All Types of Charities Can Assist the Elderly

To the Editor:

As a former development director for a church-related retirement community who has also toiled in the fund-raising world of the arts, I do not agree with Ted Halstead and Michael Lind (“Alter the Tax Code to Avert Elder-Care Crisis,” December 13) that changing the tax code is a reasonable or appropriate way to deal with that issue.

First, the authors make a false distinction, based upon type of service, between “strictly caregiving organizations” and other charities that “serve the public interest but not as directly.”

Clearly the authors place the meeting of physical needs at the top of their list. The American people, on the other hand, have identified a spectrum of needs: social, religious, educational, as well as physical, all met through the aggregate philanthropic behavior of individual donors and individual concerns. Amending the tax code to favor one class of charity would require our political leadership to make a value judgment that few are prepared to make.

The authors make another distinction, this one based upon class. They oppose “elite-oriented” charities (religion, arts and culture, higher education, environmental concerns), which are described as “thriving,” against “caregiving” agencies, which presumably are not. A closer look reveals something different. Many “elite-oriented” charities (colleges, orchestras, dance groups, and visual-arts organizations) are in serious trouble. On the other hand, a review of the 100 largest charities listed in The NonProfit Times includes a healthy representation of successful “caregiving” organizations.

Second, the authors’ recommendation, if enacted, would create a division within the philanthropic sector. This division, instead of leading to improved services for the care of older adults, would result in a diminution of cooperation among charitable organizations. The result would be institutional backbiting and a loss of focus on shared values and objectives.

Third, the recommendation smacks of government intrusion into the charitable-giving objectives of donors. If we cannot persuade the public of the rightness of our cause, let’s use the power of the federal government to achieve our ends. By using the velvet glove of government coercion (the tax system), the authors propose to separate giving from the interests of donors.

But in the end, the authors do not connect their proposed solution (reforming the tax code to benefit “caregiving” charities in general) with the problem (the looming challenge of caring for older adults). This is, in the end, the fatal flaw in their argument. There will be a problem — in fact, it’s already here — but there are better and more-effective solutions than tinkering with the tax code. Many of these solutions are coming from churches, universities, and cultural organizations, institutions not marked for favorable treatment, as recommended by Mr. Halstead and Mr. Lind.

I think the authors fret too much. Programs and services designed to meet the needs of today’s older adults are rapidly changing. The trend is away from institutional living and toward lower cost, more-beneficial, and more-desirable community living. Retirement communities, health-care centers, senior centers, and councils on aging, designed to meet the needs of today’s older adults, will adapt their services to a more consumer-oriented market. Instead of “this is what we can do for you here,” they will be saying “what do you need us to do for you and where does that service need to be provided?”

The crisis cited by the authors is already here. Charities of all kinds are already at work solving the problem, by adapting to new funding, marketing, social, and demographic realities.

Michael Perigo
Indianapolis