Decarlos Brown Jr. Assault Case Shines Light on Changes Needed in Philanthropic Sector

The perplexing question that has been haunting many is why Decarlos Brown Jr., known for his lengthy and brutal criminal history, as well as his significant mental disorder, had the freedom to assault Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee, on a public transit train in Charlotte last month. Judges, district attorneys, and politicians who are lax about crime take a share of responsibility. Yet, they are not the sole actors in this unfortunate debacle. Many private organizations have played a parallel role, endorsing and financially supporting risky policies in collaboration with the government.

In Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, where Brown had been apprehended several times, the MacArthur Foundation made a considerable donation of $1 million in 2020 to the Safety and Justice Challenge. The stated purpose of this support was to ‘safely reduce the jail population.’ The foundation continued its financial assistance to the initiative, contributing an additional $350,000 in 2022.

The Soros Foundation also had a notable hand in the political arena, especially in the election of district attorneys voicing support for controversial causes such as defunding the police, abolishing cash bail, and refraining from the prosecution of drug related offenses. These actions and beliefs not only have an impact on the funding outlook of these initiatives but also on the community’s overall feel of safety and justice.

After having become extinctly aware of these damaging ‘public-private partnerships,’ it is time we discuss the prospects of a sweeping reckoning. It is not certain how future connections will form between philanthropic bodies and government entities. In a post-pandemic world, the nexus between political bodies and non-profit organizations ought to be redefined to ensure the benefit of the public at large.

The roots of this co-dependency can be traced back to the 1960s with the establishment of a series of federal programs, such as Medicaid and the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. These opened up a fresh stream of funding for private groups executing semi-government tasks. Enabled by the initial financial support, these private foundations urged their beneficiaries to pursue governmental funding, thus freeing up their resources for upcoming ventures.

Furthermore, government involvement in donating to these organizations has shown a significant increase since the commencement of these practices. The Urban Institute’s study unveiled that governments, predominantly at the federal level, contributed a whopping $300 billion in grants to non-profit organizations in 2024. These grants constituted between 20% and 30% of these organizations’ budgets.

Our present charitable sector heavily leans on government fundings in contrast to foundation grants. In accordance to the same Urban Institute study, around one-third of non-profit organizations across the nation confirmed receiving grants from various tiers of government. However, these organizations might find no other way but to reconsider their financial arrangements with the authorities.

Under the Trump administration, a tougher stance has been taken against diversity-equity-inclusion programs that many large foundations financially backed, citing constitutionality concerns. This shift seems to take place at an opportune moment, given the recent surge in charity reserves due to an exceptional year in the stock market.

End of the year 2024 marked a landmark for foundations’ investments as they hit a high of $1.62 trillion, surpassing the previous year’s end by 15%, according to FoundationMark. Even if these groups maintained their past donation rates, the sheer quantum of charitable donations would witness a significant rise. It’s high time these large independent bodies start exercising their independence more significantly.

The call for the philanthropy sector to be more generous has been growing stronger in recent years as part of the ‘Meet the Moment’ campaign, committing to offset the cutbacks of the Trump administration to non-profits. The Council on Foundations stated, ‘Our beliefs or priorities may not coincide. Differences also exist among our donors or the communities we serve. But we stand united in our First Amendment right to donate as an embodiment of our divergent values.’

The concept of transforming every program into a collective government-private sector venture seems advantageous for all concerned parties at first glance. Governments potentially save taxpayer money on specific endeavors, while private entities gain influence over the public policy direction. However, the drawbacks of these collaborations are also considerable and worth noting.

Numerous projects, ranging from subsidies for electric vehicles to university-centric department studies, have seen investment from agencies such as the National Endowment for the Arts and the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet, many critics argue these resources can often flow into unproductive projects, essentially wasting ‘good money.’

The chaos that private foundations have been accused of instigating in our local communities, as evidenced by the unfortunate case of Iryna Zarutska, serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls of this funding model. It prompts a reassessment of the role private financial support plays within the broader context of government initiatives.

In conclusion, we should reevaluate the complex relationship between private foundations, non-profit organizations, and the government. As we strive to create safer communities and balanced public policy, this systemic introspection is imperative. The repercussion of such intertwined funding mechanisms is far-reaching and deeply impacts the lives of both individual citizens and the community as a whole.

The journey of creating a balanced equation isn’t straightforward, but it is a path we must embark on for the sake of a fairer society. In the wake of events like Zarutska’s tragic case, a redirection of funding priorities and a more responsible approach to philanthropic-governance partnerships are needed. This incident should not be seen as an isolated one but as a wake-up call for a comprehensive reassessment of the larger system.