Attachment 1
Garry W. Jenkins, Incorporation Choice, Uniformity, and the Reform of Nonprofit State
Law, 41 Ga. L. Rev. 1113, 1128-1129 (2007):
“According to a survey I conducted for this Article, states have dedicated a
median of one full-time equivalent attorney to charitable oversight. 54An analysis of Table
1 indicates that 74% of the states responding had one or fewer full-time equivalent
attorneys working on nonprofit oversight, with seventeen states reporting no such lawyers
at all. So, as the number of nonprofit organizations continues to grow,55 levels of staffing
and other state resources devoted to charitable organizations seem to have remained
stagnant at low levels.56
54
Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia responded to the survey. Using the National Association of
State Charity Officials (an association of state offices charged with oversight of charitable organizations)
listing, each appropriate state office was contacted to request information regarding staffing levels.
55
See supra Part II.a.
56
A similar study conducted in 1997 by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) revealed
similar statistics. Thomas J. Billitteri, Rethinking Who Can Sue a Charity, Chron. Philanthropy (Wash.,
D.C.), Mar. 12, 1998, at 1, 35; see also Ralph Vartabedian, IRS Urges Action on Nonprofit Tax Abuse,
L.A. Times, Apr. 6, 2005, at A12 (noting that a prominent nonprofit official observed “that government
regulation and oversight of the nonprofits had lagged behind the sector's growth in recent years”).
1
TABLE 1
Number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Attorneys Monitoring Charities in State
Attorneys General
Lawyers
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Lawyers
0.5
0.25
0
1
12
1
5
1
0
0
0
0.75
1
7
4
0
1
1
1
0
1
6
0.5
5
0
1
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
0.25
1
0
I
1
2
20.5
0
57
N/A
10
0
2
12
1
1
0
0
6
2.5
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
Faced with many competing pressing concerns and budget constraints, state attorneys
general have few staffing resources to commit to nonprofit organizations58
57
North Dakota reported 0.25 FTE attorneys in the 1997 NAAG study and explicitly declined to respond to
this update. Id. Regardless, North Dakota's number would not alter the median for all states.
58
See Evelyn Brody, Whose Public? Parochialism and Paternalism in State Charity Law Enforcement, 79
Ind. L.J. 937, 947 (2004) (“[A]ttorneys general who do maintain an active charities bureau . . . suffer from
chronic under-funding and under-staffing.”); Fishman, supra note 32, at 262 (“Staffing problems and a
relative lack of interest in monitoring nonprofits make attorney general oversight more theoretical than
deterrent.”); Iris Goodwin, Donor Standing to Enforce Charitable Gifts: Civil Society Vs. Donor
Empowerment, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 1093, 1138 (2005) (noting that many commentators claim “attorney
general supervision of this sector is more theoretical than real”); Garry W. Jenkins, The Powerful
Possibilities of Nonprofit Mergers: Supporting Strategic Consolidation Through Law and Public Policy, 74
S. Cal. L. Rev. 1089, 1121 (2001) (“Given the scarcity of regulatory resources, the offices of most state
attorneys general have devoted few resources to nonprofit organizations.”).
2