the charitable nonprofits in our state. The American Rescue Plan Act 
allocated $10.9 billion to governments in Michigan through the 
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund. The federal 
government is showing tremendous trust that governments closest to the 
people and their problems are best positioned to decide the best ways 
to spend their allocated resources to meet local needs. While available 
for many purposes, the statute and Treasury Department regulations make 
abundantly clear that governments at all levels may use these funds in 
partnership with charitable nonprofits to address many challenges in 
our communities. The Michigan Nonprofit Association is actively engaged 
in working with state and local officials to ensure the money is 
properly invested. We ask that you and your Senate colleagues allow 
these ARPA funds to go to the state and local governments as scheduled 
so that we may achieve greater impact.

Conclusion

As you consider the issues raised during the Finance Committee hearing, 
we ask that you reflect in the important, sustaining work that Michigan 
nonprofits performed throughout the pandemic and recognize that our 
challenges are far from over. Most for-profit businesses and government 
offices have or soon will reopen to something amounting to normal 
business. Most charitable organizations--particularly those addressing 
the immediate needs of our residents--never had the luxury of closing. 
Yet, at this stage in the pandemic when demand for nonprofit services 
remains high, Michigan's nonprofits remain short of resources to meet 
normal as well as pandemic-related expenses. But we don't just lack 
adequate resources; our nonprofits lack the staff and volunteers to 
meet the very high needs, which is resulting in waiting lists, denial 
of services, and outright closures of local nonprofits. In light of 
these compelling challenges, we ask that you champion tax-policy 
solutions, at the hearing and in the Senate, that will restore and 
enhance the charitable giving incentives and the Employee Retention Tax 
Credit and remove tax disincentives for volunteers to support the 
missions of nonprofits in their communities.

Sincerely,

Kelley J. Kuhn
President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                     National Council of Nonprofits

                   1001 G Street, NW, Suite 700 East

                          Washington, DC 20001

                              202-962-0322

                        councilofnonprofits.org

           Statement of Tim Delaney, President and CEO; and 
           David L. Thompson, Vice President of Public Policy

Charitable nonprofits improve our lives, add vitality to our 
communities, contribute to our local and national economies, and 
enhance the health of our democracy. But too often, nonprofits are 
taken for granted and under-resourced, limiting their ability to 
advance their missions.

The National Council of Nonprofits is the largest network of nonprofits 
in North America. We focus on the 97% of charitable nonprofits with 
budgets under $5 million--food banks, neighborhood health clinics, 
community theatres, domestic violence shelters, senior centers, and 
more--the organizations whose absence would leave huge voids in their 
communities. Working with our core network and other collaborative 
partners, we champion, inform, and connect organizations across the 
country to get things done for nonprofits and the people and 
communities they serve.

Overview

Your constituents and our nation benefit from and depend on local 
charitable nonprofits. Those organizations are still struggling under 
severe strains as they help our communities through and out of the 
worst public-health and economic crises of our lifetimes. Congress 
initially enacted tax policies and programs to build a bridge to get 
our country, including nonprofits, safely to the other side of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. But most of those policies and programs expired 
before safety could be reached, in part because surges of the Delta and 
Omicron variants prolonged the pandemic, further disrupting lives and 
nonprofit operations. The continuing difficulties have made the 
unprecedented--and accelerating--nonprofit workforce shortage even more 
complex. It is imperative that Congress swiftly restore and revise tax 
policies and programs that will enable charitable organizations to 
advance their missions on which so many rely.

 Multiple Forces Have Put Charitable Nonprofits Under Severe Strains, 
                    Placing Your Constituents at Risk

The public is at risk because nonprofits do not have the resources and 
support they need to meet the soaring demands for their services. This 
condition predates the pandemic;\1\ the country's dual health and 
economic crises have severely exacerbated the problem. Too many 
nonprofits are still struggling to meet increased demands for their 
services, confronting a combination of both decreased revenues and 
higher expenses than pre-pandemic levels. Consequently, extreme burnout 
of paid and volunteer staff has created a dangerous nonprofit workforce 
shortage. The public cannot afford for Congress to ignore this growing 
crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nonprofitimpactmatters.org/site/assets/files/1/
nonprofit-impact-matters-sept-2019-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public's Needs Exceed Nonprofit Capacity
We urge you to consider these alarming trends:

      More than 75 percent of the 2,237 charitable nonprofits 
responding to an August 2021 nationwide survey by the Federal Reserve 
reported that demand for their services had increased over pre-pandemic 
levels. See Perspectives from Main Street: The impact of COVID-19 on 
communities and the entities serving them,\2\ Federal Reserve Community 
Development Staff, Oct. 12, 2021 (separate run of charitable nonprofit 
responses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://fedcommunities.org/data/main-street-covid19-survey-
2021/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Almost half (45 percent) noted a decrease in their ability to 
meet those needs.
      A quarter (26 percent) of the more than a thousand charitable 
nonprofits from all 50 states responding to a late 2021 nationwide 
survey by the National Council of Nonprofits reported that demand for 
their services had so exceeded their capacity that they had to create a 
waiting list that is more than a month long, with some organizations 
highlighting that some clients have had to wait years to receive 
services. Another 21 percent said they do not have a wait list--
because, without adequate resources, they are no longer accepting new 
clients or referrals and have had to turn people away. (Combined, that 
is 46 percent unable to meet demands.) See The Scope and Impact of 
Nonprofit Workforce Shortages,\3\ National Council of Nonprofits, 
December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-workforce-shortages-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These results are consistent with what state associations of 
nonprofits across the country have documented through their own 
statewide surveys \4\ of the pandemic's impact on nonprofits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/data-how-the-pandemic-and-
economic-crises-are-affecting-nonprofits.

The Federal Reserve survey also documented significant financial 
strains on charitable nonprofits:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://fedcommunities.org/data/main-street-covid19-survey-
2021/.

      Expenses had increased for nearly three-quarters of the 
responding organizations--and that was before inflation shot up to the 
current rate of 7.9 percent.
      Individual donations and corporate donations were each down for 
nearly half of the nonprofits--and significantly down for nearly a 
fourth.

Those results are consistent with other recent reports. The Nonprofit 
Trends and Impacts 2021 \6\ Research Report from the Urban Institute 
found that 40 percent of organizations reported losses in total revenue 
for 2020. Smaller nonprofits were under heightened stress. ``Forty-two 
percent of organizations with budgets under $500,000 experienced 
decreased donations in 2020, compared with 29 percent of organizations 
with budgets of $500,000 or more.'' Nonprofits that said donations were 
essential to their revenue stream were also more likely to have 
experienced decreased donations in 2020.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-trends-
and-impacts-2021/view/full_
report.
    \7\ At first glance, two reports suggest that giving increased in 
2020 compared with 2019. But when removing MacKenzie Scott's outsized 
contributions ($6 billion) to 460 organizations from the data in the 
2021 Giving USA report (https://ccss.jhu.edu/december-2021-jobs/), 
individual giving decreased by nearly 0.8 percent. The Fundraising 
Effectiveness Project [FEP] (https://afpglobal.org/
FundraisingEffectivenessProject) report suggests that the numbers of 
donations and donors rose in 2020. However, Ben Miller, Chief Analytic 
Officer of Donor Trends and Vice Chair of the FEP, explained when 
interviewed, ``An important nuance to the Fundraising Effectiveness 
Project's reports is that we are measuring the average increase in 
donors and dollars. For 2020, this could be misleading because, while 
in total there were more donors and dollars as compared to 2019, the 
majority of organizations actually saw decreases in both. While 
donations increased by 10.6 percent on average, the median result was 
actually a 6.6 percent decrease in donations. Donors increased by 7.3 
percent on average, but the median was down by 7.6 percent. This means 
that the majority of nonprofits saw declines in both donations and 
donors in 2020, even though more people donated more money.'' See The 
Data Show What We Already Know: Nonprofit Helpers Need Help (https://
www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/business/economy/cpi-inflation-february-
2022.html#::text=Inflation%20Rises%20to%207.9%20Percent%20
for%20February%202022%20%2D%20The%20New%20York%20Timeshttps://
www.councilofnon
profits.org/thought-leadership/the-data-show-what-we-know-the-
nonprofit-helpers-need-help), Amy Silver O'Leary, National Council of 
Nonprofits, Nov. 23, 2021 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unprecedented--and Dangerous--Nonprofit Workforce Shortages
One of the greatest challenges that nonprofits of every type of mission 
are experiencing across the country is the inability to hire and retain 
qualified workers. The Federal Reserve survey, referenced above, found 
that staffing levels were down for more than 40 percent of the 
nonprofits surveyed. Indeed, as recently as December the nonprofit 
sector was still more than 450,000 short of pre-pandemic levels, 
according to the COVID-19 Jobs Update, December 2021 \8\ from the 
Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University. The 
report found, ``as of the end of 2021, nonprofits have [only] recovered 
approximately 72.1% of the jobs estimated to have been lost as of May 
2020.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://ccss.jhu.edu/december-2021-jobs/.

Yet what was initially considered to be a challenge for nonprofits has 
become a crisis due to burdens of the pandemic era. The crisis needs 
rapid remedy. To better understand the extent and causes for nonprofits 
confronting difficulties in retaining staff and filling vacancies, the 
National Council of Nonprofits conducted a survey late last year. A 
third of nonprofits (34%) reported job vacancy rates of between 10% and 
19%, and a troubling 26% responded that they had job openings for 20% 
to 29% of their positions. Another 16% percent reported vacancies 
greater than 30 percent. See The Scope and Impact of Nonprofit 
Workforce Shortages,\9\ December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-workforce-shortages-report.pdf.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Although nonprofits nationwide reported various factors creating 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the difficulties, they identified two predominant causes:

    1.  Salary competition--four out of five nonprofits (79%) 
identified it as a factor. Even those startling numbers do not tell the 
full story. Frontline practitioners from across the country shared 
their observations about the reasons behind the growing nonprofit 
workforce shortages, why they matter in the real world, and how it 
affects their communities.

          North Carolina human service professional: ``Pay is the 
biggest challenge, as many organizations (for profit and nonprofit) are 
competing for the same groups of people,'' and ``we can't always 
compete with salary, benefits, and hours.''
          Texas human service provider: other employers ``are 
basically poaching from nonprofits that cannot offer the higher pay.''

         Survey participants noticed a distinct change in who is luring 
nonprofit employees away:

          Massachusetts nonprofit: direct ``competition from retail 
sector.''
          New York City early childhood center: the City's Department 
of Education has its own shortages, and ``as a result, they are 
poaching our staff to fill their vacancies.''
          Rhode Island family services provider: ``The inability to 
compensate staff adequately, based on their education and experience, 
often leads to high staff turnover rates, low workplace morale, and 
high levels of burnout among providers.''
          Maryland nonprofit about government contract/grant problems: 
``We cannot provide the same level of service, let alone meet current 
increased demands due to COVID, without an increase that allows us to 
cover increased costs, the need to raise salaries and bring on new 
staff.'' Consequently, ``our ability to meet the demand for our 
services continues to decrease every year.''

         The result is that nonprofits are suffering a brain and 
experience drain as longtime professionals leave the sector--and the 
missions they support--because the under-resourced nonprofits cannot 
compete. That drain, and the inability of nonprofit to replace staff, 
results too often in the public facing delayed or complete loss of 
services.

    2.  Inability to find child care--a quarter (23%) identified it as 
a factor. Nonprofit and other employers also face a significant 
challenge in attracting and retaining job candidates due to the lack of 
availability of high-quality, affordable, and available child care. 
Because women comprise 66 percent of the nonprofit workforce, they are 
disproportionately impacted by the lack of child care, in part due to 
the outsized caregiving burden they carry for their households and 
communities. As employers and, in many cases, child care providers, 
charitable nonprofits are deeply concerned that the lack of child care 
and equitable wages are impediments to all; as one expert said on a 
recent Federal Reserve webinar, ``There is no recovery of the economy 
without child care.'' Maintaining quality, safety and enriching 
environments that nurture children is costly. Yet, nonprofit child care 
providers are reluctant to pass on higher costs to families because the 
price of child care already makes this critical service out of reach 
for too many families. Therefore, we urge Congress to provide robust 
funding to expand access to high quality child care that is affordable, 
dependable, and accessible, and supports livable wages and skill-based 
training for nonprofit child care professionals.
A Precipitous Decline in Volunteerism

The brewing crisis of the nonprofit workforce shortage is not just with 
paid nonprofit employees. The shortage extends to nonprofits' volunteer 
workforce.

Many types of nonprofits rely on volunteers, such as drivers delivering 
meals to homebound individuals. Yet volunteerism has fallen 
dramatically since the pandemic hit, thus limiting the ability of 
organizations to continue providing pandemic relief and recovery. The 
pandemic kept, and is keeping, many long-term volunteers away as they 
stopped donating their time and talent out of concern for public health 
(their own, and to avoid becoming a carrier who could unknowingly 
transmit COVID-19).

For a variety of reasons, volunteers have not been returning. Parents 
have additional family demands, older individuals and others from 
vulnerable populations have safety concerns with returning to in-person 
volunteering, and in general people are stressed and have reduced time 
and energy to volunteer.

An old tax policy is also prohibiting volunteers from returning and new 
volunteers from stepping forward. Nonprofits have begun hearing from 
more people who used to donate their time that they cannot afford to 
volunteer because of the high cost of gas. This week, the average price 
of a gallon of gasoline is $4.43, following Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine, according to USA Today.\10\ When Congress established the 
statutory 14 cents per mile as the Volunteer Mileage Rate in 1997, the 
average cost of gasoline was $1.23, according to the U.S. Department of 
Energy.\11\ Yet for a quarter century, Congress has never gone back to 
increase that mileage rate. See generally Charitable Volunteers Mileage 
Reimbursement,\12\ Congressional Research Service, RS20296, May 30, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-03-13/average-us-
gas-price-spikes-79-cents-over-2-weeks-to-4-43.
    \11\ https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-888-august-31-2015-
historical-gas-prices.
    \12\ https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20080530_RS20296_50efe63efb9b50d43b510d7db6c4
b7555051709f.pdf.

When volunteers are no longer available, the only choices for 
charitable nonprofits are to stop providing the services or try to hire 
people to fill cover those shifts. As a North Carolina human services 
nonprofit reported, ``We are finding that volunteers are not returning, 
resulting in a need to hire for positions previously filled by 
volunteers.'' But that returns to the challenge of raising adequate 
funds. As a Minnesota arts organization wrote, ``Because history 
museums grew out of volunteer-only organizations (and many still are 
volunteer-only), we have had difficulty as a field finding sufficient 
funding streams to hire the staff we truly need to operate.''
 Profound Risks for the Public When Nonprofits Cannot Operate at Full 
        Capacity
Participants in the National Council of Nonprofits workforce survey 
made clear their views that the toll on community members' lives caused 
by workforce shortages is significant and regrettable. Among the 
nonprofits reporting at least a one-month waiting list for services is 
a domestic violence shelter in Montana. Another organization reported 
having as many as 1,500 children on their waiting list. ``We are having 
difficulty filling child care positions--educators/teachers,'' a 
Vermont human service provider shared. ``This has caused us to close 
classrooms, consolidate and put burden and pressure on our existing 
staff,'' they lamented, adding ``the alternative is not serving 
families who need child care.''

Many organizations explained that, due to job vacancies, they had been 
forced to limit services and reduce the number of individuals they 
could assist. One stated, ``We do not keep a wait list, but we serve 
less than 5% of those calling for shelter or rent and utility 
assistance.'' Another acknowledged, ``We have had to close for business 
several times during the past 9 months due to being at capacity.''

The human toll extends beyond people needing services; it often 
includes nonprofit employees and volunteers working beyond their 
sustainable capacities to ensure services continue to be provided to as 
many people as possible. As an Illinois nonprofit leader observed when 
completing the survey, ``The stress of covering vacant positions on top 
of low pay is overwhelming,'' with ``some staff covering 
responsibilities for three other positions simultaneously.'' So, being 
forced to cut back is not due to a lack of will or dedication. Rather, 
there are simply human limitations. A human services provider in Oregon 
shared, ``Our frontline workers are exhausted and under stress.'' Added 
another, ``The nature of the work we do in providing support to trauma 
survivors and the hours we operate take a toll on staff during the best 
of times.'' They continued with insights on the reality of our times: 
``During a pandemic, where staff have to juggle personal and 
professional challenges in new and wildly different ways, the rates of 
burnout are exponential.''

In summary, nonprofits facing job vacancies reported a number of coping 
techniques ranging from ``cutting programing to focus on client service 
delivery'' to having to ``turn people away many times in a month.'' 
Some described how they adjusted days and times to continue providing 
at least some services. Still others have been forced to refuse added 
caseloads. Too many organizations in the nonprofit community maxed out 
on their capacity long ago. Something must be done, for nonprofits and 
for the public relying on those nonprofits.
_______________________________________________________________________

                      The Context: How We Got Here
 Every one of your constituents benefits from the work of America's 1.3
 million charitable nonprofits, whether directly or indirectly:
 nonprofits protect, feed, heal, shelter, educate, inspire, enlighten,
 nurture, and console.
 
 When the pandemic first struck, small and midsize nonprofits embedded
 in local communities mobilized to offer critical support. They were
 determined, innovative, and--ultimately--exhausted doing so much more,
 for so many more people, for much longer than anyone imagined.
 
 The pandemic initially wiped out more than 1.6 million nonprofit jobs.
 Simultaneously, the public's reliance on and demand for nonprofit
 services skyrocketed for hundreds of thousands of nonprofits while
 revenues plummeted for most, straining too many organizations past
 capacity and jeopardizing delivery of drastically needed services.
 
 In 2020, recognizing how heavily your constituents were and would be
 relying on charitable nonprofits to provide relief, Congress supported
 the work of nonprofits by making charitable nonprofits eligible for
 Paycheck Protection Program (``PPP'') loans, including nonprofits in
 the Employee Retention Tax Credit (``ERTC''), providing (limited)
 unemployment insurance relief, and enacting enhanced charitable giving
 incentives.
 
 But then Congress closed the PPP program in May 2021, ended
 unemployment relief to workers and employers before Labor Day,
 retroactively stopped the ERTC program at the end of September, and let
 all of the enhanced charitable giving incentives expire on December 31.
 In hindsight, Congress ended those programs prematurely, because the
 COVID-19 pandemic--fueled by the Delta and Omicron variants that surged
 after most of the relief programs ended--continues to ravage our
 nation's health, economy, and recovery.
 
 Consequently, the sudden removal of relief programs--while pandemic-
 related economic struggles continue--has hit nonprofits especially
 hard, once again threatening the ability of nonprofits to operate and
 deliver services on which your constituents and our nation rely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to Move Forward: Bipartisan Policy Solutions Exist

The solutions identified below are neither novel nor entirely our own. 
Rather, more than 1,500 charitable nonprofits from all 50 states and 
the District of Columbia have signed the attached joint Nonprofit 
Community Letter on the Pandemic and Workforce Shortage Relief for 
Charitable Nonprofits.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-
workforce-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Action%20Alert%20
%20Nonprofit%20Pandemic%20and%20Workforce%20Shortage%20Relief&utm_medium
=email.

Those 1,500+ organizations call on Congress and the President to enact 
legislation that would help charitable nonprofits overcome three 
obstacles limiting their ability to advance their missions of helping 
people in local communities: lack of resources, lack of staff, and lack 
of volunteers. That letter identifies multiple policy solutions within 
each category. The Senate Finance Committee has direct jurisdiction on 
the seven enumerated solutions below.
Generate Resources to Meet the Needs of Relief and Recovery
Charitable giving is down, and giving incentives enacted by Congress 
have expired. For charitable nonprofits to have the resources they need 
to continue to operate and provide needed disaster relief and recovery 
in local communities, Congress needs to restore and improve tax 
incentives for charitable giving. We call on Congress to give priority 
to the three disaster relief charitable giving incentives that expired 
at the end of 2021:

    1.  Renew the universal charitable (non-itemizer) deduction at 
least through 2022 and improve it by significantly increasing the cap 
on the deduction, as proposed in the bipartisan Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S.618/H.R.1704).

    2.  Reinstate the 100% AGI cap on individual donations to permit 
individuals who itemize to deduct charitable donations up to 100% of 
their adjusted gross income.

    3.  Reinstate the 25% income tax cap on corporate donations to 
allow corporations to deduct charitable donations up to 25% of their 
taxable income.
Address Critical Staffing Shortages
Charitable organizations need relief from the devastating and well-
documented nonprofit workforce shortage.\14\ Specifically, we ask that 
Congress reinstate and improve the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) 
in these ways:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-workforce-shortages-report.pdf.

    4.  Retroactively restore the ERTC, as proposed in the bipartisan 
ERTC Reinstatement Act (H.R. 6161/S. 3625) and extend this refundable 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
payroll tax credit through 2022.

    5.  Modify the ERTC eligibility for nonprofits beyond the current 
``gross receipts'' test to ensure more nonprofits qualify as a way to 
address the impact of the unique impact of nonprofit workforce 
shortages on individuals and communities.

    6.  Revise the definition of eligible payroll expenses under the 
ERTC to include child care and education subsidies to reflect the 
increased costs charitable organizations experienced as they have 
struggled to maintain or expand services. We believe this improvement 
is justified because, unlike for-profit employers, tax-exempt 
nonprofits are not currently able to receive income-tax relief for 
providing those employee benefits. This proposed revision provides a 
level of tax fairness and parity that does not currently exist.
Promote the Return of Volunteers to Nonprofits
Congress has not adjusted the Volunteer Mileage Rate since setting it a 
quarter century ago. On behalf of volunteers, the people they serve, 
and charitable nonprofits who depend on volunteers willing to make a 
difference in the lives of others, we urge Congress:

    7.  Eliminate the unfair tax policy that for too long has 
effectively discouraged individuals from volunteering and replace the 
14 cents/mile volunteer mileage rate by matching it to the business 
rate (currently 58.5 cents/mile). Also, eliminate the income tax on 
mileage reimbursements by nonprofits up to the business rate so 
individuals are not penalized for volunteering.

Conclusion

The charitable nonprofit sector is the backbone of our communities. We 
continue to face unprecedented challenges as we assist you and the 
American people in providing pandemic relief and economic recovery. We 
call on Congress to take action now to alleviate the many challenges 
addressed in this Statement. The tax policies proposed here, in the 
attached nonprofit community letter, and by charitable organizations 
throughout the country are sought for the benefit of the people we 
collectively serve. The networks of the National Council of Nonprofits 
stand ready to answer questions and work with you to advance solutions 
to our communities needs.

Attached: Nonprofit Community Letter on the Pandemic and Workforce 
Shortage Relief for Charitable Nonprofits, https://
www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/documents/nonprofit-
pandemic-workforce-shortage-relief-letter.pdf?utm_source=
sendinblue&utm_campaign=Action%20Alert%20%20Nonprofit%20Pandemic%20and
%20Workforce%20Shortage%20Relief&utm_medium=email (signed by more than 
1,500 nonprofits from all 50 states and DC).

                                 ______
                                 
                        National Health Council

                       1730 M St., NW, Suite 500

                       Washington, DC 20036-4561

                             (202) 785-3910

                   https://nationalhealthcouncil.org/

         Statement of Randall L. Rutta, Chief Executive Officer

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee on 
Finance, on behalf of the National Health Council (NHC), I am writing 
to share our perspective on charitable giving trends and potential 
policy solutions to strengthen the nonprofit sector, one of the most 
vital employment sectors, creating good-paying jobs and providing 
needed services and supports to the American public.

Background on the NHC

Created by and for patient organizations more than 100 years ago, the 
National Health Council (NHC) brings diverse organizations together to 
forge consensus and drive patient-centered health policy. We promote 
increased access to affordable, high-value, sustainable health care. 
Made up of more than 145 national health-
related organizations and businesses, the NHC's core membership 
includes the nation's leading patient organizations. Other members 
include health-related associations and nonprofit organizations 
including the provider, research, and family caregiver communities; and 
businesses representing biopharmaceutical, device, diagnostic, generic 
drug, and payer organizations. To learn more about the National Health 
Council, visit https://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org.

We thank you for the opportunity to submit our statement ahead of the 
Congressional hearing and look forward to providing further support to 
the nation's nonprofit sector, particularly the patient advocacy 
community.

Importance of the Patient Advocacy Community

Charitable nonprofits are essential to our country's economic and 
social well-being. The COVID-19 emergency has highlighted the 
importance of nonprofit organizations as they have risen to the 
challenge of responding to the health and other trials the pandemic has 
presented. The patient advocacy community has particularly stepped-up, 
providing services and information to people with chronic conditions 
and disabilities as well as advocating for the health and safety needs 
of their communities. However, the pandemic has also presented many 
challenges for patient organizations. These include reduced giving, 
cancellation of fundraising events and meetings that are necessary for 
organization's financial health, a decreased workforce, loss of 
volunteers, and more. As we emerge from the pandemic, we urge Congress 
to undertake efforts to both help the nonprofit community recover from 
the effects of the last two years as well as address issues affecting 
nonprofits that existed before the pandemic.

Charitable Giving Incentives

Incentives for charitable giving are needed more than ever as 
nonprofits respond to the health and economic crises and will be 
critical in the future as patient organizations play an essential role 
in recovery efforts.

In 2018 the standard deduction was doubled, which resulted in a 
significant decrease in the number of taxpayers choosing to itemize 
their deductions. This, in turn, disincentivized charitable giving, 
resulting in reduced nonprofit revenue. Individual giving declined 3.4% 
in 2018 adjusted for inflation, according to Giving USA 2019: The 
Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2018.\1\ We are grateful for 
the temporary increase in the charitable giving deduction above the 
standard deduction in COVID relief legislation. This increase 
incentivizes giving by small donors, who are the backbone of many 
patient advocacy organizations. We urge Congress and the Administration 
to renew the universal charitable (deduction for non-itemizers and 
significantly increase the cap on the deduction, as proposed in the 
bipartisan Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S.618/
H.R.1704). Similarly, we call on policymakers to extend two additional 
disaster-relief giving incentives that expired on December 31, 2021--
the provision permitting individuals who itemize to deduct charitable 
donations up to 100% of their adjusted gross income and the measure 
allowing corporations to deduct charitable donations up to 25% of 
taxable income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://givingusa.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addressing the Nonprofit Workforce

The nonprofit sector is the third largest employment sector in the 
country. The economic toll of COVID-19 is clear and has a direct impact 
on the ability of nonprofits to play the vital role they fulfill in our 
communities. As of December 2021, there are 450,000 fewer employees in 
the nonprofit sector as charitable organizations report significant 
difficulties retaining staff and filling vacancies. The impact of the 
shortages can be seen in virtually every community as nonprofits are 
forced to restrict needed services, institute waiting lists, or close 
operations entirely. We call on Congress to retroactively restore the 
Employee Retention Tax Credit, as proposed in the bipartisan ERTC 
Reinstatement Act (H.R. 6161/S. 3625), extend this refundable payroll 
tax credit through 2022. We also ask Congress to modify nonprofit 
eligibility beyond the current ``gross receipts'' test and definition 
of eligible payroll expenses to include child care and education 
subsidies to reflect the increased costs charitable organizations 
experienced as they struggle to maintain or expand services to meet 
local needs throughout the health and economic crisis. In addition, we 
ask that any relief package should also include core components of the 
Work Opportunities and Resources to Keep Nonprofit Organizations Well 
Act, or WORK NOW Act (S. 740/H.R. 1987), which would infuse funds into 
the nonprofit community across the country to get people back to work 
and make sure nonprofits are able to meet the needs of the populations 
they serve.

Conclusion

The NHC would like to thank the Committee on Finance for their support 
of the nonprofit community. The NHC is ready to work with Congress in 
any capacity necessary on the issues pertaining to the health of 
nonprofits. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the perspective of 
the NHC and, by extension, millions of people with chronic conditions 
and disabilities in the U.S.

                                 ______
                                 
                        National Taxpayers Union

                      122 C Street, NW, Suite 650

                          Washington, DC 20001

                         Phone: (703) 683-5700

                          Fax: (703) 683-5722

                                ntu.org

                             March 16, 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chair                               Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building  219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chair Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee:

On behalf of National Taxpayers Union (NTU), the nation's oldest 
taxpayer advocacy organization, we write in regard to your March 17 
hearing, ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit 
Sector.''\1\ As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, NTU is directly 
affected by Congressional efforts to change or reform the federal 
government's policy treatment of charitable giving--as is NTU's 
research arm NTU Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ United States Senate Committee on Finance. ``Examining 
Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector.'' March 2022. 
Retrieved from: https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/examining-
charitable-giving-and-trends-in-the-nonprofit-sector (accessed March 
15, 2022.)

NTU has also advised Members of Congress and their staff on a variety 
of tax policy issues, including the tax treatment of nonprofit 
organizations, for decades, and we work with dozens of organizations 
across the ideological spectrum that share our nonprofit status. In 
other words, NTU has expertise in the subject of the Committee's 
hearing and would be significantly impacted by any proposals that arise 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from this hearing.

Specifically, we have endorsed a number of proposals that we believe 
would make it easier for nonprofit organizations to carry out their 
missions and for Americans to freely and robustly support those 
missions. We have also done extensive policy research and issue 
advocacy with regards to conservation easement tax deductions, a 
possible topic at the Committee's hearing, and have also

NTU Reform Recommendations

Notwithstanding our concerns with proposals to retroactively increase 
taxes and penalties in the administration of certain charitable 
deductions (outlined further below), NTU has offered and/or endorsed 
several policy proposals in recent years that we believe have 
bipartisan potential in the nonprofit and charitable sectors.

Each of these proposals would either make it easier for nonprofits to 
carry out their important missions, either by making it easier for 
Americans to contribute to nonprofit organizations of their choice or 
by making it easier for nonprofits to comply with a complex and ever-
changing tax code.

When Congress considered extending the charitable contribution 
deduction for non-itemizers last year, NTU shared some of our concerns 
and instead pointed to our support for the bipartisan Everyday 
Philanthropist Act from Sens. Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Tammy Baldwin (D-
WI), and Reps. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) and Tom Souzzi (D-NY).

As we wrote in December 2021:

        While this provision [to provide a charitable contribution 
        deduction for non-itemizers] may be well-intentioned, NTU 
        believes there are better alternatives to encourage charitable 
        giving in a fiscally responsible manner. One such framework 
        could be the one proposed in the Everyday Philanthropist Act 
        (H.R. 4585), introduced by Representatives Vern Buchanan (R-FL) 
        and Tom Souzzi (D-NY). Similar to Flexible Spending Accounts 
        (FSAs) that allow Americans to fund medical expenses on a pre-
        tax basis, this bipartisan legislation would allow workers to 
        utilize Flexible Giving Accounts up to $2,700 of their annual 
        pre-tax earnings. As NTU President Pete Sepp explained, ``the 
        legislation draws upon the successful infrastructure that has 
        already been established to support Flexible Spending Accounts, 
        which were created by law in 1978 and have subsequently been 
        refined by IRS guidance.'' While there are likely other 
        alternatives to the $300 above line deduction, this is one 
        option that would support charitable giving and protect 
        taxpayers' privacy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Lautz, Andrew; and Yepez, Will. ``Not All Tax Extenders Are 
Created Equal--2021.'' NTU, December 1, 2021. Retrieved from: https://
www.ntu.org/publications/detail/not-all-tax-extenders-are-created-
equal-2021#h.qe2pfuaeq87q.

Indeed, our support for the Everyday Philanthropist Act--which is 
sponsored by a Member of this Committee, Senator Sasse--is based in 
part on the ongoing need to protect the privacy of donors and 
taxpayers, as we noted in an August 2020 support letter for the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
legislation:

        Additionally, [the Everyday Philanthropist Act] augments 
        administrability in the sense that if they so choose, employers 
        can provide part of the framework for taxpayers to make 
        donations to charities whether in place of, or as a complement 
        to, any other tax-deductible contributions they may wish to 
        make on their returns. The Flexible Giving Accounts envisioned 
        in the bill should effectively be less susceptible to audit 
        because of the documentation trail they establish, giving some 
        peace of mind to those taxpayers who opt solely for making 
        gifts directly out of their employer-provided compensation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Sepp, Pete. ``Letter of Support for the Everyday Philanthropist 
Act.'' NTU, August 10, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/
publications/detail/letter-of-support-for-the-everyday-philanthropist-
act.

NTU also believes that Congress could improve tax administration and 
compliance for the nonprofit sector, a particularly important 
consideration given many nonprofit organizations are small and/or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
resource-constrained.

In January 2022, we wrote to Members of this Committee on ways Congress 
could simplify and reform the filing process surrounding Form 990.\4\ 
We recommended:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Sepp, Pete. ``Congress Should Explore Form 990 Reform, 
Simplification in 2022.'' NTU, January 31, 2022. Retrieved from: 
https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/congress-should-explore-form-
990-reform-simplification-in-2022.

      Revisiting the cash flow and asset filing thresholds for the 
Form 990-EZ and the long Form 990, which have not been adjusted for 
more than a decade, and pursuing additional opportunities to improve 
the filing process for nonprofit organizations;
      Examining the rationale for both expanded and reduced filing 
requirements for different areas of the nonprofit sector, where 
treatment is sometimes unequal;
      Giving specific consideration to a comprehensive IRS report on 
improving the taxpayer experience--required by the Taxpayer First Act--
that would, if certain reforms are enacted, directly affect nonprofit 
organizations; and
      Examining state-level developments affecting nonprofits that 
could afford opportunities for harmonization and cooperation at the 
federal level.

Conservation Easement Deductions

One area of charitable giving tax policy the Committee may re-explore 
today (and highlighted in a JCT document prepared for the hearing) 
encompasses the Section 170(h) deduction. As part of NTU's longstanding 
work on tax administration, we have amassed considerable experience in 
this area that may interest the Committee. Why should this be the case, 
given the deduction's relatively minor revenue impact?

For one, the Section 170(h) deduction has ably fulfilled bipartisan 
Congressional intent by encouraging conservation of land and historic 
structures through private management--a far more cost-efficient method 
for taxpayers than outright federal ownership of these properties. 
Second, and more important from our perspective, despite continuous 
statements from the IRS and Members in support of 170(h), detrimental 
actions against the deduction have spoken louder than benign words.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ For background, see: Hickman, Bryan. ``Environmental Tax 
Deduction at Risk Due to Overzealous IRS.'' NTU, July 29, 2019. 
Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/environmental-
tax-deduction-at-risk-due-to-overzealous-irs; See also: Sepp, Pete. 
``Shortsighted: How the IRS's Campaign against Conservation Easement 
Deductions Threatens Taxpayers and the Environment.'' NTU, November 29, 
2018. Retrieved from: https://www.ntu.org/publications/page/
shortsighted-how-the-irss-campaign-against-conservation-easement-
deductions-threatens-taxpayers-and-the-environment.

Over our 50-plus-year history, we have encountered instances of tax law 
enforcement against small groups of taxpayers that have an outsized 
impact on the entire filing population (e.g., the expansion of summons 
authority as well as designating cases for litigation). In our recent 
memory, none have exceeded the collateral damage inflicted on the 
system of tax administration more than the Service's pursuit of what it 
calls ``syndicated conservation easement transactions'' since the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
issuance of a listed transaction notice in 2016. This includes:

      Retroactivity. Although issued in late 2016, Notice 2017-10 has 
been the basis of a near-100 percent IRS audit rate of partnership-
based conservation easement transactions, some dating back many years 
prior. Audits are, by their nature, backward-looking, yet they are 
normally confined to establishing whether a taxpayer faithfully 
complied with laws, rules, and other guidance that were firmly anchored 
in place during the year for which the examination was launched. 
Current IRS audits of partnership easements are often based on the 
Service's shifting interpretations of laws and rulings, some of them 
upending decades of established understanding of how Section 170(h) 
deductions should be structured. Some legislation in Congress would 
effectively ratify and validate this flawed approach.
      Arbitrary Litigation Strategies. Going with the Service's 
extremely aggressive assertion of retroactive application of its 
shifting positions in audits has been its similarly fluid stance in 
court. The resulting caseloads have now strained to the breaking point 
a tax jurisprudence system that is simultaneously bearing the 
administrative fallout of the pandemic. The first wave of IRS lawsuits 
challenging Section 170(h) deductions tended to center on the appraised 
value of the conservation easements underlying the taxpayers' claims. 
Yet, after a string of court losses where the government fatuously 
argued zero or minimal value to all the easements under scrutiny, 
further waves of IRS litigation made far more exotic arguments against 
``foot faults'' involving highly technical details of easement 
agreements themselves--details which the entire conservation and 
historic preservation communities had long regarded as settled 
features. As David Wooldridge, an attorney representing taxpayers in a 
conservation easement case, Belair Woods, LLC, noted, ``Proceeds 
clauses similar to the one in Belair appear in most conservation 
easement deeds that were granted prior to IRS raising this issue in 
Rose Hill, and many granted afterwards. These include the so-called 
syndicated conservation easements, but they also include most easements 
that would be considered `traditional.' The Service's position 
therefore would invalidate easement deductions for a majority of 
existing conservation easements, both traditional and `syndicated.' 
''\6\ This should be unacceptable to thoughtful policymakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Reilly, Peter J. ``Conservation Easements: Is IRS Burning the 
Forest in Order to Save It?'' Forbes, August 5, 2020. Retrieved from: 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2020/08/05/conservation-
easementsis-irs-burning-the-forest-to-save-it/?sh=617850624904 
(accessed March 16, 2022.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Taxpayer Rights Reversals. Throughout NTU's history, we have 
witnessed the development of IRS tactics intended to target one 
perceived problem which evolved into widespread use. In its zeal to 
scrutinize taxpayers claiming 170(h) deductions, the IRS has trampled 
on key protections that NTU has actively championed for many years, 
including supervisor approval requirements for penalty determinations, 
due process for appraisers, access to independent administrative 
appeals, the acknowledgment of facts process for information document 
requests, confidentiality of communication between taxpayers and 
advisors, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) conventions in 
crafting guidance. As a leading advocate of no fewer than five 
significant taxpayer protection bills signed into law since 1988, NTU 
implores you to consider this rising toll on the good work of your 
predecessors in establishing procedural balance for enforcement of our 
tax laws.

Even as they criticized so-called ``syndicated transactions'' in an 
August 2020 report both the Chair and Ranking Member of this Committee 
recognized Section 170(h) as ``an important tool for the preservation 
of our environment'' and ``a program that's critical to preserving open 
lands.''\7\ If these statements are to hold true today, then Congress 
can make calibrations to the law that will uphold 170(h), protect 
taxpayers, and serve the government's long-term interests. A media 
account in December 2021 seemed to indicate that lawmakers might 
consider 170(h) changes that would be prospective in nature; if true, 
this would represent major progress toward a rational response. Other 
steps, which we have often recommended, include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ United States Senate Committee on Finance. ``Finance Committee 
Releases Report on Syndicated Conservation-Easement Transactions.'' 
August 25, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.finance.senate.gov/
chairmans-news/finance-committee-releases-report-on-syndicated-
conservation-easement-transactions (accessed March 16, 2022.)

      A legislative branch directive for the IRS to develop ``safe 
harbor'' guidance surrounding easement deduction structures (a process 
the National Taxpayer Advocate has recommended in reports to Congress, 
and which Treasury Secretary Yellen expressed interest in pursuing 
during her 2021 confirmation hearing);
      Creation of an expert panel to resolve complex questions of 
valuation in easements, modeled after a similar body created to provide 
clarity for donations of art;
      Follow-on legislation that would clarify and require vigorous 
implementation of the Taxpayer First Act of 2019, including a 
taxpayer's right to appeal; and
      Where possible, adopting by statute the recommendations for 
conservation easement deductions offered through the IRS Advisory 
Council through a detailed report in 2009. Given the recent Oakbrook 
ruling, and the prospect for litigation in this space the government 
may lose, Congress might better focus its attention on clarifying 
directly the terms of a legitimate easement agreement as well as 
subjecting the IRS to prudent notice and comment requirements than 
seeking punitive legislation driven by prospective (and tenuous) 
revenue scores.

As we have written before, solving the administrative issues that have 
arisen under Section 170(h) in a fair, responsible, and consistent 
manner would serve the government, taxpayers, and practitioners far 
better than retroactive, punitive legislation giving cover to an IRS 
that has lost all perspective on this area of law--and, in the process, 
threatening taxpayers who will never even contemplate claiming 
conservation easements.

We appreciate your consideration of NTU's research and reform 
recommendations on the important subject of your March 17 hearing. 
Should you have any questions, we are at your service.

Sincerely,

Pete Sepp
President

Andrew Lautz
Director of Federal Policy

                                 ______
                                 
                        NH Center for Nonprofits

                     194 Pleasant Street, Suite 14

                           Concord, NH 03301

                           Tel: 603-225-1947

The Honorable Margaret Wood Hassan
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

March 14, 2022

Dear Senator Hassan:

Thank you for your ongoing leadership and advocacy for the nonprofit 
sector in New Hampshire. In advance of the upcoming Senate Finance 
hearing, ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit 
Sector,'' I am writing to update you on the ongoing challenges that 
nonprofits are facing, and to explain the need for targeted relief 
within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.

As you know, relief packages that you helped secure sustained New 
Hampshire's nonprofit sector during the pandemic. The largest of these 
by far was forgivable loans under the Paycheck Protection Program. 
According to Small Business Administration data,\1\ nearly 1,500 New 
Hampshire nonprofits received almost than $270 million in forgiven PPP 
loans in 2020 and 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/
interactive-dashboards/paycheck-protection-program.

However, PPP has expired and the nonprofit sector is now operating 
within an environment of increased demand for services, a significant 
labor shortage including a lack of volunteers, and increased 
operational costs. Given this context, we ask you to support policy 
solutions outlined herein to support nonprofits in the Granite State.

Nonitemizer Charitable Giving Incentive

We are grateful for your co-sponsorship of the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act,\2\ S. 618. The NH Center for 
Nonprofits fully endorses this important piece of legislation because 
it will further promote giving by all taxpayers, regardless of their 
income, to donate to charitable nonprofits. We ask that you consider 
speaking in support of S. 618 during Thursday's hearing and encourage 
your colleagues to join you in supporting this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/618/
text?q=%7B%22search%22%
3A%5B%22s618%22%2C%22s618%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1.

Similarly, we ask that you advocate for the extension of two additional 
disaster-
relief giving incentives that expired on December 31, 2021: the 
provision permitting individuals who itemize to deduct charitable 
donations up to 100% of their adjusted gross income; and the measure 
allowing corporations to deduct charitable donations up to 25% of 
taxable income.

Employee Retention Tax Credit

Again, thank you for sponsoring the ERTC Reinstatement Act, S. 3625. 
The NH Center for Nonprofits joined more than 1,500 organizations from 
all 50 states in signing onto the recent letter to Congress and the 
Administration seeking Pandemic and Workforce Shortage Relief for 
Charitable Nonprofits.\3\ Among other things, that letter calls on 
Congress to address critical staffing shortages at nonprofits by 
supporting your bill. To the address the impact of nonprofit workforce 
shortages, we ask that you modify nonprofit eligibility under the ERTC 
beyond the current ``gross receipts'' test to ensure more nonprofits 
qualify. We also request that Congress revise the definition of 
eligible payroll expenses under the ERTC to include child care and 
education subsidies to reflect the increased costs charitable 
organizations experienced as they struggle to maintain or expand 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-
workforce-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advoca
cy%20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Volunteerism Incentives

As discussed in the recent nonprofit letter on policy priorities,\4\ 
the decline of volunteerism is having an adverse impact on the work of 
nonprofits. Pre-pandemic estimates by AmeriCorps indicate that the 
volunteerism rate in New Hampshire was 35.7%, contributing 36.6 million 
hours of service. Nationally and in New Hampshire, nonprofits reported 
that volunteerism dropped precipitously. Congress can help incentivize 
volunteerism by increasing the Volunteer Mileage Rate for nonprofit 
volunteer drivers to the business rate (58.5 cents/mile) for 2022 and 
eliminate the tax on mileage reimbursements. The existing policy of low 
and taxable reimbursements continue to hamper nonprofits as they seek 
to restore and incentivize volunteerism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/
documents/nonprofit-pandemic-
workforce-shortage-relief-
letter.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Nonprofit%20Advoca
cy%20Updates%20%20February%2022%202022&utm_medium=email.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to the NH Center for Nonprofits if 
we can support you in your advocacy and leadership for policies that 
strengthen the nonprofit sector that, in turn, strengthen New Hampshire 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
communities.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Reardon, CEO

                                 ______
                                 
                           Nonprofit Alliance

                        1319 F Street, NW, #700

                          Washington, DC 20004

                             (202) 516-5886

March 17, 2022

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 
Committee:

We write to you on behalf of our nearly 300 member organizations 
representing the nonprofit sector urging you to renew and increase the 
Universal Charitable Deduction.

The Nonprofit Alliance is a broad coalition of charities and firms that 
serve nonprofit organizations. We share a common purpose to promote, 
protect, and strengthen the nonprofit sector.

Charitable deductions incentivize giving and encourage individuals to 
support causes at a higher level than they otherwise would. This 
enables vital organizations to generate funds necessary to their much- 
needed mission-focused work.

      The urgent and immediate need is an extension of the Universal 
Charitable Deduction for 2022.

      Then, ultimately, we need the passage of S. 618 (and its 
companion House bill H.R. 1704) to renew the Universal Charitable 
Deduction and increase its cap to one-third of the standard deduction.

Swift enactment of these measures will provide donors with the 
certainty they need to continue giving, encourage giving as a critical 
part of our vibrant society, and ensure charities across our nation 
continue to receive the funds necessary to serve their communities and 
fulfill their philanthropic missions. As Chairman Wyden has often noted 
about the deduction, ``It's a lifeline.''

The charitable deduction that is currently available for 2022 is 
inadequate, as it applies only to those taxpayers who itemize their 
expenses. Recent estimates suggest only about 12 percent of all 
taxpayers itemize, yet the nonprofit sector depends on many more 
individuals to support their causes. This is a missed opportunity to 
incentivize the other 88% of middle-class American taxpayers.

The temporary Universal Charitable Deduction that was enacted in 2020 
and extended through 2021 was a step in the right direction. It 
democratized charitable giving. In 2020, a year of exceptional 
challenge and need, individual Americans gave over $324 billion to 
charitable causes (Giving USA 2021), generosity that was stimulated by 
the charitable deduction for all taxpayers.

This effective deduction expired at the end of 2021, resulting in 
uncertainty for some of the most generous Americans and the charities 
that rely on their donations to deliver vital services to their 
communities.

With the expiration, charities can no longer use the universal 
charitable deduction as an incentive for their donors, posting on their 
websites or including in their mailings that non-itemizers can claim 
either a $600 (if married and filing jointly) or $300 (for single 
taxpayers) deduction for charitable contributions.

Time is of the essence. The nonprofit sector relies on the deduction as 
an incentive and every day that goes by without a universal deduction 
is a missed opportunity. Now already in the second half of March, 
charities have lost nearly three months of 2022 when the deduction 
could have inspired giving. With shortages in envelopes and other paper 
products, nonprofits are also facing long lead times, working today in 
late March on mailings that are not expected to reach potential donors 
until late June. Without the extension of the Universal Charitable 
Deduction now, these charities will not be able to make the most of the 
$600 and $300 universal deduction open to non-itemizers.

If Congress does in fact extend the Universal Charitable Deduction 
retroactive to January 1, 2022, and the extension becomes law, 
charitable organizations can immediately publicize the existence of the 
deduction. That can work quickly for websites and social media but not, 
of course, for mail (which remains a linchpin of most fundraising 
programs).

We recognize this is very different from the corporate entities that 
also saw tax deductions expire on December 31, 2021. Most of the 
corporate provisions could wait to be enacted as late as April 2023 
when most companies will file their 2022 tax returns and still enjoy 
the maximum benefit of the extension (provided Congress follows its 
customary practice of making the enactment retroactive to January 1, 
2022). However, a nonprofit's ability to benefit depends on using the 
deduction as an incentive now.

Very simply, the nonprofit community does not have the luxury of time 
on its side. We need the immediate extension of the Universal 
Charitable Deduction.

We greatly appreciate the strong bipartisan support this legislation 
has received, led by Senators Lankford and Coons. On the Finance 
Committee, under the leadership of Senator Lankford, support for S. 618 
has been joined by Senators Scott, Stabenow, Cortez Masto, Hassan, and 
Brown. A total of six members of the Finance Committee and in aggregate 
16 Senators--eight Democrats and eight Republicans--have signed onto 
this important legislation. Clearly this issue is not defined by party 
and is supported by wide swaths of Americans.

We strongly commend the leadership of these 16 Senators and urge the 
Senate to join them to renew the Universal Charitable Deduction--and 
pass S. 618--as soon as possible.

The Nonprofit Alliance stands ready to offer any and all assistance to 
get this important measure enacted into law.

Respectfully,

Mark Micali
Vice President, Government Affairs

                                 ______
                                 
                         Philanthropy Colorado

                     5855 Wadsworth Bypass, Unit A

                            Arvada, CO 80003

Philanthropy Colorado urges Congress to make charitable giving 
incentives available to all.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to be included in 
the record for the Senate Finance Committee Hearing: ``Examining 
Charitable Giving and Trends in the Nonprofit Sector,'' held on March 
17, 2022.

Philanthropy Colorado leads and serves the diverse network of more than 
100 charitable foundations and organizations investing in nonprofits 
across our state. These nonprofits provide critical services and create 
jobs as they strive to achieve their missions. We join with others in 
urging Congress to ensure all taxpayers have access to incentives for 
giving generously to nonprofits working on behalf of communities 
throughout Colorado and beyond.

Colorado-based foundations provide more than $1 billion annually to 
support charitable organizations and the people and causes they serve--
everything from education to health to basic needs. While foundations 
provide critical financial resources to these nonprofits, individuals 
have historically given an even greater amount--more than $5 billion a 
year in Colorado according to IRS data we tracked before the passage of 
the 2017 federal tax law reduced the pool of itemizing taxpayers.

We urge you to restore and expand the recently expired ``above-the-
line'' charitable deduction for the almost 90% of taxpayers who now 
take the higher standard deduction instead of itemizing on their 
returns. Making these taxpayers eligible for even a small temporary 
deduction for donations made during the pandemic had a measurable 
impact on giving by less wealthy households. According to data 
collected by our national partners in the Charitable Giving Coalition, 
small donations jumped significantly when this tax break was announced 
in 2020.

While many factors contribute to generosity, tax breaks have long 
provided an important motivation for giving at every level. A 
charitable giving incentive for non-itemizers will engage a broader 
range of donors and help them establish a pattern of giving that is 
likely to continue. The tax deduction is particularly important at this 
time when the need for nonprofit services has surged. We urge you to 
support policies that encourage charitable giving long into the future.

Thank you for considering our comments. Please let us know if you have 
any questions about the role of foundations and nonprofits, the work 
they do to address systemic issues, and their substantial economic 
impact.

Joanne Kelley
Chief Executive Officer

                                 ______
                                 
   Statement Submitted by William J. Snape, III, Professor, American 
      University, Washington College of Law; Director, Program on 
Environmental and Energy Law; and Senior Counsel, Center for Biological 
                               Diversity
    Over the past several years, I have closely examined many 
conservation easements authorized under the federal tax code. My 
findings were published in 171 Federal Tax Notes, Volume 171 (May 10, 
2021) at 875-885.

    In response to repeated criticisms of conservation easements by 
Senator Daines of Montana, I have modified the above-cited report to 
demonstrate that conservation easements are a very valuable tool in our 
national conservation toolbox. Frequently, conservation easements are 
the only tool we possess to protect fish, wildlife, plants, and habitat 
on private lands.

    While there are legislative reforms I could suggest, they would 
take diligent time and cautious effort to legislate. Picking easy 
scapegoats is neither effective nor accurate in this complex policy 
arena. The number of ``bad'' conservation easements appears quite low. 
What is unknown is how much the federal government pays for specific 
easement gifts under Section 170 of the federal tax code, and how those 
properties are maintained or managed in perpetuity. We urge greater 
involvement by the U.S. Geological Service (and its mapping and data 
services), as well as greater transparency by the Internal Revenue 
Service. Some reforms could occur administratively with no new 
statutory language.

    Thank you for considering this comment as well as the excerpt of 
our 2021 report, immediately below.

                                 ______
                                 
    Recently, federal conservation easements under the tax code have 
come under attack by some federal legislators. Some easement donations 
have been criticized for lack of conservation value. Other easement 
donations have been criticized because of the corporate and financial 
structure of the donor(s), which itself leads to and/or further 
contributes to the more general problem of valuation of these 
donations, and whether and to what extent the U.S. Internal Review 
Service (IRS) approvals of over-valued appraisals from easement donors 
is leading to fraudulent or unfair transactions that drain the Federal 
Treasury.

    In consideration of these issues, we asked a fundamental threshold 
question--how effective are conservation easements at protecting 
wildlife and important habitat? Because financial data relating to tax 
returns and specific parcels of land and water are confidential pieces 
of information, this study does not analyze the cost-effectiveness of 
the current federal tax easement system. However, our examination of 
several hundred conservation easements leads us to conclude that the 
federal tax deduction tool for conservation easements is a very 
valuable piece of the overall national conservation puzzle.

    Looking at the value of conservation easements in protecting 
biological diversity, including wildlife and habitat, a team of 
researchers at the American University Washington College of Law 
studied 201 conservation easements across the country. The study's 
focus was on the biological baseline reports (``BBRs'') prepared for 
all conservation easements. Produced by outside experts, the BBRs 
provide detail, including maps and photographs, of all the resources 
(broadly defined) on the property and layout the conservation purposes 
that will define the conservation easement.

    This study did not include any analysis on the tax value of the 
proposed land donations or any investigation into the type of donor 
landowners and donee land trusts. We focused on whether private land 
conservation easements significantly contribute to wildlife and habitat 
protection and whether this tool is as effective as federal and state 
statutes designating public land protections.

    The final results revealed that conservation easements are a tool 
that effectively contributes to conservation, particularly the 
protection of wildlife and habitat.


   Table 1: Overall Grades--Assessment Includes Wildlife, Habitat, and
                              Other Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Overall Rating                # of BBRs           % of BBRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Fully meets conservation                     118               58.7%
 goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2--Adequately meets conservation                 74               36.8%
 goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3--Inadequately meets or sets                     8                4.0%
 conservation goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranked between 1 and 2                            1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total                                     201              100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where, When, and How Big Are the Easements?

            1. Year of Establishment

    The BBRs spanned from 2002 to 2018. The majority of easements 
reviewed, 184 of 201, or 91.5%, were established between 2013 and 2018.


                 Table 2: When Were the BBRs Completed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                     # of BBRs           % of BBRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002                                              1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005                                              1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007                                              1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010                                              1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011                                              1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012                                              6                3.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013                                             16                7.9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014                                             31               15.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015                                             25               12.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016                                             49               24.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017                                             54               26.9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018                                              9                4.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(blank)                                           6                3.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total                                     201              100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            2. Acreage
    Our study found a wide variety of donation sizes, ranging from 
thousands of acres to just 10. The study also found no correlation 
between the size of donation and the potential value of the 
conservation easement.


                        Table 3: Size of Donation
Maximum acreage (largest donation)        3,223
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average acreage                           379
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median acreage                            179
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum acreage (smallest donation)       10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            3. States
    The conservation easements are distributed over seventeen states. 
Predominantly, the easements in this study are located in eleven states 
in the Southeast United States and represent 192, or 95.5% of the BBRs 
studied. Nine easements, or 4.5%, are located in the West and Midwest.


            Table 4: State Distribution of BBRs in This Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total Acres
          State             # of BBRs      % of BBRs         Donated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL                        22             10.9%          4,683
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA                        1              0.5%           557
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL                        8              4.0%           3,295
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA                        117            58.2%          39,657
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL                        1              0.5%           102
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY                        1              0.5%           180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA                        2              1.0%           1,184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS                        2              1.0%           274
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC                        8              4.0%           1,784
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NV                        1              0.5%           812
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK                        1              0.5%           80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR                        1              0.5%           61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC                        9              4.5%           3,438
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN                        16             7.9%           13,469
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX                        4              2.0%           2,020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA                        2              1.0%           1,297
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV                        5              2.5%           2,823
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total               201            100.0%         75,715
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            4. Landowners--Donors
    One piece of information gathered was donor type, although the 
assessment did not undertake to determine the value of an easement 
based on its donor type. Differences between these types of donors were 
beyond the scope of this study. The statistic relevant to this review 
found that most BBRs in the study were syndicated owners. Also, there 
was no correlation between the assigned rankings and any of these donor 
types.


   Table 5: BBRs Prepared for LLC Property Owners or Individual/Family
                               Landowners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Donor Business Entity Type          # of BBRs           % of BBRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLC                                             172               85.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLLP                                              1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LLP                                               1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LP                                                1                0.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown \1\                                      26               12.9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total                                     201              100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of the 26 ``unknown'' donor types, 4 appeared to be individual
  landowners, however the actual number of individuals vs. syndicated
  donors in our data set was not definitively confirmed.

            5. Land trusts--Donees
    The tax regulations require the conservation easement holder to be 
a ``qualified organization,'' a government agency or charitable 
organization, capable of holding the land in trust. Nine land trust 
organizations hold most of the 201 conservation easement donations in 
this study.
            6. Conservation Easement Authorization Type
    To claim a tax deduction under Sec. 170(h), Congress has required 
donation for any of the four following conservation purposes: (1) 
outdoor recreation and/or education for the general public; (2) 
protection of habitat; (3) preservation of delineated open space; and 
(4) historic preservation. Table 6 contains a breakdown of the 
easements' conservation purposes.


Table 6: Conservation Easement Authorization Type--Conservation Purposes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Authorization Under 170(h)                    # of BBRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) outdoor recreation, education                                    18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) natural habitat/wildlife                                       175
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) (I) scenic enjoyment                                          133
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) (II) federal, state or local govt policy                      187
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) historic area or structure                                      29
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    While many of the easements listed more than one of these 
conservation purposes in the BBRs, this study focused solely on whether 
the easements' value in promoting the conservation of natural habitat 
and wildlife. The evaluation of an easement reflects the analysis of 
the easement's potential to preserve land based on the following four 
elements effectively:

        Natural habitat and wildlife.
        Present and future economic uses of the easement.
        Consideration of the impacts of climate change on the 
easement.
        Monitoring and compliance mechanisms.

    This study did not focus on easements with conservation purposes 
primarily for historic areas or outdoor recreation unless there was an 
impact on the easement's effectiveness to protect natural habitat and 
wildlife because of those purposes.

    More than 87% of the BBRs reviewed in our study indicate the 
easement's primary purpose is to protect specific habitats for 
wildlife. The preservation goals were similar across the easements, 
despite the variety of ecosystems or size of the donation.

    The following two tables display the rankings for habitat 
protection and wildlife conservation. The grades assigned are ``1'' if 
the protections are outstanding, ``2'' if the protections are average, 
and ``3'' if the protections are deficient. The three questions 
considered were: (1) if the purpose of the easement appears to be at 
least in part for wildlife and/or habitat; (2) if the easement appears 
to actually conserve wildlife and/or protect habitat; and (3) whether 
the wildlife conservation and/or habitat protection value is 
independently validated in the easement by a government agency or 
scientific association.


                   Table 7: Habitat Protection Ranking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Grade                     # of BBRs          % of BBRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                  148                 73.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2                                  47                  23.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3                                  6                   3.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total                        201                 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, the 195 BBRs ranked ``1''and ``2'' suggest that of the 
conservation easements in this study, 97% have included potentially 
effective protections for natural habitats.


                 Table 8: Wildlife Conservation Ranking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Grade                     # of BBRs          % of BBRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                  107                 53.2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2                                  84                  41.8%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3                                  10                  5.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total                        201                 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Our overall grading of the BBRs for wildlife conservation produced 
107, or 53.2%, with superior protection in place. Together, BBRs rated 
``1'' and ``2'' account for 191, or 95% of the study's easements. Where 
BBRs listed wildlife protection as a core value, over half provided 
specific management plans and lists of species to protect, including 
but not limited to endangered or threatened species, both federal and 
state. In the BBRs, five primary themes emerged: (1) promote healthy 
forests, (2) preserve water quality, (3) protect threatened or 
endangered species, (4) preserve unique habitats, and (5) establish or 
extend wildlife migration corridors.

Summary and Recommendations

    Based on the final data and results of the study, our initial 
conclusion that conservation easements do contribute to wildlife and 
habitat conservation objectives is supported. Conservation easements 
are valuable tools that allow agreements between a landowner and land 
trust to set aside land for protection, land that might otherwise be 
sold for development, for urbanization, or commercial enterprises.

    Conservation easements are valuable mechanisms where, if the BBRs 
and contracts are written to effectively address the conservation 
values the easement is trying to protect, natural habitat and wildlife 
will win lasting protection.

    While Congress could clarify valuation and other public interest 
considerations more specifically, the IRS possesses significant 
administrative authority to correct some of the problems identified 
over the last decade. These reforms include the following:

        The IRS should immediately issue guidance, and perhaps 
rulemaking, on how it will analyze and enforce donations of 
conservation easements in terms of: (a) transparent and improved 
appraisal processes of the donations; (b) transparency of and 
requirements for biological baseline reports including public 
monitoring to ensure that the donation has an adequate conservation 
purpose; (c) creation of a ``safe harbor'' provision to help landowners 
decipher the proper ``extinguishment clause'' language to use in in 
easement deeds.
        Instead of focusing solely on syndicated conservation easement 
donations, Congress and the IRS should examine the overall structure of 
conservation easement creation, including accurate and transparent 
appraisals, independent affirmance of the conservation value of each 
conservation easement, and perhaps most importantly, clarifying the 
IRS's new role as a de facto federal land agency.
        While most 170(h) conservation easements appear legitimate, 
the potential for abuse is high and the public should only be paying 
for conservation easements through the tax code that tangibly increase 
conservation, help mitigate the existential threats of climate change, 
and address inequity and environmental justice. It seems sensible to 
desire greater involvement by the U.S. Geological Service in evaluating 
and monitoring these easements \2\ as part of this country's larger 
goal to protect and conserve more land and water by 2030 and beyond.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See U.S. Geological Service, Major Update for America's 
Inventory of Parks and Other Protected Areas (July 9, 2019). (A new 
version of the Protected Areas Database of the U.S., or PAD-US, has 
major federal, state and easement updates, an easier-to-use data 
structure, new web services, and mapping capabilities.
    \3\ See, e.g., Center for Biological Diversity, Biden Executive 
Order Pushes Protection of 30% of America's Land, Oceans (January 27, 
2021). (A year ago the Center launched Saving Life on Earth, a plan 
that calls for a $100 billion investment to save species and the 
creation of new national monuments and parks, wildlife refuges and 
marine sanctuaries so that 30% of U.S. lands and waters are fully 
conserved and protected by 2030 and 50% by 2050).

                                 ______
                                 
                      Theatre Communications Group

                     520 Eighth Avenue, 24th Floor

                           New York, NY 10018

                             (212) 609-5928

                            [email protected]

                      https://circle.tcg.org/home

            Statement of Laurie Baskin, Director of Advocacy

Theatre Communications Group thanks the Senate Committee on Finance for 
holding a hearing dedicated to ``Examining Charitable Giving and Trends 
in the Nonprofit Sector.'' Given the prolonged duration of the COVID-19 
pandemic and its impact on the nonprofit sector, the Committee's 
hearing is a particularly important opportunity to commit to federal 
policy action that will respond to the unique and urgent needs of 
America's nonprofit sector.

Theatre Communications Group (TCG), the national organization for 
theatre, leads for a just and thriving theatre ecology. Since its 
founding in 1961, TCG's constituency has grown from a handful of 
groundbreaking theatres to over 700 Member Theatres and affiliate 
organizations and over 7,000 Individual Members. Through its programs 
and services, TCG reaches over one million students, audience members, 
and theatre professionals each year. TCG offers networking and 
knowledge-building opportunities through research, communications, and 
events, including the annual TCG National Conference, one of the 
largest nationwide gatherings of theatre people; awards grants and 
scholarships to theatre companies and individual artists; advocates on 
the federal level; and through the Global Theater Initiative, TCG's 
partnership with the Laboratory for Global Performance and Politics, 
serves as the U.S. Center of the International Theatre Institute. TCG 
is North America's largest independent trade publisher of dramatic 
literature, with 18 Pulitzer Prizes for Drama on the TCG booklist. It 
also publishes the award-winning American Theatre magazine and 
ARTSEARCH, the essential source for a career in the arts. TCG believes 
its vision of ``a better world for theatre, and a better world because 
of theatre'' can be achieved through individual and collective action, 
adaptive and responsive leadership, and equitable representation in all 
areas of practice.

Theatres deliver on their nonprofit mission in communities nationwide 
through their vibrant artistry, community partnerships, and commitment 
to lifelong learning. Like thousands of other nonprofits in the arts, 
education, and human services, and other local organizations, theatres 
in communities across the United States are classified as 501(c)(3) 
tax-exempt organizations. This exemption and the incentive to give 
private donations are essential to sustaining the capacity of theatres 
as employers, community partners, artistic innovators, and providers of 
lifelong learning. Even as theatres faced unprecedented challenges 
throughout the course of the pandemic, their resilience and creativity 
are evidenced in their ongoing contributions to their communities and 
innovative strategies to deliver on their nonprofit mission under the 
most extraordinary circumstances. At the height of COVID-19 
restrictions on participation in live performance events, theatres 
innovated to provide safe live arts experiences, online performances, 
and learning opportunities nationwide. Theatres continue to offer both 
live performance events and online offerings, often partnering with 
caregivers, schools, and community-based organizations to reach in-
person and online audiences.

Theatres are part of the wider nonprofit economic engine that supports 
workforces and community revitalization amid COVID-19 recovery. Theatre 
expenses totaled more than $2.1 billion in 2020. Their economic impact 
far exceeds that amount as theatres create jobs, engage in commerce 
with local businesses, and spur local expenditures on related goods and 
services. Theatres support a substantial workforce in communities 
across the country, employing 93,000 theatre workers in 2020.

As part of the nonprofit charitable sector, theatres depend upon 
private philanthropy and civic support to fuel programs that serve 
community needs. Theatres are 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, exist 
in all 50 states, serving virtually every community, with annual 
budgets ranging from less than $70,000 to more than $50 million. The 
artistic presentations, educational offerings, and community-based 
programming generated by the theatre workforce is supported by a 
critical combination of public and private support, and not by ticket 
sales alone. Support from donors across the economic spectrum is 
essential to making this work possible, as theatres respond to the 
needs of communities and form partnerships through education, artistic, 
economic development, and social service programs. Individual donors 
who are not theatre trustees collectively proved to be the largest 
contributed income source for theatres.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made charitable giving even more essential. 
Prior to the onset of the pandemic, contributed revenue generally 
covered about 42% of expenses for the largest theatres and about 70% 
for the smallest. Like for-profit businesses, theatres suffered severe 
earned revenue losses due to the pandemic that threatened their 
workforces and their missions. While decisions about operations during 
the pandemic have been closely connected to local and state public 
health mandates and each theatre's individual financial situation 
continues to vary based on its ability to return to live in-person 
performances, many continue to suffer significant pandemic-related 
revenue losses. As infection rates fell on the retreat of the Delta 
variant, theatres began to make gains in ticket sales, which provided 
hope for recovery in the longer term. However, the return of audiences 
from week to week was uneven, and the onset of the Omicron variant has 
had a severe and long-reaching impact on theatres' financial capacity 
and workforce. Theatre managers are deeply concerned about their bottom 
lines for fiscal year 2023 and 2024.

We urge the Committee to partner with the nonprofit sector to ensure 
that any future pandemic-related or long-term support for the small 
business sector is structured so that nonprofit organizations are 
assured eligibility. Careful attention by Congress to nonprofit 
eligibility for COVID relief was essential to unlocking access to 
relief for theatres and other nonprofit organizations. Federal support 
has made it possible to keep doors open, utility bills paid, and many 
workers on payroll, but the duration of the pandemic continues to 
strain all revenue sources and new and renewed federal assistance is 
desperately needed. We are extremely grateful for the federal support 
to-date that has provided essential assistance during such an 
unprecedented and prolonged public health crisis. In addition to 
Shuttered Venue Operators Grants and dedicated National Endowment for 
the Arts funding, nonprofit access to forgivable Paycheck Protection 
Program loans, Employee Retention Tax Credits, enhanced charitable 
giving incentives, and other forms of governmental assistance have 
helped to see theatres through the first 2 years of the pandemic. 
However, most forms of federal relief expired at the end of 2021, and 
the need for help persists.

Theatres and the wider nonprofit sector will be essential contributors 
to our nation's recovery from the pandemic and must be supported by 
federal policies that restore and further strengthen the sector 
nationwide. Theatre Communications Group is partnered with the National 
Council of Nonprofits, Independent Sector, and the Charitable Giving 
Coalition in support of comprehensive policy action to increase support 
for the nation's charitable sector, and we support the written 
recommendations submitted to this committee by those organizations. We 
urge the Committee to lead Congressional action on policies that are 
urgently needed, and to seek partnership with the nonprofit sector to 
ensure that long-term federal leadership proactively supports our 
nation's charitable and philanthropic sectors.

This Committee can support the following action on active proposals 
related to tax policy and the nonprofit sector:

      Increase charitable giving by reinstating and making permanent 
the above-the-line, universal charitable deduction. Federal COVID-19 
Relief recognized how important giving incentives are by including in 
the CARES Act a $300 ``universal charitable deduction'' available to 
all taxpayers and extending that provision in the COVID-19 Economic 
Relief Bill along with allowing up to a $600 deduction for joint filers 
in 2021. Expanding and making this provision permanent will grow the 
capacity of the nonprofit arts sector to support communities. While the 
initial impulse to give comes from the heart, studies have repeatedly 
shown that charitable giving incentives have a significant impact on 
how much and when donors contribute.

      Reinstate the ability for individuals who itemize on their taxes 
to deduct up to 100% of their adjusted gross income for charitable 
contributions, and the ability of corporations to deduct up to 25% of 
taxable income.

      Enact the Legacy IRA Act, which would expand the Charitable IRA 
Rollover to treat donations made by retirees to gift annuity programs 
as pre-tax income.

      Reinstate the Employee Retention Tax Credit for the fourth 
quarter of 2021 and extend its duration, modifying nonprofit 
eligibility beyond the current ``gross receipts'' test. Theatres are 
among the many nonprofit employers that have been counting on quarter 
four 2021 access to the ERTC to support the decisions they made to 
bring employees back on the payroll and increase operating capacity to 
serve their communities.

      Enact the Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which would encourage 
new gifts by living playwrights, including original manuscripts, set 
designs, and other original materials. For theatre artists considering 
whether to contribute their works and archives to a charitable 
organization or to make them available to private collectors, the 
ability to take a fair-market value tax deduction may be the key 
incentive that allows the artist to contribute their work to a 
nonprofit cultural organization.

      Enact the Performing Artist Tax Parity Act of 2021, which would 
reinstate deductions for unreimbursed employee business expenses. 
Across occupations, comprehensive tax reform passed into law in 2017 
eliminated the opportunity to deduct unreimbursed employee business 
expenses that exceed 2% of adjusted gross income. For theatre artists 
this means that the costs of travel to auditions or a travel agent and 
other expenses essential to employment are no longer tax-deductible.

      Support dedicated relief resources for nonprofit organizations 
and their workforce, as proposed in the WORK Now Act.

On behalf of the over 700 Member Theatres and affiliate organizations 
and over 7,000 Individual Members across the nation, Theatre 
Communications Group is deeply grateful for the leadership from this 
Committee to examine ways that the federal government can support our 
nation's nonprofit sector. Enhanced federal incentives for charitable 
giving and leadership to support the strength and growth of nonprofit 
organizations, will support theatres' workers, operating costs, and 
mission-critical activity. Thank you for this opportunity to share ways 
in which this Committee and the broader federal government can increase 
support for the nonprofit sector.

                                 ______
                                 
                       United Philanthropy Forum

                    1020 19th Street, NW, Suite 360

                          Washington, DC 20036

                             (888) 391-3235

                            @unitedphilforum

                    https://www.unitedphilforum.org/

On behalf of United Philanthropy Forum (the Forum), a membership 
organization of over 90 regional and national philanthropy-serving 
organizations or PSOs, we thank you for your support shown to the 
philanthropic and charitable sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. As 
the largest and most diverse network in American philanthropy, United 
Philanthropy Forum holds a unique position in the social sector to help 
increase philanthropy's impact in communities across the country. Our 
members, who represent more than 7,000 foundations and other funders, 
work to make philanthropy better. Through our members and their 
networks, we reach almost every state and district, promoting a 
courageous philanthropic sector that catalyzes a just and equitable 
society where all can participate and prosper.

We appreciate the opportunity to highlight the value of the nonprofit 
sector and our recommendations on policies that encourages charitable 
giving.

 Extraordinary Response of Philanthropy Associations and Networks to 
                    COVID-19

As we mark the 2-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems an 
appropriate moment to share how philanthropy-serving organizations 
(PSOs)--the regional and national philanthropy associations and 
networks that comprise the United Philanthropy Forum network \1\--have 
responded to the crisis. In short, the response has been extraordinary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.unitedphilforum.org/members.

Over the past 2 years, regional and national PSOs have acted in truly 
astounding ways to ensure that philanthropy was being as effective and 
impactful as possible in helping our communities tackle a global health 
pandemic, demonstrating a powerful level of nimbleness, adaptability 
and flexibility. PSOs quickly engaged in new public-private 
partnerships, led and managed new collaborative funds, advocated for 
philanthropy and nonprofits in COVID-19 legislation, provided a strong 
voice of accountability to push philanthropy to respond to the pandemic 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the most equitable ways possible and much more.

A new Forum report, The COVID-19 Crucible,\2\ details PSOs' response to 
the pandemic and offers lessons for the field to inform how we respond 
to future crises. The Forum uses ``PSO'' as something of a catch-all 
term to describe a diverse and dynamic group of philanthropy 
associations and networks that bring funders together with a focus on a 
geographic region, funding issue, identity/population group or 
philanthropic practice. The report offers many examples of PSOs' COVID-
19 response efforts; here's a sampling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.unitedphilforum.org/resources/covid-19-crucible.

      ABFE held funder briefings on COVID-19 relief for Black 
businesses and focused its annual conference, which shifted to virtual, 
on a range of critical challenges facing Black communities amid the 
pandemic, including redlining, the racial wealth divide, and ensuring 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
relief efforts reach Black communities.

      Minnesota Council on Foundations moved quickly to establish the 
Minnesota Disaster Recovery Fund, partnering with the Saint Paul & 
Minnesota Foundation to raise and distribute more than $11 million to 
more than 1,700 nonprofit organizations and more than 3,000 small 
businesses.

      Philanthropy Northwest, in partnership with the state of 
Washington and major food banks in the state, established the WA Food 
Fund to respond to the growing food crisis as a result of COVID-19. The 
fund raised more than $14 million from 60 philanthropic institutions 
and 9,000 individual donors.

      Philanthropy Ohio partnered with the Ohio Department of 
Education to establish the Collaborative Fund for Educating Remotely 
and Transforming Schools. The fund supported projects to help schools 
in the state improve remote education practices and in particular 
address inequitable circumstances related to remote education during 
the COVID-19 crisis.

The list goes on and on and on. The report identifies some key 
learnings that have implications for the broader philanthropy sector. 
Many of the learnings relate to trends that were already happening pre-
COVID but were greatly accelerated during the pandemic: PSOs have 
become more transformative and less transactional; PSOs are placing a 
more central focus on racial equity and on holding the field 
accountable on equity issues; PSOs are displaying new kinds of bold 
leadership in partnerships with government and the private sector; PSOs 
have a renewed focus on networks, as the pandemic was a case study in 
the power of networks in responding to a crisis--and the need to build 
those networks in advance. Philanthropic leaders are grateful for the 
partnership of government, nonprofit, and business partners over the 
past 2 years.

 Need for Charitable Giving Will Continue Beyond Pandemic

The Forum urges Congress to immediately reinstate and expand the 
temporary universal charitable giving deduction that expired at the end 
of 2021. This charitable deduction to non-itemizers at $300 for 
individual and $600 for couples filing jointly along with the 
suspension of adjusted gross income (AGI) limitations for cash gifts 
and increase in limitation for corporate gifts were all valuable to 
incentivizing giving behaviors.

Longer-term, the Forum supports the bipartisan Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S.618). If enacted, this 
legislation will further incentivize all taxpayers to give to charity--
regardless of their income or whether they itemize--helping to spur 
even more giving as communities continue to fight and recover from 
COVID-19 and its economic effects.

The charitable deduction is good tax policy--it encourages individuals 
to give away more of their income, devoting it to their community's 
needs rather than their own. A simple calculation shows that those in 
need receive $2.50 in benefit for every $1 of tax benefit. This is an 
impressive return on investment.

This legislation will democratize giving by further incentivizing all 
American taxpayers--regardless of their income--to give to charity, 
thereby ensuring that our country retains a strong and independent 
civil society. Additionally, it will provide needed resources for 
charitable and faith-based organizations to continue providing vital 
services to families, workers, and communities, especially those 
critically impacted by the ongoing pandemic.

The Forum is also proud to join the chorus of 60 national charities 
which support the bipartisan Legacy IRA Act (S. 243). The Legacy IRA 
Act will encourage more charitable giving by enabling seniors to make 
contributions from their individual retirement accounts (IRA) to 
charities through life-income plans. Seniors are a key demographic as 
they typically make up more than 40 percent of the donor base for 
charities. This is an expansion of the existing Charitable IRA Rollover 
provision, which is the fastest growing area of philanthropy. The 
Legacy IRA Act would expand this giving incentive to more middle-income 
seniors. A modified version of the Legacy IRA Act was passed by the 
House of Representatives on March 29, 2022 as part of the ``Securing a 
Strong Retirement Act'' (SECURE Act 2.0), and we urge the Senate 
Finance Committee to include S. 243 in its version of this retirement 
package.

The Forum joins with many others in the nonprofit community in urging 
Congress to immediately reinstate the temporary universal charitable 
deduction, pass the Legacy IRA Act, and pass the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act. We stand ready to be of help should 
you have additional questions about these requests. Please feel free to 
contact Matthew L. Evans, Senior Policy Director, at United 
Philanthropy Forum at [email protected].

                                 ______
                                 
                               United Way
March 16, 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chairman                            Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:

We the undersigned United Ways request that the Senate Finance 
Committee vote to approve legislation to expand and extend charitable 
giving tax incentives for tens of millions of Americans who give to 
charities every year. We specifically support the Universal Giving 
Pandemic Response and Recovery Act (S. 618 Coons/Lankford), which would 
allow the overwhelming majority of taxpayers to claim a deduction for 
income they give back to their communities and people in need.

We deeply appreciate your inclusion of a $300 deduction in the CARES 
Act and your subsequent expansion of that deduction for 2021. However, 
that deduction has expired and now most Americans who donate their 
hard-earned income must pay taxes on that donated income.

United Way is fortunate to have a number of wealthy supporters who make 
very generous donations that have real impact in communities across the 
United States. Those donors are able to give more because they do not 
pay taxes on those donations, because of the charitable deduction. 
However, there is no reason for different tax treatment for millions of 
donations from low- or middle-income people. In many cases, these 
donors must make difficult financial decisions and sacrifice to donate 
to their local charity or church, yet our current tax policy requires 
them to pay taxes on money they donate. This is simply unfair.

To be clear, tax policy is very rarely the main reason Americans give 
to charity. People give for altruistic reasons. But tax policy 
influences behavior. Our tax laws are full of policies designed to 
drive behaviors deemed favorable for our society, like home ownership 
and business investment. What could be better than Congress sending a 
bipartisan message to everyone that giving is a core American value?

We urge the Committee to act as soon as possible to approve S.618/
H.R.1704. And we request that a retroactive nonitemizer deduction be 
included in any legislative vehicle possible before the end of the 
year.

Sincerely,


Alabama
 
Walter Hill              Jackie Wuska             Shannon Jenkins
Chief Executive Officer  President and CEO        President and CEO
Wiregrass United Way     United Way of West       United Way of East
                          Alabama                  Central Alabama
 
Becky Goff               Kathleen Ross            Valerie Burrage
Executive Director       President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Cullman    United Way of Morgan     North Talladega County
 County                   County
 
Carrie Thomas            Jannah M. Bailey         Jill Chenoweth
Executive Director       President/CEO            President and CEO
United Way of Marshall   The River Region United  United Way of
 County                   Way                      Southwest Alabama
 
Becky Booker             Jennifer McNulty
Executive Director       CEO
United Ways of Alabama   United Way of Northwest
                          Alabama
 
Alaska
 
Clark Halvorson
CEO
United Way of Anchorage
 
Arkansas
 
Kristy Williams          Nan Tucker               Jennifer Boyett
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
 River Valley United     United Way of White      United Way of Central
 Way                      County                   Arkansas
 
Arizona
 
Shelley Griffin          Laura Mike               Tony Penn
Vice President,          Executive Director       President and CEO
 Information Technology
Valley of the Sun        United Way of Navajo     United Way of Tucson
 United Way               Nation                   and Southern Arizona
 
Allen Villalobos
Chief Executive Officer
United Way of Pinal
 County
 
California
Rosemary Caso            Keristofer Seryani       Kristen Birtwhistle
Executive Director       President/CEO            President and CEO
United Way of Tulare     United Way of            United Way of San
 County                   Stanislaus County        Joaquin County
 
Pete Manzo               Ken Wuytens              Mari Perez-Dowling
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Ways of           United Way of Imperial   United Way of Kern
 California               County                   County
 
Lisa Wright              Gwen Rodgers             Bob Harlan
President                President                Executive Director
Inland Southern          Arrowhead United Way     Yuba-Sutter-Colusa
 California United Way                             United Way
 
Michelle Murphy          Lisa G. Carreno          Lindsay Fox
Director, Public         President and CEO        President and CEO
 Affairs
Orange County United     United Way of the Wine   United Way Fresno and
 Way                      Country                  Madera Counties
 
Rick London              Kevin Zwick              Bob Harlan
CEO                      CEO                      Executive Director
United Way of San Luis   United Way Bay Area      Yuba-Sutter-Colusa
 Obispo County                                     United Way
 
Colorado
 
Cindy Aubrey             Kate Nowak               Roweena Naidoo
President and CEO        Executive Director       Vice President, Policy
                                                   and Impact Investing
Pikes Peak United Way    Routt County United Way  Mile High United Way
 
Connecticut
 
Gary Johnson             David Rabin              Isabel Almeida
President and CEO        CEO                      President
United Way of Milford    United Way of Greenwich  United Way of Western
                                                   Connecticut
 
Jack Eisenmann           Dina Sears-Graves        Jeff Kimball
Executive Director       President and CEO        CEO
United Way of            United Way of            United Way Coastal
 Southington              Southeastern             Fairfield County
                          Connecticut
 
Kristen Jacoby           Lisa Tepper Bates        David R. Kennedy
CPO                      President and CEO        Interim President and
                                                   CEO
United Way of Greater    United Way of            Valley United Way
 Waterbury                Connecticut
 
Eric Harrison            Jennifer Heath
President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of Central    United Way of Greater
 and Northeastern         New Haven
 Connecticut
 
Delaware
 
Michelle Taylor
President and Chief
 Executive Officer
United Way of Delaware
 
District of Columbia
 
Rosie Allen-Herring
President and CEO
United Way of the
 National Capital Area
 
Florida
 
Gina Littleton           Jennifer Anchors         Amber Miller
Interim President        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Northwest  United Way of Suwannee   United Way of North
 Florida                  Valley                   Central Florida
 
Carol G. Houwaart-Diez   Ted Granger              Monica Wofford
President and CEO        CEO                      CEO
United Way of Martin     United Way of Florida    United Way of Lake and
 County                                            Sumter Counties
 
Robert Rains             Maureen Mercho           Jeff Hayward
President                Chief Development        President and CEO
                          Officer
United Way of Brevard    United Way of Northeast  Heart of Florida
 County                   Florida                  United Way
 
Kathleen Cannon          Michelle Braun           Angie B. Walasek
President and CEO        President and CEO        CEO
United Way of Broward    United Way of Northeast  United Way of Hernando
 County                   Florida                  County
 
Laura P Gilliam          Joe Zubizarreta
President/CEO            Interim President and
                          CEO
United Way of West       United Way Miami
 Florida
 
Georgia
 
Patty Youngblood         Rebecca Cannady          Brynn Grant
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of West       United Way of Thomas     United Way of the
 Georgia, Inc.            County                   Coastal Empire
 
George McCanless         Ruth M. Goode            Justin Callaway
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Central    United Way of Forsyth    United Way of Coastal
 Georgia                  County, Inc.             Georgia
 
Milton J. Little, Jr.    Jennifer Latour          Ben Moser
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Greater    United Way of Gordon     United Way of the
 Atlanta                  County                   Chattahoochee Valley
 
Brittany Burnett         Michael Smith            Candice Holcomb
President and CEO        CEO                      Executive Director
United Way of the CSRA   Greater Valdosta         Habersham County
                                                   United Way
 
Lorie Autry              Amanda Burt
Executive Director       President
United Way of Screven    United Way of Northwest
 County                   Georgia
 
Hawaii
 
Nicholas Winfrey         John Fink
President and CPO        President/CEO
Maui United Way and      Aloha United Way
 Hawaii State
 Association
 
Idaho
 
Mark Tuckermark          Jim Cooper               Bill Maikranz
Executive Director       President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of North      United Ways of the       United Way of South
 Idaho                    Pacific Northwest        Central Idaho
 
Illinois
 
Deborah Howard           Patricia Becker          Natalie Wellen
Executive Director       Administrative Director  Executive Director
United Way of            United Way of Logan      United Way of South
 Livingston County        County                   Central Illinois
 
Keri Olson               Kamala L. Martinez       Susan Grey
CEO                      President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of Whitside   United Way of Will       United Way of
 County                   County                   Champaign County
 
Sean Garrett             Kennedy Polanski         John Kelker
President and CEO        Executive Director       President
United Way of Metro      United Way of Coles      United Way of Central
 Chicago                  County                   Illinois
 
Deborah Rudel            Linda Blair              Debbie Bogle
CEO                      Executive Director       President
Fox Valley United Way    Kewanee Area United Way  United Way of Decatur
                                                   and Mid-Illinois
 
Antoinette G Hayden      Connie Kraft             Laun Dunn
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Southern   United Way of Northwest  United Way of Knox
 Illinois                 Illinois                 County
 
Indiana
 
Jennifer Million         Pamela Beckford          Alicia Hazelwood
Interim CEO              President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Greater    United Way of Wells      United Way of Grant
 Lafayette                County                   County
 
Ann Murtlow              Richard Payonk           Rene Gellerman
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Central    United Way of the        United Way Quad Cities
 Indiana                  Wabash Valley
 
Sheila Coffin            William Rieth            Jane Ann Runyon
Executive Director       President/CEO            Executive Director
Jefferson County United  Crossroads United Way    United Way of Jay
 Way, Inc.                                         County
 
Amy Canterbury           Mark Stewart             Chris Armstrong
President and CEO        President                Executive Director
United Way of            United Way of            United Way of Cass
 Southwestern Indiana     Bartholomew County       County
 
Peggy Scott              Karli Armstrong
Director of Cass County  Impact and Marketing
 Reading Railroad         Manager
United Way of Cass        United Way of Cass
 County                   County
 
Iowa
 
Rene Gellerman           Ali Wilson               Shane J. Orr
President and CEO        Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way Quad Cities   United Way of Wapello    United Way of
                          County                   Muscatine
 
Kendra Sorensen          Jen Arends               Kristin Roberts
Executive Director       CEO                      President and CEO
Marshalltown Area        United Way of North      United Way of East
 United Way               Central Iowa             Central Iowa
 
Karen Siefken            Michella Friesen         Heather Hennings
Executive Director       Executive Director       President
United Way of the Great  United Way of Mahaska    United Way of
 River Region             County                   Siouxland
 
Jean Kresse              Jessica Lowe Vokes
President and CEO        Executive Director
Story County             United Way of Jasper
                          County
 
Kansas
 
Jessica Lehnherr         Lisa Gleason             Mickey Edwards
CEO/President            Executive Director       CEO
United Way of Greater    United Way of Reno       United Way of the
 Topeka                   County                   Flint Hills
 
Gayle Ausmus
Executive Director/CEO
United Way of Dodge
 City
 
Kentucky
 
Paul McCreary            Paula Yevincy            Adria Johnson
President                President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of Calloway   United Way of the Ohio   Metro United Way
 County                   Valley
 
Timothy Johnson          Kevin Middleton
President and Chief      President
 Executive Officer
United Way of the        United Way of Kentucky
 Bluegrass
 
Louisiana
 
LaToria Thomas           Michael Williamson       Artis Williams
President and CEO        CEO                      Executive Director
United Way of Northwest  United Way of Southeast  St. John United Way
 Louisiana                Louisiana
 
George Bell              Sarah Berthelot          Janet S. Durden
President and CEO        President and CEO        President
Capital Area United Way  Louisiana Association    United Way of
                          of United Ways           Northeast Louisiana
 
Denise Durel             Michelle Purl
President and CEO        CEO
United Way of Southwest  United Way of Central
 Louisiana                Louisiana
 
Maine
 
Liz Cotter Schlax        Sarah Duncan             Shirar Pattersone
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Southern   United Way of Aroostook  United Way of Eastern
 Maine                                             Maine
 
Lisa Park Laflin         Barbara Reinertsen
Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of the Tri-   United Way of Mid Coast
 Valley Area              Maine
 
Maryland
 
Ken Oldham               Michele Walker           Rosie Allen-Herring
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Frederick  County United Way, Inc.  United Way of the
 County                                            National Capital Area
 
Franklyn Baker           Sandra Early
President and Chief      Executive Director
 Executive Officer
United Way of Central    United Way of Queen
 Maryland                 Anne's County
 
Massachusetts
 
Dennis P. Carman         Tim Garvin               Christa Collier
President and CEO        President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Greater    United Way of Central    Northern Berkshire
 Plymouth County          Massachusetts            United Way
 Massachusetts
 
Carrie Thomas            John Bidwell             Bob Giannino
Executive Director       Executive Director       Ansin President and
                                                   CEO
United Way of Marshall   United Way of the        United Way of
 County                   Franklin and Hampshire   Massachusetts Bay and
                          Region                   Merrimack Valley
 
Michelle N. Hantman      Tom Bernard              Mark Skala
President and CEO        President and CEO        President/CEO
United Way of Greater    Berkshire United Way     Cape and Islands
 New Bedford                                       United Way
 
Michigan
 
Christine J Robere       Chris Sargent            Connie L. Carroll
President CEO            President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of the        United Way of the        United Way of Monroe/
 Lakeshore                Battle Creek and         Lenawee Counties
                          Kalamazoo Region
 
Michelle Van Dyke        Audra Davis              Terri Legg
President and CEO        President and CEO        Executive Director
Heart of West Michigan   United Way of Saginaw    United Way Montcalm-
 United Way               County                   Ionia Counties
 
James Gaskin             Joseph W. Gentry         Pam Smith
CEO                      Executive Director       CEO
United Way of Genesee    United Way of Northeast  United Way of
 County                   Michigan                 Washtenaw County
 
Kimberly Hebberd         Darienne Driver Hudson,  Teresa Kmetz
                          Ed.D.
Executive Director       President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of Lapeer     United Way for           Capital Area United
 County                   Southeastern Michigan    Way
 
Julie Mallard            Brent Gillette
Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Delta      United Way of St. Clair
 County                   County
 
Minnesota
 
Erin Haag                Annette Duncan           John A. Wilgers
Executive Director       President                President and CEO
United Way of Freeborn   United Way of Steele     Greater Twin Cities
 County                   County                   United Way
 
Elizabeth Child          Jerome Ferson            Doris Pagelkopf
Executive Director       President                Executive Director
Rice County Area United  United Way of Olmsted    United Ways of
 Way                      County                   Minnesota
 
Sarah Buhs               Meghann Boser            Debra Siemsen
Executive Director       Executive Director       CEO
United Way of Carlton    Morrison County United   United Way of McLeod
 County                   Way                      County
 
Erin Shay                Denae Alamano
Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of            United Way of Bemidji
 Northeastern Minnesota   Area
 
Mississippi
 
Tee McCovey              Tracie Fowler            Ira E. Murray, Ph.D.
President and CEO        CEO                      President and CEO
United Way for Jackson   United Way of Southeast  United Way of the
 and George Counties      Mississippi              Capital Area
 
Missouri
 
Vander H. Corliss        Greg Burris              Ted Frushour
CFO                      President and CEO        President
United Way of Greater    United Way of the        United Way of
 St. Louis, Inc.          Ozarks                   Northeast Missouri
 
Chris Rosson             Michelle D. Tucker
President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of Greater    United Way of Greater
 Kansas City              St. Louis
 
Montana
 
Danica Jamison           Susan Hay Patrick        Roxanna S. Parker
President and CEO        CEO                      Executive Director
Greater Gallatin United  United Way of Missoula   Northwest Montana
 Way                      County                   United Way
 
Gary Owen                Emily McVey              Beth Storey
President                Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Cascade    United Way of the Lewis  United Way of
 County                   and Clark Area           Beaverhead County
 
Kim Lewis
CEO
United Way of
 Yellowstone County
 
Nebraska
 
Karen Rathke             Shawna Forsberg          Karen Benzel
President and CPO        President and CEO        Executive Director
Heartland United Way     United Way of the        United Way of Western
                          Midlands                 Nebraska
 
Nevada
 
Julian High              Michael Brazier
President and CEO        CEO and President
United Way of Southern   United Way of Northern
 Nevada                   Nevada and the Sierra
 
New Hampshire
 
Patrick Tufts            Liz LaRose               Michael Apfelberg
President and CEO        President                President
Granite United Way       Monadnock United Way     United Way of Greater
                                                   Nashua
 
New Jersey
 
Daniel Altilio           Kiran Handa-Gaudioso     Michael Gower
President                CEO                      Executive Director
United Way of Hudson     United Way of Northern   United Way of
 County                   New Jersey               Gloucester County,
                                                   Inc.
 
Tom Toronto              Gloria Aftanski          James Horne
President                President, CEO           President
Bergen County's United   United Way of Central    United Way of Greater
 Way                      Jersey                   Union County
 
New Mexico
 
Becca Titus              Rodney Prunty
CEO/President            President and CEO
United Way of Lea        United Way of Central
 County                   New Mexico
 
New York
 
Marilyn Smith            Tom Gabriel              Patrick Dewine
Executive Secretary      President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Northern   United Way of            United Way of Greater
 Yates County             Westchester              Oswego County
 
James L. Cox             Elizabeth Monaco         Elizabeth Monaco
President and Chief      Executive Director       Executive Director
 Executive Officer
United Way of Northern   Chenango United Way      United Way of Delaware
 New York                                          and Otsego Counties
 
Jeannie Montano          Adam Dolce               James A. Brown
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of the        United Way of Northern   United Way of Tompkins
 Dutchess-Orange Region   Chautauqua County        County
 
Amy Rohler               Fred Quist               Jaime Saunders
Executive Director       Director                 President and CEO
United Way of Southern   United Way of            United Way of Greater
 Chautauqua County        Montgomery County,       Rochester and the
                          Inc.                     Finger Lakes
 
Jerome Singletary        Peter Gannon             Nancy Kern Eaton
Community Outreach and   President and CEO        President
 Advocacy Manager
United Way of Buffalo    United Way of the        United Way of Central
 and Erie County          Greater Capital Region   New York, Inc.
 
North Carolina
 
Denise Cumbee Long       Kristie Hege             Kendra K. Martin
Executive Director       President                Executive Director
United Way of Henderson  United Way of Davidson   United Way of Lee
 County                   County                   County
 
Tate Johnson             Heidi Norwick            Brett Eckerman
Executive Director       President                Executive Director
Lumber River United Way  United Way of Alamance   United Way of Iredell
                          County                   County
 
Bill Blake               Dan Leroy                Raquel Painter
Executive Director       President and CEO        President
Albemarle Area United    United Way of Asheville  United Way of Onslow
 Way                      and Buncombe County      County
 
Cynthia Smith Gordineer  Maureen Schwind          Laura Marx
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Forsyth    Burke County United Way  United Way of North
 County                                            Carolina
 
Chuck Taylor             Rebecca Hall
Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Davie      High Country United Way
 County
 
North Dakota
 
Rich Berg                Heather Novak            Nichole De Leon
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
Souris Valley United     United Way of Grand      United Way of
 Way                      Forks, East Grand        Dickinson
                          Forks and Area
 
Karla Isley              Richard Berg
President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Cass-Clay  Souris Valley United
                          Way
 
Ohio
 
Katie M Koglman          Scott Barr               Ryan Aroney
CEO                      President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of Wayne and  Shelby County United     United Way of Greater
 Holmes                   Way                      Lorain County
 
Marynell Townsend        Kari Steele              August A. Napoli
Executive Director       Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Guernsey,  Tiffin-Seneca United     United Way of Greater
 Monroe, and Noble        Way                      Cleveland
 Counties
 
Moira Weir               Amber Wertman            Kelly Brenneman
President/CEO            Executive Director       Executive Director
Greater Cincinnati       United Way of North      United Way of Knox
                          Central Ohio, Inc.       County Ohio
 
James Mullen             Kelly Brenneman          Maria Heege
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Summit     United Way of Knox       United Way of Greater
 and Medina               County                   Stark County
 
Lisa Courtice            George W. S. Hays        Stacy Decicco
President and CEO        Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Central    United Way Services of   UW Alliance of the MOV
 Ohio                     Northern Columbiana
                          County
 
Dawn Cazzolli            Kerry Pedraza            Vicki Smith
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
Orrville Area United     United Way of Clark,     United Way of Van Wert
 Way                      Champaign and Madison    County
                          Counties
 
Laura Rauch              Jan Fuetter              J. Thomas Maultsby
Executive Director       Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Jefferson  United Way of Putnam     United way of the
 County                   County                   Greater Dayton Area
 
Michele Daniels          Corinne Bix              Meg Deedrick
Executive Director       Director                 Executive Director
United Way of Hardin     United Way of Union      United Way of
 County                   County                   Muskingum, Perry, and
                                                   Morgan Counties
 
Stacy Schiemann          Thomas Mack              Judy Walters
Executive Director       Executive Director       Volunteer
United Way of Ashland    United Way of Henry      United Way of Gallia
 County                   County                   County
 
Ginny Pasha
President
United Way of Trumbull
 County
 
Oklahoma
 
Daren Wilson             Debby Hampton            Alison Anthony
President CEO            President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of Norman     United Way of Central    Tulsa Area United Way
                          Oklahoma
 
Ruth Cavins              Oriana McElwee           Daela Echols
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Payne      Ada Regional United      United Way of South
 County                   Way, Inc.                Central Oklahoma
 
Oregon
 
Noreen J. Dunnells       Jim Cooper               Ms. Dee Anne Everson
President and CEO        President and CEO        CEO/Executive Director
United Way of Lane       United Ways of the       United Way of Jackson
 County                   Pacific Northwest        County
 
Margaret Magruder        Ken Wilhelm              Melissa Busch
Commissioner             Executive Director       Registered Nurse
United Way of Columbia   United Way of Central    United Way of Columbia
                          Oregon                   County
 
Claire Catt              Blake A. Pang            Tony Erickson
Executive Director       President and CEO        COO
United Way of Columbia   United Way of Linn,      United Way of Columbia
 County                   Benton and Lincoln       County
                          Counties
 
Pennsylvania
 
Laurie Root              Michael J. Rubino        Gary Drapek
President and CEO        Executive Director       President
United Way of Erie       Beaver County            United Way of
 County                                            Lackawanna and Wayne
                                                   Counties
 
William M. Jones         Benjamin Green           Jennifer Dippold
President and CEO        Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Wyoming    Clinton County United    St. Marys Area United
 Valley                   Way of PA                Way
 
Phillip Sparacella       Michael B. Tukeva        Amy Foley
President and CEO        President/CEO            Executive Director
United Way of Mon        Pocono Mountains United  Grove City Area United
 Valley                   Way                      Way
 
Carrie H. Freeman        Kenneth Hunt             Ronald Frick
CEO                      Executive Director       President
United Way of Southern   United Way Boyertown     Lycoming County United
 Chester County           Area                     Way
 
Bobbi Watt Geer          MaChal Forbes            John ``Herm'' Suplizio
President and CEO        Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of            Greene County United     DuBois Area United Way
 Southwestern PA          Way
 
David Lewis              Karen Struble Myers      Adrienne Mael
President                President and CEO        President/CEO
United Way of the        United Way of the        United Way of Columbia
 Greater Lehigh Valley    Laurel Highlands         and Montour Counties
                                                   and Greater
                                                   Susquehanna Valley
                                                   United Way
 
Kevin M Ressler          Kristen Rotz             Christopher Saello
President and CEO        President                President and CEO
United Way of Lancaster  United Way of            United Way of Chester
 County                   Pennsylvania             County
 
Timothy B. Fatzinger
President and CEO
United Way of the
 Capital Region
 
Rhode Island
 
Cortney Nicolato
President and CEO
United Way of Rhode
 Island
 
South Carolina
 
Marisiel Losa            Meghan Barp              Paige Stephenson
President and CEO        President and CEO        President/CEO
United Way of the        United Way of            United Way of the
 Lakelands                Greenville County        Piedmont
 
Danny DuBose             Joann DeLong             Dale Douthat
Executive Director       Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of            United Way of            United Way of the
 Darlington               Hartsville               Lowcountry
 
Blakely Roof             Carol E. Burdette        Mindy Popovich
President and CEO        CEO                      President
United Way of Horry      United Way of Anderson   United Way of Sumter,
 County                   County                   Clarendon and Lee
                                                   Counties
 
Chloe Knight Tonney      LaShauna D Harrison      Rebecca Melton
President and CEO        Chief Executive Officer  President
Trident United Way       United Way of Oconee     United Way of York
                          County, Inc.             County
 
Meghan Barp              Naomi Lett
President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of            United Way Association
 Greenville County        of South Carolina
 
South Dakota
 
Carm Roster              Laura L. Hoiten          Jamie Toennies
Administrative           Executive Director       Executive Director
 Assistant
Mitchell United Way      Watertown Area United    United Way of the
                          Way                      Black Hills
 
Jamie Toennies
Executive Director
United Way of the Black
 Hills
 
Tennessee
 
Mary Graham              Amy Harper               Kenneth S. Robinson
President                Executive Director       President and CEO
United Ways of           United Way of Sevier     United Way of the Mid-
 Tennessee                County                   South
 
Matt Marshall            Paige Zabo               Danelle Glasscock
President/CEO            President/CEO            Executive Director
United Way of West       United Way of McMinn     United Way of Greater
 Tennessee                and Meigs Counties       Kingsport
 
Lisa Cofer               Matt Ryerson             Mary Graham
Executive Director       CEO                      President
United Way of Bristol    United Way of Greater    United Ways of
                          Knoxville                Tennessee
 
Valerie Guzman
CEO/Executive Director
United Way of the
 Greater Clarksville
 Region
 
Texas
 
Lisa Scroggins           Kilena Underwood         Jamie Johnson
Executive Director       Executive Director       CEO
Erath County United Way  Henderson County United  United Way of Mid and
                          Way                      South Jefferson
                                                   County
 
Stephanie Chandler,      Andrea Grangruth         Traci Wickett
 M.Ed., MBA
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Grayson    Cooke County United Way  United Way of Southern
 County                                            Cameron County
 
Jamie McNulty            Lindsey White            Maureen McAllister
Executive Director       Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of West       United Way of Galveston  United Way of Orange
 Ellis County                                      County
 
Leah M. King             Rev. Dr. Evan M. Dolive  Jenna Haviland-Alesna
President and CEO        Executive Director       Executive Director
Tarrant County           Greater Longview United  United Way of Brazoria
                          Way                      County
 
Roxanne Saldana Jones    Gary Ashcraft            Deb Helm
Interim President and    President/CEO            Executive Director
 CEO
United Ways of Texas     Nacogdoches Area United  United Way of Kaufman
                          Way                      County
 
Tracey P Lopez           Christopher F. Martin    Barbara Tucker
CEO/Executive Director   President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Rusk       United Way of San        United Way of Palo
 County                   Antonio and Bexar        Pinto County, Inc.
                          County
 
Utah
 
Bill Crim                Bill Hulterstrom         James A Birman Jr.
President and CEO        President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Salt Lake  United Way of Central    Cache Valley
                          and Southern Utah
 
Tim Jackson
President and CEO
United Way of Northern
 Utah
 
Vermont
 
Helena Van Voorst        Jesse Bridges            Ruben R. Garza
Executive Director       CEO                      Executive Director
United Way of Addison    United Way of Northwest  United Way of Windham
 County                   Vermont                  County
 
Clarissa French
Co-Executive Director
United Way of Lamoille
 County
 
Virginia
 
Ravi Respeto             James Taylor             Lisa Cofer
President and CEO        President and CEO        Executive Director
United Way of Greater    United Way of Greater    United Way of Bristol
 Charlottesville          Richmond and
                          Petersburg
 
Rosie Allen-Herring      Abigail Hamilton
President and CEO        President and CEO
United Way of the        United Way of Roanoke
 National Capital Area    Valley
 
Washington
 
Jim Cooper               Eric Fejeran             Dona Ponepinto
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Ways of the       United Way of Whitman    United Way of Pierce
 Pacific Northwest        County                   County
 
Carl Borg                Terry Cox                Kelley McDonald
President/CEO            Acting CEO and           Executive Director
                          President
United Way of Kitsap     United Way of Snohomish  United Way of Grays
 County                   County                   Harbor serving Grays
                                                   Harbor and Pacific
                                                   Counties
 
Chris Wells              Ted Jackson              Angela Heinlen
Executive Director       Executive Director       Manager of Marketing
                                                   and Data
United Way of Thurston   United Way of Mason      United Way of Cowlitz
 County                   County                   and Wahkiakum
                                                   Counties
 
Robert Hanny             Gordon McHenry, Jr.      William T. Morrissey
Core Services Director/  President and CEO        President
 United Way Board
 Member
United Way of Grays      United Way King County   United Way of San Juan
 Harbor                                            County
 
Lynn Green               Jennifer Durney          Kristi Birkeland
United Way Board         Board Member             President/CEO
 Secretary
United Way of Grays      United Way of Grays      United Way of Whatcom
 Harbor                   Harbor                   County
 
West Virginia
 
Rebecca Sias             Brett White              Carol H. Bailey
Executive Director       CEO                      Executive Director
United Way of Gilmer,    Tygart Valley United     United Way of the
 Lewis and Upshur         Way                      River Cities
 
Margaret O'Neal          Stacy Decicco            Trena Dacal
President                Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Central    UW Alliance of the MOV   United Way of Southern
 West Virginia                                     West Virginia
 
Penny Porter
CEO
United Way of the
 Eastern Panhandle
 
Wisconsin
 
Alexa Haigh              Harper Mruk              Amy Lindner
President and CEO        Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Racine     United Way of Dodge      United Way of Greater
 County                   County                   Milwaukee and
                                                   Waukesha County
 
Charlene Mouille         Amber Kilawee            Mary Fanning-Penny
Executive Director       Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Wisconsin  Fond du Lac Area United  United Way Blackhawk
                          Way                      Region
 
Nancy Schultz            Carolynn Friesch         Barbara Bates-Nelson
Executive Director       CEO                      Executive Director
United Way of Shawano    United Way of Kenosha    United Way of Northern
 County                   County                   Ozaukee
 
Jeff Sargent             Ashley Winch             Robyn Davis
Executive Director/CEO   Executive Director       President and CEO
United Way of Marathon   Marshfield Area United   Brown County United
 County                   Way                      Way
 
Amy Kohnle               Joe Marquardt            Tari Jahns
CEO                      Chairman                 CEO
United Way of Door       New London               United Way of South
 County                                            Wood and Adams
                                                   Counties
 
Tammy Dunn               Andrew Neborak           Jennifer Thatcher
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Walworth   United Way of the        United Way of Dunn
 County                   Greater Chippewa         County
                          Valley
 
Kate Baer                Megan Hartwick           Mary Kay Wolf
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Sheboygan  United Way of Jefferson  Great Rivers United
 County                   and North Walworth       Way
                          Counties
 
Kris Schmidt             Renee Moe                Natasha Khan
Treasurer                President and CEO        Operations Coordinator
Clark County United Way  United Way of Dane       United Way Manitowoc
                          County                   County
 
Susan Wilcox
Executive Director
United Way of Portage
 County
 
Wyoming
 
Evelyn Edson             Kelly Frink              Anna Wilcox
Executive Director       Executive Director       Executive Director
United Way of Albany     United Way of Southwest  United Way of Natrona
 County                   Wyoming                  County
 


                                 ______
                                 
                          Vanguard Charitable

                             P.O. Box 9509

                         Warwick, RI 02889-9509

                              888-383-4483

                 [email protected]

                Statement of Rebecca Moffett, President

On behalf of Vanguard Charitable, thank you for the opportunity to 
submit this statement for the record in follow up to the Senate 
Committee on Finance's hearing on ``Charitable Giving Trends in the 
Nonprofit Sector.'' We appreciate the Committee for its leadership on 
this important subject.

At Vanguard Charitable, a sponsor of donor-advised funds (DAF), we are 
avid proponents of ways to increase charitable giving and strengthen 
the nonprofit sector and the countless communities it supports, 
including encouraging individuals to give in all its many forms--
monetary donations, volunteering of one's time and talents, and active 
civic participation. We firmly believe that the more people who are 
encouraged and able to give, the better off our communities will be. 
Our comments in this testimony will be focused on a donor-advised 
fund's role in enabling this.

Vanguard Charitable has the distinct privilege of serving as one of the 
largest grantmakers in the United States, providing much-needed 
financial support to hundreds of thousands of unique charities at the 
recommendation of our more than 25,000 generous donors. Since we were 
founded by Vanguard 25 years ago as a 501(c)(3) public charity and 
donor-advised fund, we have granted more than $13 billion to charitable 
organizations. In 2021 alone, we granted $1.78 billion, an 8% increase 
on top of a record year of giving in 2020 (increasing by 25% over 2019) 
in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These billions of dollars represent significant resources for 
hardworking nonprofits across the country and around the world who 
provide food for the hungry, healthcare for the ill, educational 
opportunities for our children, protection of the environment, support 
for cultural institutions, and more. Importantly, these dollars are 
available and ready to be called to action no matter the external or 
economic conditions.

This is the story of donor-advised funds' role in the charitable 
sector. In a normal year, they are strong charitable engines that spur 
generous donations and help power philanthropy. But when the 
unthinkable happens, they are also equipped with a special gear. In the 
past few years alone, we've seen our donors respond meaningfully with 
grants to 501(c)(3) public charities in the wake of hurricanes in the 
U.S. and abroad, wildfires in the western U.S. and Australia, an 
earthquake in Puerto Rico, a brutal winter storm in Texas, an explosion 
in Beirut, and now a humanitarian disaster in Ukraine, just to name a 
few.

Notably, DAFs do not solely help respond to disasters. Evidence shows 
they can also be a stabilizing force to the philanthropic world during 
economic downturns.\1\ Because DAF donors have already designated the 
funds in their DAF for charity, they can respond more easily than other 
sources of giving, which tend to dry up during recessions. It's this 
upfront commitment to charity--not just to giving, but to long-term, 
sustainable support--that sets DAFs and their donors apart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Heist, H. D., Vance-McMullen, D. Understanding donor-advised 
funds: How grants flow during recessions, https://www.sp2.upenn.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/Heist-Vance-McMullen_Understanding-Donor-
Advised-Funds_working-paper-002.pdf.

One of the unique features of DAFs is their ability to grow funds, 
creating additional dedicated charitable resources. Our donors choose 
from Vanguard Charitable's diversified lineup of high-quality, low-cost 
investment options, which have driven tremendous returns on charitable 
investments in recent years. One study concluded that DAFs created more 
than $5 billion in new charitable dollars from 2015-2019 due to their 
ability to grow charitable investments tax-free.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Husock, H. Appreciation in Donor-Advised Funds: An Analysis of 
Major Sponsors. American Enterprise Institute, https://www.aei.org/
research-products/report/appreciation-in-donor-advised-funds-an-
analysis-of-major-sponsors/.

Not only is the donor-advised fund innately built to drive significant 
charitable giving, it also enables effective and compliant giving, 
ensuring every donated dollar will be used for charitable purposes. 
This is especially critical in the wake of disasters or unplanned needs 
when rapid but responsible movement of charitable dollars is sorely 
needed. Our due diligence practices help counter the bad actors that 
often attempt to solicit funds from unsuspecting and well-intentioned 
donors, and they also ensure our donors are giving in compliance with 
sanctions or international granting rules--something the average donor 
may find challenging to navigate. We have seen both these examples come 
to light in the wake of the Ukraine humanitarian crisis: Vanguard 
Charitable provided our donors with a list of reputable and carefully 
vetted organizations that are getting funds directly to those in need, 
minimizing the need for any review the individual donor may need to do 
to ensure compliance with international law or quality of the recipient 
charity. We also got the money out the door quickly; as of this 
writing, Vanguard Charitable donors granted more than 4,300 times, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
totaling nearly $37 million.

Our strong compliance and granting history is informed by the rules 
governing all 501(c)(3) public charities and donor-advised funds. The 
Pension Protection Act enacted several provisions to further define 
donor-advised funds and regulate our grantmaking and due diligence 
practices, thereby penalizing any would-be improper behavior by DAFs or 
our donors. Also, Vanguard Charitable, like many of our peer 
grantmakers, has a minimum account activity policy to ensure active 
granting by all of our donors.

Vanguard Charitable believes in making every dollar that comes into our 
donor-
advised fund even stronger and more effective as it moves to the end 
charitable recipient. The donor-advised fund's combination of dollars 
``at-the-ready'' that are available for ongoing needs over time--all 
while granting with the highest level of compliance and due diligence--
makes the tool a formidable and necessary sustaining force in the 
giving landscape. At Vanguard Charitable, we build on that by looking 
ahead to the future of giving and considering the tools and resources 
we can provide to donors to help them make well-informed and effective 
giving decisions. The many resources we provide include:

      Compiling lists of credible, effective disaster relief 
organizations to help donors give immediately in the wake of great 
need.
      Investing in technology that enables money to get to charities 
faster.
      Connecting donors with experts and leaders at many of the 
nonprofit organizations they support to hear firsthand about their 
missions.
      Encouraging unrestricted giving to enable charities to use 
donations for the greatest need.
      Developing innovative and modern giving tools, such as the 
Nonprofit Aid Visualizer, a mapping solution that helps donors find 
charities in their local communities who are fighting the hunger and 
homelessness crises.

As the Committee looks ahead, I respectfully ask you to consider how to 
encourage greater charitable giving and support the variety of tools, 
like donor-advised funds, that bolster each dollar individuals invest 
in the philanthropic sector.

If I can be a resource to the Committee as it considers its next steps 
or address any questions, please reach out. Vanguard Charitable and 
donor-advised funds broadly have a history of making a significant 
impact on communities all over the globe, in times of great need and 
when other charitable sources may be less available. We hope to 
continue to serve this critical role for our neighbors.

                                 ______
                                 
                            YMCA of the USA

                          101 N. Wacker Drive

                           Chicago, IL 60606

                             P 800-872-9622

                             F 312-977-9063

                         https://www.ymca.org/

March 14, 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chairman                            Ranking Member
U.S. Senate                         U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building  219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo and Senate Finance Committee 
Members:

I respectfully submit this letter on behalf of the nation's 2,600 
YMCAs, which serve 10,000 communities across the nation. We urge you to 
support for enactment two bipartisan bills that will address 
significant revenue losses and workforce shortages in the nonprofit 
sector: the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and Recovery Act 
(UGPRRA), S. 618/H.R. 1704, and the Employee Retention Tax Credit 
Reinstatement Act, S. 3625/H.R. 6161. These bipartisan bills are 
critical to YMCAs and other nonprofit organizations and will help us 
continue to provide critically needed services in communities as they 
work to overcome ongoing challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Throughout the pandemic, Ys across the country have provided emergency 
services for communities in need, including childcare for health care 
workers and first responders, food for kids without access to school 
meals, safe and enriching virtual learning spaces, shelter for 
marginalized populations and outreach to isolated seniors. Ys also have 
been providing holistic health and wellness support for all ages.

Before and throughout this pandemic, the Y has been a leading nonprofit 
committed to strengthening community by empowering young people, 
improving the health and well-being of people of all ages and inspiring 
positive action in and across communities. This action includes 
fostering a culture of giving through volunteerism and local 
fundraising efforts, which are critical to ensuring YMCAs have the 
capacity to meet the need for services in communities. YMCAs 
collaborate with a diverse group of partners in the private and public 
sectors, as well as individual donors at all levels. Fundraising is 
challenging for certain, and Ys and other nonprofits need every tool we 
can get to help bolster these efforts, including tax policies that 
encourage giving.

We urge you to enact the Universal Giving Pandemic Response and 
Recovery Act (UGPRRA), S. 618/H.R. 1704, led by a bipartisan, bicameral 
group of lawmakers, including Senators. James Lankford (R-OK), Chris 
Coons (D-DE), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tim Scott (R-SC), 
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Catherine Cortez Masto 
(D-NV). UGPRRA would increase the cap on the temporary universal 
charitable deduction from $300/$600 to one-third of the standard 
deduction--and would extend the availability of the deduction through 
2022. Increasing charitable contributions is a key factor in addressing 
both the increased costs related to the higher demand for services as 
well as operational setbacks due to significant revenue losses 
experienced by many nonprofits.

An above the line ``universal'' charitable deduction would incentivize 
all American taxpayers--regardless of income--to give to charity, 
thereby ensuring that our country retains a strong and independent 
civil society. In 2020, Congress enacted a temporary nonitemizer 
deduction on charitable donations in the CARES Act. It included a $300 
cap for individuals and a $600 cap for couples. This marked the first 
time in thirty years that all taxpayers were able to claim a deduction 
on at least part of their charitable giving, regardless of whether they 
itemized. The Fundraising Effectiveness Project's fourth quarter report 
for 2020 shows a 15.3 percent uptick in donations of less than $250, 
which outpaced the increase in larger donations. Additionally, there 
was an estimated 28 percent increase in gifts of $300 on December 31, 
2021--the exact amount of the universal charitable deduction. While we 
know there are many factors that contribute to increased donations, one 
factor was likely the availability of the charitable deduction to 
nonitemizers. Unfortunately, that deduction expired at the end of 2021.

As noted, UGPRA would raise the $300/$600 cap to roughly $4,000 for 
individuals/$8,000 for couples and extend the availability of the 
deduction to the 2022 tax year, helping to spur more giving as 
communities continue to recover from COVID-19 and its economic effects. 
It also would provide needed resources for charitable and faith-based 
organizations to continue providing vital services to families, workers 
and communities, especially those most severely affected by the ongoing 
pandemic. Additionally, we are urging Congress to extend two additional 
disaster-relief giving incentives that expired on December 31, 2021--
the provision permitting individuals who itemize to deduct charitable 
donations up to 100 percent of their adjusted gross income and the 
measure allowing corporations to deduct charitable donations up to 25 
percent of taxable income.

Over the past several months, there has been much discussion about the 
negative impacts on nonprofit organizations due to the early 
termination of the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC). The ERTC was 
instrumental in helping nonprofits like the Y retain staff who deliver 
essential services in their communities. We urge you to prioritize 
passage of the Employee Retention Tax Credit Reinstatement Act (S. 
3625/H.R. 6161). This bipartisan legislation reinstates the ERTC 
through the end of calendar year 2021, as Congress intended, to help 
struggling nonprofits who were counting on the ERTC to pay their 
employees through the end of the year. For YMCAs across America, the 
elimination of ERTC for the fourth quarter of 2021 cuts $60M-$100M of 
expected operating funds that already were budgeted to keep critical 
staff on the payroll to continue meeting vital community needs. Please 
pass the Employee Retention Tax Credit Reinstatement Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter and for your 
support of the YMCA. We greatly appreciate your consideration to 
support the provisions outlined here to enhance charitable giving and 
to further support nonprofits as we continue to recover from the 
pandemic while also continuing to serve our communities.

Sincerely,

Suzanne McCormick
President and CEO

                               [all]