Most charities would be delighted to find themselves named in either a CRT or a SO, of course. It certainly can. So, if the charity is offered an unwelcome distribution from a SO or a CRT, it can always just say no. About a year ago, many readers will know there was some discussion of repealing or trimming down donor-advised funds, the lifeblood of community foundations. Neither of these potential changes has materialized.
SOs are dangerous things because they threaten the charity s ability to generate large gifts.
Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, although I suspect that this is what is at the core of any lingering distrust about SOs among charities. These are attributes that are frankly difficult for public charities to match in quite the same way, unless they actively and smartly ally themselves with SOs, and bring the SO idea to their best donors and prospects. This is targeted planned giving development at its greatest point of laser-focus. That's right your charity, if you have been alert enough to forge these relationships now, while some of your fellow planned giving officers are snoozing through this critical opportunity. All in all, a very attractive package indeed for the charity.