How we give of our time, talent, and treasures is often how we are known and remembered. This brief will provide you with an opportunity to reflect on how you currently give, better define your values and goals, and boost your understanding of the opportunities and challenges in philanthropy. It also highlights the role strategic giving can play in civic engagement and the renewal of civic life in America.


View the Executive Summary for this brief.

Whether it’s at the grocery store checkout, on our friends’ social media posts, or through our inbox or mailbox, we are asked to give back every day. Giving back is part of America’s DNA. Upon coming to America centuries ago, most people had to start from scratch; it was up to the citizens to build their communities. In the 1830s, French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to the United States and was struck by American civil society and the extent of Americans’ civic engagement, how they came together to champion causes and benefit the community.

To this day, his observation that a healthy democracy requires civil associations remains true, as noted by Harvard’s Robert Putnam: “Certain communities do not enjoy a more vital civic life because they are prosperous, they are prosperous because they have a vital civic life.”

Why it Matters

From the coronavirus pandemic and nationwide unrest, to supply chain shortages and rising prices, America has faced multiple crises since the beginning of 2020. One thing that has been encouraging is the record amounts of giving that occurred in 2020. According to Giving USA, Americans donated a record $471 billion dollars to charitable causes, demonstrating their optimism and a desire for a better future for all.

Being strategic with your philanthropy provides a unique opportunity to move the needle on the matters – from education to religion to social issues – that you care most about and shape the civic landscape of your community accordingly.

While federal, state, and local governments are equipped to respond to and handle certain issues, philanthropic freedom enables nonprofit organizations to fill the gaps left open by governments, and respond quickly to society’s challenges with innovative and flexible solutions. And yet, there are numerous policy debates about the nature of philanthropy and the philanthropic freedom that enables charitable causes to do what they do best. When policies affect philanthropy, they directly impact active and constructive civic participation.

Putting it in Context


Philanthropy, charity, and volunteerism are all about voluntary contributions of money, talent, and time, the point of which is to help develop communities or improve the lives of others. These means are “how people show compassion for others who are less fortunate than they are or those who have been impacted by negative events such as a natural disaster.”

Charity and philanthropy “involve giving money directly to people or to causes or nonprofit organizations that help people,” but there are some subtle differences between the two. Charity is usually “an immediate response to a short-term need, such as sending a donation to the Red Cross after a natural disaster. Philanthropy is more strategic and focused on supporting individuals to solve problems over the long-term. This article describes the difference this way: “Delivering bottled water to a drought-stricken village in East Africa is charity, but philanthropy is building a well.”

Volunteerism is when individuals willingly donate their time and skills, with no financial compensation,  to an organization that serves other people, or directly to benefit other people.

By the Numbers

Historically, the U.S. has an international reputation for being one of the most giving countries in the world. Americans dedicate 2% of total U.S. GDP to charity, more than twice the average in the EU.

Volunteers make an incredibly large contribution in their local communities and beyond. According to Independent Sector, a national organization for nonprofits, foundations, and corporations, the value of an hour of a volunteer’s time in the U.S. in 2021 was $28.54. An estimated 77 million Americans volunteered about 7 billion hours of time valued at approximately $167 billion in 2020.

Within the U.S., analysis of IRS tax data of 128 million households found charitable giving rose from $448 billion in 2019 to $471 billion in 2020. According to Philanthropy Roundtable, 60% of American households participate in some sort of charitable giving. Giving USA’s annual report determined the average annual charity donation for Americans in 2020 was $737. This is likely a low estimate, as most Americans do not calculate the monetary value of goods they donate.

Charitable donations vary greatly based on age and income levels. The average age of a U.S. donor is 64 years old. The graphs below, using data from the Tax Policy Center, break down charitable giving by income range.

Areas of Focus

According to Giving USA’s 2020 report, most nonprofit categories saw a boost in contributions, particularly among public-society groups such as civil rights organizations and charities, like the United Way. Arts and culture organizations, as well as nonprofit hospitals and disease-specific health organizations saw declines in giving. Una Osili, associate dean for research and international programs at the Indiana University Lilly School of Philanthropy says part of the decrease to health organizations can be explained by a large portion of pandemic-related donations going to vaccine research and other services offered by university hospitals. Those donations saw a 9% increase compared to 2019.

In 2020, the majority of U.S. charitable donations went to religion (28%), education (15%), human services (14%), and public-society benefit (10%). The top four types of organizations that received the most support through volunteering in 2020 were religious (32%); sport, hobby, cultural, and art organizations (25.7%); education or youth service organizations (19.2%); and civic, political, professional, or international organizations (6.2%).


The Nonprofit Landscape

The National Center for Charitable Statistics estimates there are 1.5 million registered nonprofit organizations in the U.S. The nonprofit sector includes organizations from endowed private philanthropic foundations to local associations. According to this Washington Examiner article, “An estimated 87,000 grant-making private foundations control more than $1 trillion in wealth and direct it independent of government.”

Most of these fall under the Internal Revenue Services’ 501(c) designation, classifying them as tax-exempt organizations. Tax-exempt charitable organizations include those “organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, education, or other specified purposes.”


Organizations that only operate charitable activities are classified by the Internal Revenue Code under Section 501(c)(3). These organizations are generally tax deductible and must use grants, donations, and other payments only for specified purposes. 501(c)(3)s are prohibited from engaging in political campaign activity and influencing legislation, but they are allowed to engage in limited lobbying (defined below) through issue advocacy, discussed more below. The IRS classifies all 501(c)(3) organizations as either private foundations or public charities. The Policy Circle is a 501(c)(3).

Under the Internal Revenue Code, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization is presumed to be a private foundation until it can prove that it is a public charity. Public charities “are required to have a broad base of public support,” which the IRS measures by requiring  at least one-third of donations to come from donors who give less than 2% of the nonprofit’s total income (or from other public charities and/or the government).

One type of public charity is a community foundation, which typically focuses on supporting local charities in a specific geographic area. Community foundation revenues come from donations from individuals, families, businesses, and sometimes government grants. In turn, they offer grantmaking programs such as endowments, scholarships, and donor-advised funds (discussed more below). Common areas of support include education such as literacy programs, or human services, such as aid for the homeless.

Private foundations are generally established by an individual, family, or corporation, and are overseen by a board of directors or trustees. Private foundations usually have to pay out at least 5% of their assets each year in the form of grants or other charitable contributions.

An alternative to a private foundation is a donor-advised fund, which is a dedicated account for charitable contributions. In 2020, there were just over one million donor-advised fund accounts, with the average fund account size of just under $160,000. Annual contributions into these funds reached $47.85 billion. Donor-advised funds provide donors with an immediate eligibility for a tax deduction for the year they contribute, although the donor-advised fund is not required to make donations in any given year. A donor-advised fund allows the account owner to plan out their giving, focus the scope of their giving, and maintain anonymity, if they so choose.

In this interview, Marie Ruzek CFRE, Vice President of Philanthropic Services at Wells Fargo explains the difference between a private foundation and a donor-advised fund.

Other 501(c)s

A 501(c) organization is an American tax-exempt nonprofit organization formed under Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code and is one of over 29 types of nonprofit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes.

501(c)(4) organizations are characterized as “social welfare organizations.” These nonprofit organizations must “operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” They cannot benefit private shareholders or individuals. Unlike with 501(c)(3)s, donations to 501(c)(4)s are generally not tax deductible. 501(c)(4)s may also engage in some political activities as long as that is not its primary activity. In practice that means they spend less than 50% of their money on politics and advocacy. Several 501(c)3s have a 501(c)4 component that allows them to do  advocacy work.

501(c)(5) organizations are labor, agricultural, or horticulture organizations, which includes unions. Like 501(c)(4)s, they may engage in lobbying activities and some political activities (such as supporting or opposing a candidate) as long as those are not its primary activities.

501(c)(6) organizations include business leagues, chambers of commerce, and trade associations. Activities must be for the purpose of improving business conditions, though not any single businesses in particular. They may also not engage in a regular business that is meant to make a profit. An example is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 501(c)(6)s may engage in political activities and lobbying, but must provide members notice if dues used for these activities.

Advocacy vs. Lobbying

Advocacy is “‘any action that speaks in favor of, recommends, argues for a cause, supports or defends, or pleads on behalf of others.’” In the nonprofit realm, advocating includes most forms of communication a nonprofit can use. This can include conducting educational meetings or preparing educational materials on public policy issues.

Lobbying tends to be much more narrowly focused. It involves decision makers (policymakers and staff) and the action of urging a vote for or against legislation. According to the IRS, an organization engages in lobbying “if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption of rejection of legislation.”

This is the main difference between 501(c)(3) organizations and 501(c)(4)s, (c)(5)s, and (c)(6)s: 501(c)(3)s’ political involvement is limited to advocacy of public policy issues, whereas 501(c)(4)s, (c)(5)s, and (c)(6)s may engage in legislative lobbying.

Nonprofit organizations can strengthen democracy by focusing on:

  • Accountability and transparency in government;
  • Initiatives that promote constitutional rights and principles;
  • Fostering fair and honest election processes with organizations that engage in voter registration or poll worker training;
  • Education and engagement outside of the election cycle that empowers individuals to participate in the policy making process, like The Policy Circle;
  • Building information ecosystems that inform the public about their representatives and opportunities to participate in civil life.

For example, The Bradley Foundation supports organizations (including The Policy Circle) that promote and protect founding principles and American exceptionalism.  The Klarman Family Foundation focuses on rebuilding trust in news media by funding nonprofit journalism and advocating for press freedom. Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement’s Faith In/And Democracy focuses on how faith and faith communities support democracy and civic life. If a 501(c)(3) tries to go beyond such issues and influence actual legislation, it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status.

Funding for Nonprofits

Revenue for most 501(c)(3) charities comes from fees for service (for example, many nonprofits offer memberships for a fee); government grants and contracts; foundation and corporate grants; events; and individual donations. Government grants and fees for services usually total about one-third of nonprofit sector revenue. Some organizations, such as The Policy Circle, are committed to operating without government support.

Corporate Giving

Corporate philanthropy “refers to the investments and activities a company voluntarily undertakes to responsibly manage and account for its impact on society.” This can include monetary donations and investments, donations of products and services, technical assistance, and employee volunteerism. Experts say corporations are more likely to give when the stock market is up, which has been posited as an explanation for the 6.1% decrease in corporate giving from 2019 to 2020.

Corporate giving programs are a specific form of corporate philanthropy that are driven by employee giving. The more employees donate to philanthropic organizations, the more their company will donate. For example, if an employee donates their time or money, companies can match the monetary gift or provide monetary grants to organizations where employees regularly volunteer.

Corporate philanthropy can help companies exhibit what is known as corporate social responsibility, a broad concept that “can help forge a stronger bond between employees and corporations, boost morale, and help both employees and employers feel more connected with the world around them.” This is especially important for companies as consumers are beginning to expect such actions from corporations; according to the Edelman Trust Barometer’s January 2021 survey, 68% of respondents believe CEOs should step in to fix societal problems when the government does not. In 2020, corporate giving decreased 6.1% from 2019 to $16.88 billion.

Individual Giving

When compared to the amount of donations from large entities like government, corporate, or foundation grants, individuals may believe they do not have substantial impact. However, the largest source of charitable giving was individuals: individual donors contributed $324.1 billion, or 69% of total giving. Charitable giving accounted for 2.3% of U.S. GDP in 2020. Three-quarters of nonprofits surveyed by the Urban Institute say individual donations are essential. For smaller nonprofits, this is especially true. Organizations with annual budget of under $500,000 make up over 60% of the nonprofits in Urban’s study, and they report 30% of their revenues comes from individual donations (compared to 18% of revenue for larger organizations).

Nonprofit charitable organizations are not the only ones; according to the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, individual alumni donations in 2020 amounted to more than $11 billion of the nearly $50 billion colleges and universities raised from outside sources.

Individuals are more likely to give to causes with which they have an emotional or personal connection. Particularly when it comes to giving locally, individuals give when they can observe the impacts of their donations and feel that they contributed to their community’s benefit. At the local level especially, giving is not only a donation of time and money; individuals often overlook other charitable actions, such as sharing kindness, creating connections, being civically engaged, and mentoring.

Melissa Kwee, CEO of National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre, explains how any one individual can be a philanthropist (13 min): 

Women and Philanthropy

As individuals, women have had a substantial impact on charitable giving, particularly as their labor force participation and earnings have risen in the past several decades. In the U.S., women are the primary breadwinners in 40% of households with children, up from 15% in the 1970s. According to The Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, across all income levels and generations, women are more likely to give than men. Compared to single men, single women of all ages are more likely to give, and give in higher amounts, to charity. Women are also more likely to give to charity than their male counterparts after an increase in income.

On digital platforms and social media, a study by The Women’s Philanthropy Institute in 2020 found that women give nearly two-thirds of total online donations. They also tend to give to smaller organizations than their male counterparts, and roughly two-thirds of their charitable giving goes specifically to women’s and girls’ causes.

Women’s foundations and funds are primarily known for their grant programs, but they also focus on relationship building, partnerships, and policy education and advocacy. The programs are varied, geared towards different populations of women based on factors such as age, marital status, education level, income, and employment or vocational status. For many women donors, they find when they invest in each other, they are also investing in children, families, and entire communities.

Giving Circles

Besides being more likely to give, women are also more likely to give as a community; 70% of giving circles are majority women. A giving circle “is a philanthropic vehicle in which individual donors pool their money and other resources and decide together where to give them away.” Giving circles can empower community members and breed intentionality by giving members the opportunity to research and understand issues that impact their community, and how to create meaningful change. Studies from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and the University of Nebraska Omaha have found that giving circles give more and are more engaged in the community than donors not in giving circles, and that they give more strategically and to a wider array of organizations. Examples of giving circles include the Latino Giving Circle Network, the Community Investment Network, and 100 Who Care Alliance.

Individuals are more likely to give to causes with which they have an emotional or personal connection. Particularly when it comes to giving locally, individuals give when they can observe the impacts of their donations and feel that they contributed to their community’s benefit. At the local level especially, giving is not only a donation of time and money; individuals often overlook other charitable actions, such as sharing kindness, creating connections, being civically engaged, and mentoring.

FreeWill breaks down insights on trends shaping how women give (50 min):

Public Policies Impacting Philanthropy

Policies set by local, state, and federal governments influence neighborhoods, schools, healthcare, environment, and the economy. It is no coincidence that these are all the biggest areas of philanthropic focus. Philanthropy can fill gaps left open or further support endeavors in any of these areas. By ensuring critical community institutions function well, citizens have better and more equal access to the processes and policies that shape their lives.

Tax Code Effects

In 2020, the largest increase in charitable donations came from foundations. These entities contributed 19% of all donations, the largest portion ever from foundations. The increase is due to policy changes that loosened restrictions and allowed more flexibility to grantees during the pandemic. Other temporary measures include the CARES Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act (2021) allowances for an “above-the-line” deduction for charitable gifts of up to $300 for taxpayers filing separately and $600 for taxpayers filing jointly, even for those not itemizing.

Legislation can make more substantial and long-term changes to trends in charitable giving. Since 1917, the federal tax code has recognized the value of charitable giving, which has become a fundamental tenet of the income tax system by preventing people from being taxed on money they freely give away. In order to claim tax deductions, taxpayers must itemize their charitable contributions, but most taxpayers choose to claim the standard deduction because it is larger than the sum of their potential itemized deductions. The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act doubled the standard deduction and eliminated some itemized deductions, prompting even more taxpayers to claim the standard deduction. This means their charitable donations do not provide a tax benefit, leaving many low- and middle-income households in particular without a tax incentive to make charitable donations. The Tax Policy Center estimated 21 million fewer households used the charitable giving incentive due to the changes. Studies of individual donors reveal declining participation rates; while donations have been increasing, these donations have mostly been coming from fewer, wealthier donors. For more on the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, see The Policy Circle’s Taxes Brief.

Besides the 2017 effects, the last truly foundational law regarding philanthropy passed in 1969 (it mandated a 5% minimum payout from private foundations). Recently, the Accelerate Charitable Efforts (ACE) Act proposed over the summer of 2021, has also been gaining a lot of attention. Sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Angus King of Maine, the legislation “would allow donors to get an upfront tax deduction for donor-advised-fund deposits if they distribute the money within 15 years.” Donors would also still be eligible to receive immediate capital gains, estate, and gift tax savings. It would also prevent foundations from meeting payout obligations by paying staff salaries or travel expenses, and would prevent donors from claiming tax benefits that significantly exceed the actual value of gifts. Some argue the distribution requirements may discourage charitable giving, while others maintain it is important to make sure those resources are available for the use of the public.

Donor Privacy

The First Amendment’s protections of free speech and free association include protections of anonymity in speech and association with organizations. In Alabama v. NAACP (1958), the United States  Supreme Court recognized this right, which forbids the government from demanding organization member lists. Based on this right, donors (in most cases) are not required  to disclose their support for an organization. However, in cases involving political activity, courts often weigh these protections against competing interests, such as campaigns finance disclosure laws.

Federal law requires the IRS “to collect ‘the names and addresses of all substantial contributors,’” which usually is those who contribute over $5,000. Tax-exempt organizations must report these names to the IRS, but are not usually required to publicly disclose names. Balancing this right to privacy “with the government’s legitimate interest in promoting transparency and investigating misconduct” has resulted in significant litigation over the past decades.

The Supreme Court “upheld the right to distribute anonymous political leaflets” (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995) and to “anonymously advocate door-to-door” (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 2002).  Most recently, in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta (2021), the Supreme Court struck down a California requirement that charities and nonprofits provide the state attorney general’s office with the names and addresses of those who contributed $5,000 or more. The Court ruled that California’s alleged interest in preventing misconduct did not justify compelling charitable organizations to disclose major donors, which violated the First Amendment.

Some state laws, however, have found limits on privacy. In Doe v. Reed (2010), the Supreme Court found that disclosing the names of petition signatories under a state open records law was not a violation of the First Amendment.

Donors may contribute anonymously for a variety of reasons, “whether out of modesty, religious belief, fear of nagging phone calls, or…safety concerns.” The NAACP in an amicus brief in support of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, wrote:

“‘In an increasingly polarized country, where threats and harassment over the Internet and social media have become commonplace, speaking out on contentious issues creates a very real risk of harassment and intimidation by private citizens and by the government itself… it is necessary for individuals to be able to express and promote their viewpoints through associational affiliations without personally exposing themselves to a legal, personal, or political firestorm.’”

This idea has become a point of contention particularly in the political realm. Candidates, political parties, and political action committees must disclose expenditures, income, and donors, but 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s are not required to do so. Because 501(c)(4)s are allowed to participate in political activities, there is debate as to whether or not nonprofit organizations should be required to disclose donors. Some argue that the lack of transparency serves special interests and contributes to corruption. Others say disclosure requirements could hurt free expression by discouraging participation and donations. Individuals whose personal values align with certain organizations do not control what those organizations do or say, so another argument is that they should not be held accountable for an organization’s actions.

Donor Intent

Donor intent “refers to how a person making a charitable contribution intends the money to be used.” Donors frequently value the opportunity to specifically direct their gifts.

There are two kinds of donations:

  • Unrestricted funds may be used by the receiving organization for any legal purpose.
  • Restricted funds are set aside for a particular purpose, and they are permanently restricted to that purpose, designated by the donor.

Donor intent is protected by federal and state laws, and donors have the right to sue organizations that do not use their gifts for the intended purpose.

When donor intent is a top priority, donors can structure their gift to make sure their intent is carried out. One means is a gift agreement, which is a written agreement that states the specific purpose of the gift. It can go even further in some cases to include restrictions that would bar the funds from being used for purposes that may conflict with the donor’s values, and to include an enforcement mechanism that creates consequences if the receiving organization does not follow through.

Donations to Political Campaigns

The First Amendment ensures the right to free speech, and it is considered an expression of this right to contribute to political campaigns. Although donations to political campaigns are not tax deductible, supporting candidates can be viewed as a component of a giving strategy, since elected officials enact policies that impact citizens’ and companies’ behavior. Others argue that large contributions make politicians reliant on wealthy individuals and corporations, prioritizing the needs of these contributors above the needs of the average voter, thereby allowing them more influence to shape the outcomes of public elections and policy.

Concerns about potential corruption have sparked numerous pieces of legislation since the early 1900s, which resulted in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002 to address spending and contribution limits and loopholes. The Supreme Court has worked to balance concerns about corruption in campaign financing without infringing too broadly on First Amendment rights. In 2010, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission found that “across-the-board bans on corporate or union expenditures are unconstitutional.” The Court held that “the rule that political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth is a necessary consequence of the premise that the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”

In McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s majority opinion, “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders… We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”

For more on donor limits and other issues pertinent to campaign contributions, see The Policy Circle’s Campaign Finance Brief.


Strategic and intentional giving empowers individuals to meaningfully impact their communities, and advance a cause in accordance with their personal values and goals. Understanding the philanthropic landscape is key to an individual’s active and constructive civic participation.

Ways to Get Involved/What You Can Do

The following chart can be a useful tool in determining where and how to allocate your limited resources of time and treasures. Consider different areas of focus, such as civic engagement and economic empowerment. Spheres of care speak to where you are focused: on organizations that impact you and your community, international causes, or somewhere in between on the state or regional level? Horizon of care considers how your engagement looks down the line: is this something to address an immediate need, or are you able to engage to make a long-term impact?


Measure: Consider organizations you know of, have donated to, or that are close to your community.  Ask your trusted friends which organizations they support or volunteer with. Most importantly, do your research:

  • What kinds of programs do they run? 
  • Are they rated on Guidestar
  • Run a simple internet search – are they in the news? 
  • Review the website and look at the  organization’s history and current leadership.
  • How does the organization measure impact?  What are the stated outcomes? Is it clear that these programs are making a positive difference and in what way?
  • Do you know what they advocate or lobby for in terms of public policies?
  • Do they collaborate with other organizations?
  • What is their budget?
  • Do they disclose donors?

Identify: For the organizations:

  • What are their sources of funding? What percentage comes from the government?
  • Who are the beneficiaries of these programs?
  • Do your local representatives know about the organizations that you support?
  • Do you know how your representatives in Congress feel about donor privacy policies?

Reach out: Find allies and build community networks.

  • Talk to community members to see their visions for the community and understand their concerns.
  • Meet the leaders of your local community organizations

Plan: Set milestones, don’t try to do it all at once.

  • Use the matrix above to define your focus and  plan out your giving


  • Do your research:
    • Look up the tax status of your favorite nonprofit organization. Are they a 501c3? Are they a private or public charity? Do they have a 501(c)(4) arm?
  • Get involved in community initiatives
    • Listen and learn about the community, or contact the township to see important initiatives that are in place to understand major concerns
    • Consider creating an engagement scorecard – what are the main areas for concern, what’s being done, and is there room for beneficial involvement?
  • Focus your giving engagement
    • How and in what areas do you want to make an impact?
    • Is this something that will have an immediate impact, such as volunteering at a soup kitchen, or long-term engagement, such as investing in research or coalition-building to address root causes of a problem?
    • On what level would you engage – local, state, national, international?
    • How much time, effort, and funding can realistically be allocated? Is this something you will contribute to as an individual, or as  part of a group? Is there a champion who could lead the effort?
  • Consider which areas align with your giving priorities
    • The Bradley Impact Fund categorizes areas of giving priorities under the following:
      • Constitutional Order – Fidelity to the Constitution, with its principles of limited government, federalism, separation of powers, and individual liberties.
      • Free Markets – Commitment to free markets that allow for private enterprise, entrepreneurship, and voluntary exchange within the rule of law.
      • Civil Society – Commitment to the fundamental institutions of civil society that cultivate individuals capable of self-governance.
      • Informed Citizens – Dedication to the formation of informed and capable citizens.
      • Donor Intent – Protection of donor intent.

Additional Resources