Giving in all its forms — time, talent and treasure — is in our DNA, and I’d like to think it’s not tied to a tax deduction, but rather to a desire to do good — to love humankind. That’s why I give, and why I believe our donors give too. Maybe I’m a bit ‘Pollyanna’ about philanthropy, but especially this time of year, I lean on this sentiment.

Recently, there’s been a lot of press about why people give, often in the context of tax reform and policies that may (or may not) change the behavior of donors, and the levels of giving. One of the most popular forms of philanthropy, the Donor-Advised Fund (DAF), has come under scrutiny in the last few years, both in the press and on Capitol Hill. The first DAF was created in 1931, but it wasn’t until the mid-1990’s and with the creation of DAF vehicles at commercial investment firms that they really began to gain traction as a giving platform.

As a result, they seem to be getting a bad rap. Philanthropy pundits and lawmakers are starting to question whether or not these vehicles serve the donors more than the community and nonprofits, since the donor maximizes his or her tax benefit, and there are no legal requirements of distributions over time.

True, the DAF provides a way to invest long-term philanthropic assets and let the donor advisor, often in concert with their local community foundation, recommend how the money is redistributed to nonprofits doing work that match their charitable interests. But while there isn’t a spending requirement, each year DAFs distribute on average 10% or more of their assets. In comparison, a private foundation is only required to distribute 5%.

Read the full article about giving motivations and Donor-advised Funds by Lori O’Keefe at Medium.