Wealth Stewardship Performance Plan
A proposed performance plan for the Wealth Stewardship Initiative, specifying initial indicators for the stewardship of substantial wealth, public-benefit investment, government performance, and national-debt reduction.
Other Information
This is a forward-looking planning document, not a performance report. Its targets are proposed initial planning targets and should be recalibrated after legal enactment, baseline measurement, stakeholder consultation, and verification of data availability. The Initiative does not replace taxation or government; it seeks more effective use of tax revenues, more disciplined public priorities, and a credible debt-reduction default for covered wealth not otherwise stewarded under approved rules.
Unless and until baseline data are established, targets in this plan are proposed standards for system design and compliance rather than forecasts of near-term performance.
Submitter's Note: This plan has been inferred in dialog with Perplexity to address shortcomings it perceived in the wealth stewardship plan previously drafted in dialog with Claude.ai: https://stratml.us/docs/TWSI.xml
It has been edited in the form at https://stratml.us/forms/Claude/Part2.html
🏢Wealth Stewardship Initiative WSI A policy framework for aligning private wealth stewardship, public-benefit investment, government performance, and national-debt reduction.
Stakeholders:
👥 Show Hide 1 member | Source & SubmitterSource:https://stratml.us/docs/WSPP.xml Period: to Published: |
Vision
A society in which wealth is stewarded responsibly, public resources produce demonstrable value, government concentrates on its proper responsibilities, and future generations inherit greater opportunity and less debt.
Mission
To establish transparent rules, incentives, and performance reporting through which wealth holders, public institutions, and qualified organizations can direct resources toward measurable public benefit while preserving family responsibility, private initiative, democratic government, and fiscal accountability.
Values
Goal 1: Wealth Stewardship 🔗
Enact a clear framework for substantial transferable wealth that preserves legitimate family and productive-economic interests.
Stakeholders:
Show Hide 3 members👥Wealth Holders & Heirs : People whose assets, transfers, or legitimate interests are governed by the framework.Stewards : Participants responsible for wealth plans and lawful transfers. (Performer, Beneficiary)
🏢Congress Legislation : Congress should pass the necessary legislation. (Performer)
👤President of the United States Enactment : The President should sign the legislation into law. (Performer)
🏢Internal Revenue Service Rulemaking : Following enactment of legal authority, IRS should issue the necessary regulatory guidance, preferably in the form of model performance plans in StratML format for implementation of prospective Public Benefit Organizations. (Performer)
Show Hide 1 member👥Public Benefit Organizations (PBOs) : Organizations meeting the requirements for receipt of tax-creditable contributions.Qualification : PBOs must provide the necessary information, preferably in StratML format, to document their qualification for tax-creditable contributions. (Performer)Public Service : PGOs should serve individuals, families, and communities eligible for, receiving, or otherwise in need of public-benefit assistance under applicable criteria. (Performer)
🏢Family Offices : Organizations responsible for coordinating substantial family assets, investments, succession arrangements, and public-purpose commitments. Family-office status alone does not establish qualification as a Public Good Organization.Stewardship Administration : Assist wealth holders in documenting covered assets, protected interests, approved dispositions, public-purpose commitments, deployment schedules, conflicts of interest, and independently verified results. (Performer)
Other Information
Wealth Stewardship Framework ~ The framework must define what is covered before indicators can be interpreted. It should avoid both arbitrary exemptions and rules that force unnecessary liquidation of productive assets. Family-office investment management, charitable affiliation, or designation of assets for future public purposes does not alone demonstrate qualifying stewardship; compliance depends on applicable disposition rules, actual deployment, beneficiary protections, transparency, and verified results. Durable investment portfolios may support long-term public purposes, but approved arrangements should specify deployment schedules, administrative expenses, independent oversight, and evidence of benefits rather than relying solely on capital accumulation.
Objective 1.1: Definitions 🔗
Define covered assets, liabilities, transfers, and protected family or productive interests.
Other Information
Covered Wealth and Protected Interests ~ The rule set should address financial assets, real property, business interests, trusts, and other transferable assets, together with liabilities, lifetime transfers, surviving spouses, dependents, family farms, closely held businesses, illiquid assets, and charitable commitments.
Performance Indicators
1.1.1: Rules
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2028-12-31 | Published & Maintained | The authoritative rule set is published, accessible, version-controlled, and includes treatment of each identified covered-asset and protected-interest category. |
Other Information
Evidence: published rule set, version history, coverage matrix, and legal or administrative authority.
1.1.2: Assets
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2027-12-31 | 100 | Covered | Percentage of identified covered-asset categories and protected-interest categories for which the rule set specifies treatment. |
Other Information
Numerator: categories with explicit treatment. Denominator: categories identified in the approved coverage inventory. Target is proposed for the design phase.
Objective 1.2: Choices 🔗
Authorize the allowable choices for directing covered wealth toward public benefit, community investment, charitable purposes, or national-debt reduction.
Other Information
Choices should be meaningful, understandable, and sufficiently broad to preserve agency while ensuring that each approved option serves a defined public purpose and meets disclosure standards.
Performance Indicators
1.2.1: Choice Categories
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2027-12-31 | 100 | Approved | Percentage of the approved choice categories identified in the framework that have published eligibility, disclosure, and accountability requirements. |
Other Information
Choice categories include public-benefit organizations, community investment, charitable structures, and national-debt reduction.
1.2.2: Wealth
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 80 | Covered | Percentage of covered wealth represented by stewardship plans. |
Other Information
The baseline and denominator must be established after legal definitions, reporting rules, and valuation procedures are adopted. The 80 percent target is an initial planning assumption, not a forecast.
Goal 2: Benefits & Debt 🔗
Allocate resources by combining voluntary choice with a credible public-purpose default and more effective use of tax revenues.
Stakeholders:
🏢Federal Government : Receives default transfers for debt reduction and remains responsible for legitimate public functions.Debt Administration : Records and applies default transfers to national-debt reduction. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
The Initiative retains taxation and government. It seeks to improve public-program performance and ensures that covered wealth not otherwise stewarded is directed toward national-debt reduction, subject to lawful protections.
Objective 2.1: Debt Reduction 🔗
Establish a default disposition for covered wealth not otherwise transferred under an approved stewardship plan or eligible purpose.
Other Information
The default is not a replacement for taxation or government. It is a fallback public purpose that creates an incentive for wealth holders to plan carefully and choose among approved stewardship alternatives. Default transfers should be separately accounted for and applied to reduce federal debt or debt-service obligations; they should not be treated as general revenue available to finance unrelated new expenditures.
Performance Indicators
2.1.1: Rule
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2028-12-31 | Enacted & Operational | The legal and administrative rule for directing undistributed covered wealth toward national-debt reduction is enacted, published, and operational. |
Other Information
Evidence: enacted authority, published procedures, responsible agency, and operational transfer mechanism.
2.1.2: Transfers
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Recorded | Percentage of covered default transfers recorded, reconciled, and publicly reported as directed toward national-debt reduction. |
Other Information
The measure concerns accounting and disposition, not a forecast of the total amount of wealth that will ultimately be transferred.
Objective 2.2: Programs 🔗
Ensure performance transparency and review for public programs participating in the framework.
Other Information
Participating public programs should identify intended results, resources, alternatives, actual performance, and continuation or termination criteria. The aim is disciplined public administration rather than replacement of public authority. Submitter's Note: While U.S. federal agencies have been directed by law to publish their performance plans and reports in machine-readable format, beginning in FY 2012, they have failed to do so.
Performance Indicators
2.2.1: Performance Records
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2028-12-31 | 100 | Published | Percentage of participating public programs publishing complete, machine-readable performance plans and reports with objectives, resources, targets, and results. |
Other Information
Completeness criteria should be published and include the fields required by the applicable StratML performance schema.
2.2.2: Reviews
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Completed | Percentage of participating public programs receiving a documented continuation, redesign, or termination review within the specified review cycle. |
Other Information
A review is counted only when it considers results, resource use, alternatives, stakeholder effects, and stated decision criteria.
Objective 2.3: Beneficiary Credits 🔗
Establish quasi-refundable, beneficiary-directed public-good credits through which eligible individuals and households may obtain qualifying products and services from certified Public Good Organizations, regardless of income-tax liability, subject to applicable eligibility, privacy, anti-fraud, and consumer-protection requirements.
Stakeholders:
👥Public Beneficiaries : Individuals, families, and communities eligible for, receiving, or otherwise in need of public-benefit assistance.Choice & Feedback : Select or affirm qualifying products and services, provide feedback, report problems, and exercise the right to change providers without coercion. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Show Hide 1 member👥Public Good Organizations : Qualified organizations providing approved products, services, or investments for eligible beneficiaries.Service Delivery : Provide qualifying products and services, document legitimate credit use, protect beneficiaries, and report performance. (Performer)
🏢U.S. Government : Public institutions responsible for authorizing, administering, regulating, funding, and overseeing the credit system.Public Administration : Establish eligibility, credit, provider, privacy, payment, audit, complaint, and enforcement requirements. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
Credits should be timely, portable where practicable, understandable, and usable through accessible channels. The system should preserve a government fallback or direct-service option when adequate Public Good Organization choice is unavailable. Participation should not be conditioned on waiver of legal rights, disclosure of unnecessary personal information, or acceptance of coercive marketing. Payment rules should account for client complexity and geographic availability so that Public Good Organizations are not rewarded for serving only the easiest or least costly cases. The system should provide neutral comparison tools, human assistance where needed, a simple provider-switching process, and an independent complaint and appeal mechanism. Personal information should be protected, while aggregate information about access, use, costs, outcomes, complaints, and disparities should be reported in machine-readable and plain-English formats.
Performance Indicators
2.3.1: Eligible Beneficiaries
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Active | Percentage of eligible beneficiaries with an active credit that can be used through an authorized channel. |
Other Information
The baseline should be established after eligibility rules, credit administration, and usable access channels are defined. Usability should include timely availability, accessibility, and the practical ability to redeem the credit.
2.3.2: Provider Choice
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Accessible | Percentage of credit holders with at least two accessible Public Good Organization options or a documented government or direct-service fallback. |
Other Information
Accessibility should consider geographic location, transportation, disability accommodations, language, digital access, service hours, and the nature of the beneficiary's needs. A nominal provider list should not be counted as meaningful choice if the providers are unavailable or unsuitable.
2.3.3: Credit Value
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Redeemed | Percentage of available credit value redeemed for qualifying products or services from certified Public Good Organizations. |
Other Information
The baseline and target should be established after determining whether non-use reflects lack of need, lack of provider access, administrative difficulty, inadequate service quality, or other causes. High utilization should not by itself be treated as proof of effectiveness.
2.3.4: Redemptions
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Confirmed | Percentage of credit redemptions selected or affirmatively confirmed by the beneficiary without coercion or unauthorized substitution. |
Other Information
Confirmation procedures should accommodate beneficiaries who require representatives, language assistance, disability accommodations, or other support. Authorized assistance should not be confused with provider control over beneficiary choices.
2.3.5: Options & Choice
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 90 | Understandable & Freely Chosen | Percentage of surveyed beneficiaries reporting that available options were understandable and that their selection was voluntary. |
Other Information
Survey instruments should be accessible, independently administered where practicable, and available in relevant languages and formats. Results should be reported by relevant demographic, geographic, and service-need categories subject to privacy and statistical-reliability protections.
2.3.6: Credit Use
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percentage | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Declining Disparity | Difference in successful credit use among relevant geographic, demographic, disability, language, and service-need groups. |
Other Information
Relevant groups and the minimum reliable sample sizes should be defined before reporting begins. The purpose is to identify whether nominal beneficiary choice produces materially unequal practical access.
2.3.7: Complaints
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Resolved | Percentage of substantiated complaints resolved within the applicable period, with the disposition and appeal rights documented. |
Other Information
Complaint systems should be independent of the PGO being complained about, accessible through multiple channels, protective against retaliation, and capable of referring matters involving fraud, abuse, discrimination, or threats to safety to the appropriate authority.
2.3.8: Improper Payments
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Declining & Publicly Reported | Percentage of total credit value involved in confirmed fraud, duplicate claims, ineligible services, provider abuse, or other improper payments. |
Other Information
The system should distinguish suspected, recovered, and confirmed improper payments. Reporting should include the amount identified, amount recovered, corrective action, referral where appropriate, and the effect of controls on legitimate beneficiary access.
Goal 3: Public-Benefit Organizations 🔗
Institute a system that supports qualification of organizations serving public objectives while limiting self-dealing, discrimination, neglect of difficult cases, and reward for activity without meaningful outcomes.
Stakeholders:
🏢Public-Benefit Organizations (PBOs) : Nonprofit, community, public, or other approved entities seeking directed support.Service Delivery : Provide approved public-benefit services or investments. (Performer)Public Benefit : Receive support when qualified and produce intended benefits. (Beneficiary)
Other Information
Eligibility and performance rules should not reduce public benefit to easy-to-count activity. They should combine quantitative results with beneficiary experience, subgroup analysis, privacy protections, and evidence about unintended effects.
Objective 3.1: Certification 🔗
Specify eligibility standards for organizations receiving directed support.
Other Information
Certification should cover public purpose, governance, financial disclosure, conflicts of interest, nondiscrimination, beneficiary protection, evaluation capacity, and responsible administration.
Performance Indicators
3.1.1: PBOs
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2028-12-31 | 100 | Certified | Percentage of organizations receiving directed support that meet all published certification requirements before funding. |
Other Information
The certification record should identify the applicable standard, approval date, expiration or review date, and unresolved conditions.
3.1.2: Organizations
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Reviewed | Percentage of certified organizations receiving an independent financial, governance, or performance review within the required review cycle. |
Other Information
Review frequency should be risk-based but should not permit high-value or donor-controlled entities to avoid review.
Objective 3.2: Protections & Equity 🔗
Provide access, feedback, subgroup results, privacy, and unintended-effect protections for people served by funded programs.
Stakeholders:
👥Public Beneficiaries Feedback : Public beneficiaries should have meaningful opportunities to provide feedback, challenge inaccurate records, and obtain privacy protections. (Performer)
Other Information
The system should prevent easily measured or lower-cost cases from displacing people with complex needs. Privacy-protected reporting should make access and results visible without exposing personal information.
Performance Indicators
3.2.1: Programs
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2029-12-31 | 100 | Reporting | Percentage of participating programs reporting service access and relevant outcome results for defined subgroups, subject to privacy and statistical reliability rules. |
Other Information
Subgroups must be defined before reporting and should reflect material differences in need, access, or outcome risk.
3.2.2: Participating
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2029-12-31 | 90 | Reporting | Percentage of participating programs collecting, protecting, and reporting beneficiary feedback and material unintended effects. |
Other Information
Feedback methods should be accessible to people with disabilities, language barriers, or limited digital access.
Objective 3.3: Payment & Competition 🔗
Establish a beneficiary-attached, risk-adjusted payment system through which qualified Public Good Organizations and government providers compete to supply approved products and services, while national eligibility and credit rules treat individuals and families equally regardless of residence.
Stakeholders:
👥Public Good Organizations (PGOs) : Qualified private, nonprofit, community, public, or other approved organizations providing products or services eligible for beneficiary-directed credits.Competition : Compete to provide accessible, effective, and accountable products and services selected by beneficiaries. (Performer)
👥Government Providers : Government agencies and public entities providing qualifying products or services that beneficiaries may select.Competition : Compete with Public Good Organizations under comparable requirements for access, cost transparency, performance reporting, beneficiary choice, privacy, complaint resolution, and oversight. (Performer)
👥Public Beneficiaries : Individuals and families using beneficiary-directed credits to select or change among qualified Public Good Organizations and government providers.Provider Choice : Select providers, confirm credit redemptions, change providers, and provide feedback about access, quality, costs, and results. (Performer, Beneficiary)
Other Information
National eligibility rules and national credit schedules should treat similarly situated individuals and families equally regardless of residence. Payment adjustments may reflect documented differences in beneficiary needs, including disability, age, family composition, service intensity, and other legitimate characteristics of the person served. National payments should not automatically increase because a beneficiary or provider is located in a high-cost area. State, local, philanthropic, employer, or community sources may voluntarily provide separately financed and transparently reported supplements for beneficiaries or services in particular locations. Capitation and other payments should follow the beneficiary's authorized provider choice. Government providers and PGOs should report comparable information on costs, access, service quality, outcomes, beneficiary feedback, complaints, privacy, and improper payments. Government providers serving as providers of last resort or maintaining other essential public capacity should disclose and separately report those obligations.
Performance Indicators
3.3.1: National Credits
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Equal | Percentage of similarly situated beneficiaries receiving the same national credit schedule regardless of residence. |
Other Information
Eligibility categories must be defined nationally before this measure can be calculated. Comparable individuals and families should receive the same national credit schedule regardless of their state, county, municipality, or local cost of living.
3.3.2: Payment Categories
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Need-Based | Percentage of payment categories supported by documented individual or household need rather than geographic cost differences. |
Other Information
Payment adjustments should be supported by published evidence of beneficiary need, expected service intensity, or other legitimate person-centered factors. Geographic cost differences alone should not qualify as a payment-adjustment category.
3.3.3: Geography
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Irrelevant | National payment formulas contain no automatic geographic cost-of-living or provider-location adjustment. |
Other Information
This indicator addresses automatic national adjustments based solely on geography. It does not prohibit separately identified and voluntarily financed state, local, philanthropic, employer, or community supplements.
3.3.4: Provider Choice
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Beneficiary-Directed | Percentage of capitation and other provider payments following the beneficiary's authorized provider choice. |
Other Information
A provider choice is valid only when the beneficiary, or an authorized representative acting in the beneficiary's interest, selects or affirmatively confirms the provider. The measure should distinguish voluntary choice from assignment due to lack of available alternatives.
3.3.5: Reporting
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Comparable | Percentage of competing government providers and PGOs publishing comparable cost, access, quality, and outcome measures. |
Other Information
Comparable information should include costs, service access, timeliness, quality, outcomes, beneficiary feedback, complaints, privacy incidents, and improper payments. Differences in legally required provider-of-last-resort duties or essential public capacity should be separately identified.
3.3.6: Local Supplements
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Disclosed | Percentage of local supplements separately reported by source, amount, purpose, location, and beneficiary population. |
Other Information
A local supplement should identify its funding source, amount, purpose, location, beneficiary population, eligibility rules, provider recipients, and whether it changes beneficiary choice or provider payment. National funds should not be commingled with local supplements in a manner that obscures their source or purpose.
3.3.7: High-Need Benefits
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Status | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Measured & Reported | Provider acceptance, enrollment, retention, service completion, and outcome rates for high-need beneficiaries are measured and publicly reported. |
Other Information
High-need categories, baselines, and reliable measures of participation and retention should be established before setting numerical targets. The purpose is to detect and deter avoidance of beneficiaries who require more intensive or costly services.
3.3.8: Provider Mobility
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Portable | Percentage of beneficiaries able to change qualified providers within the prescribed period without interruption of essential assistance. |
Other Information
A beneficiary should be able to change qualified providers within the prescribed period without losing essential assistance. Temporary continuity arrangements may be required where abrupt changes would threaten health, safety, housing stability, or other essential interests.
Goal 4: Intentions & Results 🔗
Institute a transparent performance-information and oversight system connecting intentions, resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, risks, and accountability.
Stakeholders:
👥Oversight Bodies & Evaluators : Independent entities that review finances, performance claims, conflicts, privacy, and program continuation.Oversight : Review evidence and recommend continuation, redesign, suspension, or termination. (Performer)
👥Taxpayers & Citizens : People entitled to understand public priorities, resource use, results, and tradeoffs.Accountability : Use published information to assess public performance and tradeoffs. (Beneficiary)
👥AI Agents Assistance : AI agents should assist donors in stewarding their wealth to optimize the realization of public good as well as to support oversight to minimize waste, fraud, and abuse. (Performer)
Other Information
Part 1 expresses strategic intent. This Part 2 document adds initial indicators and targets. Actual results should be added only after implementation begins and data have been validated.
Objective 4.1: Reports 🔗
Provide machine-readable and plain-English reporting of plans, baselines, targets, results, costs, limitations, and stakeholder feedback.
Other Information
StratML should be the common data language, while plain-English summaries make the information usable by citizens, beneficiaries, funders, administrators, and evaluators. Submitter's Note: Since FY 2012, U.S. federal agencies have been required by law to publish their performance plans and reports in machine-readable format, like StratML, but thus far they have failed to do so.
Performance Indicators
4.1.1: Programs
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2028-12-31 | 100 | Publishing | Percentage of participating programs publishing complete StratML-compatible performance records containing the required plan, indicator, target, and reporting information. |
Other Information
Completeness should be determined by an openly published checklist and schema validation where applicable.
4.1.2: Performance Records
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2029-12-31 | 90 | Submitted | Percentage of required performance records submitted by the applicable reporting deadline. |
Other Information
Late reports should remain visible and should identify the reason for delay and the revised submission date.
Objective 4.2: Oversight 🔗
Conduct audits, outcome verification, conflict review, privacy safeguards, comparative evaluation, and evidence-based program decisions.
Other Information
Oversight should be independent of the organization being evaluated and proportionate to risk, funding, beneficiary vulnerability, and the potential consequences of error.
Performance Indicators
4.2.1: Reviews
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Completed | Percentage of required audits, outcome-verification reviews, conflict-of-interest reviews, and privacy reviews completed within the required cycle. |
Other Information
The review register should identify scope, responsible reviewer, completion date, findings, and unresolved issues.
4.2.2: Programs
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Documented | Percentage of reviewed programs with a documented continuation, redesign, suspension, or termination decision linked to evidence and stated criteria. |
Other Information
Documentation should include the decision, evidence considered, conditions, responsible authority, and next review date.
Objective 4.3: Avoidance & Capture 🔗
Control against valuation abuse, concealed ownership, self-dealing, excessive donor influence, and related-party transactions.
Other Information
Transparency should protect democratic authority and public trust without disclosing sensitive personal information. Rules should be enforceable against sophisticated planning and should not allow a donor to purchase public authority.
Performance Indicators
4.3.1: Assets
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Covered | Percentage of covered assets subject to verified valuation and beneficial-ownership disclosure under the applicable rules. |
Other Information
The measure requires published valuation, ownership, privacy, and verification standards before the baseline is established.
4.3.2: Conflicts
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | 100 | Resolved | Percentage of flagged related-party transactions or donor-control conflicts resolved through documented review within the required period. |
Other Information
Resolution may include approval with safeguards, remediation, repayment, suspension, referral, or other lawful disposition.
Objective 4.4: Stewardship Commitments & Results 🔗
Distinguish public-purpose commitments from actual deployment and verify beneficiary choice, funded results, and related-party interests in stewardship arrangements administered by family offices and other wealth stewards.
Other Information
Family-office investment management, charitable affiliation, or designation of assets for future public purposes does not alone demonstrate qualifying stewardship; compliance depends on applicable disposition rules, actual deployment, beneficiary protections, transparency, and verified results. Durable investment portfolios may support long-term public purposes, but approved arrangements should specify deployment schedules, administrative expenses, independent oversight, and evidence of benefits rather than relying solely on capital accumulation. Commitments and deployments should be reported separately by reporting period, purpose, recipient, and applicable arrangement. Avoid double counting contributions, investment principal, recycled capital, and provider payments. Protect sensitive personal information while publishing aggregate results. Targets below concern establishment of measurement and reporting; no financial volume, performance baseline, or achieved result is presumed.
Performance Indicators
4.4.1: Public-Purpose Commitments
| Type | Start Date | End Date | USD | Target Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Baseline & Reporting Established | Value committed under documented and approved public-purpose stewardship arrangements. |
Other Information
Report new commitments, outstanding commitments, conditions, cancellations, and the reporting period. Distinguish revocable intentions from binding commitments. Numerical targets should be established after baseline measurement and confirmation of applicable legal and reporting requirements.
4.4.2: Public-Purpose Deployment
| Type | Start Date | End Date | USD | Target Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Baseline & Reporting Established | Value actually disbursed or deployed for qualifying public purposes, separately from commitments. |
Other Information
Report disbursements, qualifying investments, returns or recoveries, recipient entities, deployment schedules, and administrative expenses. Asset designation alone is not deployment. Numerical targets should be established after baseline measurement and confirmation of applicable legal and reporting requirements.
4.4.3: Beneficiary Choice
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Target Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Baseline & Reporting Established | Percentage of relevant service funding subject to beneficiary-directed provider selection. |
Other Information
Numerator: relevant service funding allocated through authorized beneficiary choice. Denominator: service funding eligible for beneficiary-directed selection. Disclose exclusions; do not apply this measure to activities for which individual purchasing choice is inapplicable. Numerical targets should be established after baseline measurement and confirmation of applicable legal and reporting requirements.
4.4.4: Verified Results
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Target Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Baseline & Reporting Established | Percentage of funded initiatives with independently assessed results for the applicable reporting period. |
Other Information
Numerator: funded initiatives with independent assessment of results. Denominator: funded initiatives due for assessment. Publish assessment criteria, evaluator independence, findings, uncertainty, and limitations; assessment coverage does not itself establish positive impact. Numerical targets should be established after baseline measurement and confirmation of applicable legal and reporting requirements.
4.4.5: Related-Party Interests
| Type | Start Date | End Date | Percent | Target Status | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | 2030-12-31 | Baseline & Reporting Established | Percentage of applicable funded arrangements with complete disclosure of financial or governance relationships involving the wealth holder, family office, and funded entities. |
Other Information
Numerator: applicable arrangements with completed relationship disclosure, including declarations of no relationship. Denominator: all arrangements subject to disclosure. Disclose review and resolution of conflicts, while protecting legally confidential information. Numerical targets should be established after baseline measurement and confirmation of applicable legal and reporting requirements.