An opinion piece published Monday argues private foundations have partnered with government to fund criminal-justice policies that, the authors say, contributed to a recent violent attack on a Charlotte light-rail train.
The op-ed cites the Aug. 22 stabbing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by Decarlos Brown Jr., who had been arrested multiple times in Mecklenburg County, as a focal example. The authors contend that policies encouraged and funded by private foundations — including efforts to reduce jail populations and to change prosecution priorities — have been adopted by local officials and prosecutors in ways they say have weakened public safety.
The op-ed names the MacArthur Foundation and the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, among philanthropic funders whose initiatives have influenced local criminal-justice reform. It reports that the MacArthur Foundation contributed $1 million in 2020 and another $350,000 in 2022 to the Safety and Justice Challenge in Mecklenburg County, a program described by its backers as aimed at safely reducing jail populations. The authors contend such funding, combined with local policy shifts, helped create permissive conditions for repeat offenders.
The op-ed’s authors, James Piereson of the Manhattan Institute and Naomi Schaefer Riley of the American Enterprise Institute, argue that philanthropic funding has extended into areas traditionally run by government, from local prosecution strategies to broader public-safety initiatives. They link that expansion to a longer trend of public-private collaboration that accelerated after the 1960s, when federal programs began making funds available to private organizations to carry out quasi-governmental functions.
They cite a 2024 Urban Institute study showing that governments, especially the federal government, provided roughly $300 billion in grants to nonprofits that year — an amount estimated to make up 20% to 30% of many nonprofit budgets — compared with about $110 billion from private foundations. The op-ed says that dependence, in the authors’ view, has allowed private funders to shape public policy by supporting pilot programs they expect will be taken up and scaled by government agencies.
Council on Foundations President Kathleen Enright is quoted in the op-ed as telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy that the pandemic-era coordination between governments and philanthropy should be reevaluated. "It is unknown what the interdependencies are going to be between philanthropy and government in the future," the op-ed paraphrases Enright as saying, and that the sector must "reset the relationship between polities and nonprofits."
The authors also point to recent political developments they say may prompt change. They assert the Trump administration is curbing certain diversity-equity-inclusion programs that large foundations had funded and has cut international aid programs that historically fostered ties between private donors and public agencies. They say a fresh alignment could be supported by growth in foundation resources: FoundationMark reported foundation investments reached a record $1.62 trillion at the end of 2024, up 15% from a year earlier, a development the op-ed frames as increasing philanthropy’s capacity to act independently of government.
The piece also highlights campaigns and initiatives within the philanthropic sector. It notes the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project’s "Meet the Moment" campaign, under which funders have pledged to make up for recent federal cuts to nonprofits, and says some foundations, including MacArthur, have increased their payout rates above the legally required minimum.
The op-ed reiterates several specific, politically contentious examples to illustrate its concerns. It states that the Open Society Foundations have supported campaigns to elect progressive prosecutors who favor reduced use of cash bail and alternative charging and sentencing approaches. It also references a Reuters report, cited in the piece, saying California Gov. Gavin Newsom solicited $500,000 from the James Irvine Foundation for assistance related to migrants and federal immigration authorities.
Critics and proponents of philanthropic involvement in public policy offer sharply different interpretations. Supporters of foundation-funded reform programs argue they can pilot humane, evidence-based alternatives to costly incarceration and that philanthropic seed money often helps governments adopt effective innovations. Opponents argue private funders can exert outsized influence on public priorities without democratic accountability.
The op-ed’s authors call for a break in what they describe as overly cozy public-private partnerships and urge foundations to act more independently of government initiatives. They say the disorder they believe those partnerships have encouraged — exemplified by the Charlotte stabbing case — should prompt a reassessment of how foundations and governments collaborate.
Experts in philanthropy and public policy say the relationship between foundations and government is complex and rooted in decades of legislation and program design. They point to the breadth of services nonprofits provide — from arts and education to social services and public health — and note that government grants often fund day-to-day operations. Any significant change in that relationship, analysts say, would likely involve policy shifts at multiple levels of government and decisions by large foundations about their grantmaking priorities.
The op-ed frames the debate over philanthropy’s role in public policy as part of a broader national discussion on crime, governance and accountability. It recommends more distance between private funders and public agencies but provides few specific policy prescriptions beyond urging a reset of the partnership model and greater independence for philanthropic institutions.
Local officials in Mecklenburg County and representatives of the foundations named in the op-ed did not offer comment in the article. The stabbing and the surrounding policy debate are expected to remain focal points as lawmakers, prosecutors and philanthropic leaders discuss future roles and responsibilities in shaping criminal-justice programs.