by Allan Barsky, PhD, JD, MSW
Financial question
Many social workers work in agencies or programs that accept charitable donations. Donations allow social workers and agencies to provide services that some clients could not otherwise afford. Donations may also be used to improve working environments, allow agencies to hire additional staff, and offer clients needed resources (e.g., meals, clothes, public transportation tickets, and shelter). But what happens when prospective donations are from tainted sources, that is, from individuals, families, corporations, or organizations that have earned the money in an ethically questionable manner or have engaged in ethically questionable activities? Should social workers and their organizations accept the donations and do good with these donations? Alternatively, should social workers and their organizations refuse funding so as not to condone or support those who engage in ethically questionable activities?
Examples of Tainted Sources
Consider the following examples of tainted sources:
The X Family: A prominent family in the community offers to donate a family home to an addictions treatment center to use as supportive housing for clients transitioning from inpatient treatment to the community. The family earned its money from selling goods made by children in a country that does not have child labor protection laws or minimum wages.
The Y Corporation: A private for-profit company that builds and runs detention centers for migrants without documentation offers to donate $10,000,000 to a seniors center for naming rights to the center’s building. The Y Corporation sees naming the building as a good marketing opportunity; however, its detention centers have been cited for many human rights violations because of poor treatment of detainees.
The Z Foundation: A charitable foundation offers to donate new computers for an agency that provides children’s mental health services. The foundation receives much of its funding from individuals who have publicly expressed racism, homophobia, and religious bigotry on social media.
In each of these situations, one could argue that we should consider the sources of the funding when determining whether to accept the funding. For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume there is no question that the donations, if accepted, could be put to good use.
The Case for Accepting Tainted Donations
The primary case for accepting tainted donations is based on a teleological or utilitarian argument. According to these approaches, the decision about whether to accept tainted donations depends on which course of action is likely to produce the greatest good. In the three examples above, each agency can use the donations to promote good: providing shelter for people in recovery, providing better services for seniors, and enhancing services for children with mental health concerns. Based on the given facts, we do not know what the proposed donors will do if their donations are rejected by the addictions program, seniors center, or children’s program. Perhaps they will donate the funds to even better causes or to organizations that can amplify benefits even further. For argument’s sake, however, let’s assume that the donors will not donate the money to a better cause (i.e., the money will be used for a “less good” cause).
Some social work agencies may argue that soliciting and accepting donations is essential to the quality of their services, if not their actual survival. With various governments pushing privatized mental health and social services, and with limited funding for existing government-funded services, it may seem irresponsible or imprudent to turn down money that could enhance services.
The Case for Rejecting Tainted Donations
The primary argument for rejecting tainted donations is based on deontology. Deontology suggests that we should act based on moral principles or duties: The act itself is more important than the consequences of the act. The NASW Code of Ethics (2018) includes a number of relevant principles: (1) Social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of all people; (2) Social workers should act with integrity; and (3) Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated. Following these principles, social workers should not condone or support individuals, families, or organizations that exploit children; mistreat detainees; or promote racism, homophobia, or religious bigotry. Rather, social workers should challenge those who promote disrespect, oppression, and discrimination.
Proponents of accepting tainted donations might argue (reasonably) that social workers also have a duty to provide services and help clients in need (i.e., beneficence or doing good). They could argue that the act of accepting tainted donations is an ethically justifiable act because it is an act that is INTENDED to do good, not an act that is intended to condone disrespect, oppression, or discrimination. The limitation of this argument is that there are many ways to fund agencies and to provide clients with access to needed services. From a deontological perspective, we should act in ways that promote social justice, respect, integrity, AND access to services.
Managing a True Dilemma
The question of whether to accept tainted donations is a true dilemma. Reasonable, prudent social workers may have legitimate differences of opinion about whether to accept tainted donations. There are valid arguments supporting different courses of action. There may not be a single solution that satisfies all legitimate ethical concerns. Still, we must dig deeper into the issues and possible solutions. Perhaps the answer is “It depends.”
Given the limited information in the case examples, we may not have a full picture of the nature and extremity of the problematic behaviors of the three potential donors. The X Family, for example, may ensure that the children’s pay and conditions for work are relatively good. Although people in our society might abhor the concept of child labor, we should consider the local culture, conditions, and values of the community where the children live. The situation may be “not terrible” and it might even be “better than the alternatives.”
Concerning the Y Corporation, we know that it has been cited for human rights violations. What does “cited” mean? Are these proven or unproven allegations? What was the specific nature of the violations? Has Y Corporation taken responsibility and reformed its practices? Is the Y Corporation willing to reform its practices?
The Z Foundation has received funding from people associated with various forms of discrimination. What difference would it make if we knew that many of its donors are not tainted by such discrimination? Do we need to know how much of the funding is related to people with bigoted beliefs and actions? As a practical matter, how are we going to assess whether particular donors are tainted and to what degree?
As with many ethical situations, there are often more questions than solutions. And, in this case, there are many courses of action that we have yet to consider. Our first course of action, as the above discussion suggests, is to gather relevant information and conduct a proper assessment of factors that are relevant to the ethical issues under consideration. Second, when we are conducting a utilitarian assessment of the various options, we should consider various possibilities. The question is not just a yes/no, “Should we accept the donation?” Rather we should be asking, “ What are our options if we accept the donation?” and “What are our options if we do not accept the donation?”
If we ACCEPT THE DONATION, how can we manage concerns that clients, colleagues, or the community may have about the donations? Would it be possible to speak with the donor about our concerns and identify ways to rectify the concerns about their past behaviors? Donors might be willing to listen and reform their practices. Further, what can we do about the problem that we have identified? If we are concerned about bigotry in our community, could we accept the donation from Z Foundation AND use some of the money to promote equality and respect in the community? If we are concerned about the treatment of detainees, could we accept the donation from X Corporation AND advocate for laws protecting the rights of detainees?
If we DO NOT accept the donation, what else can we do to fund the services, facilities, or other resources that we hope to provide? Although it may seem difficult to pass on a proposed donation (Who turns down money?), it is less difficult if we can identify alternative donors, fundraising opportunities, or creative ways to maximize use of our existing resources. We may not have easy solutions to funding problems; however, we may be able to sleep at night in good conscience, knowing that we remained true to our values.
Dilemmas as Opportunities
As social workers, we have many opportunities to act according to our ethical principles and promote good outcomes - for our clients, for our communities, and for society as a whole. When we face situations involving conflicting ethical obligations and arguments, we need to use critical thinking and moral imagination. We should avoid yes/no questions and dualistic thinking. We should explore win-win solutions. We should avoid viewing ethical dilemmas as problems or situations of moral stress: Given our conflicting obligations, how can we minimize harm? Rather, we should think about ethical dilemmas as opportunities: How can we use this ethical dilemma to live true to our ethical principles and promote good for the people we serve? Ethical dilemmas challenge us to be virtuous. Thus, the dilemma about whether to accept tainted donations is an opportunity for creative problem-solving that we should embrace.
Allan Barsky, PhD, JD, MSW, is Professor of Social Work at Florida Atlantic University and author of Social Work Values and Ethics (Oxford University Press).
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of any of the organizations to which the author is affiliated, or the views of The New Social Worker magazine or White Hat Communications.