Charities Win Right to Participate in Government’s Charity Drive

Six charities that raise money through the Combined Federal Campaign — the annual charity drive for federal workers — have won the right to participate in this year’s effort after the government initially denied them admission.

The charities had been rejected because federal officials said that the organizations had not provided enough information to prove that they were qualified.

At issue was whether the organizations met a requirement in federal rules that groups participating in the Combined Federal Campaign carry out services or programs in at least 15 states (or another country) during the three-year period immediately preceding the campaign year at hand.

After the charities filed complaints in federal court that challenged the government’s decision — and their lawyers met with federal officials — the government reversed its decision and put all six nonprofit groups back on its list of qualified organizations for the fall 2006 fund-raising drive.

The charities are the Allergy & Asthma Network Mothers of Asthmatics; the American Association of Kidney Patients; Awana Clubs International; the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research; the Sturge-Weber Foundation; and the Navigators.

Mike Orenstein, a spokesman for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the Combined Federal Campaign, confirmed the government’s decision to return the six organizations to its list of participating charities but made no additional comment.

Court Challenge

In its court filing, the Michael J. Fox Foundation said that the government criticized its application because it included grants that the organization had made in 16 states over the past four years — from 2002 through 2005 — rather than the most recent three years.

In response, the organization had argued that it had included the fourth year’s expenditures because medical researchers who received its grants that year also received money in later years, and thus satisfied the requirement that money was distributed during the three years before 2006.

The government had replied that “the fact that multiple payments are made with respect to that grant in years subsequent to 2002 does not qualify each of the multiple payments as an independent service, as the award had already been made,” and thus the organization did not provide services in enough states to qualify. Moreover, the government said, “regarding a variety of states in which a single grant was provided, the organization was viewed as providing an insufficient level of service to satisfy eligibility criteria.”

After the government relented on all six cases, Noland MacKenzie Canter III, a lawyer for the six groups, said, “There is not one organization on this list that has not done a lot of good work for many years, so we are happy that federal employees will have the chance to consider these agencies for their donations.”

Federal employees last year pledged $268.5-million to charities participating in the Combined Federal Campaign.