The DFA doesn't give you any extra "rights" to direct how funds are to be spent. It's merely a mechanism to time your donations for increased tax efficiency.
What do you mean by "not honored"? If you give money to a non-profit asking them to give tacos to the homeless and they feed them apple pie instead, in practical terms there probably isn't much you can do. If they spent it on a BMW for one of the directors, that's a different story.
I think I'm finally starting to grok the advantages and limitations of DFA's.
Regarding my mention of donations "not honored", it was a case of "Hey, I want this money to benefit everyone in the county" which was actually implemented as "We'll limit this to x instances for each person using these funds." The donor (not me) was upset, but I'm now starting to look at the bigger picture as to whether this was truly such an egregious misuse of funds or simply a small misinterpretation of intent.
The vagueness of the initial instruction left it open to interpretation. Whoever left instructions like that isn't in much of a position to complain. If the money was used for a genuinely charitable purpose, and wasn't used to create a private instrument or some kind of insider benefit, the donor doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
When you make a directed donation like that, it behaves a lot like a grant. Grants are limited to the purpose for which they are given. For example, a church might receive a disability access grant to rebuild its front stairs to include a wheelchair ramp. If they use the money to replace the leaking roof instead, they're technically in violation of the terms of the agreement. Money is fungible, so if they do the work they received the grant/donation to perform, it's a wash.
Suppose now that the church never did put in the wheelchair ramp despite having received money to do so, and the donor/grantor finds out. The donor typically asks for the money back, and can sue and win, although in the case of a small charity it might be hard to collect.
You can set up a not-for-profit corporation to hold your assets and spend the ~$800 to create a private operating or private non-operating foundation, which is a type of 501(c)3 tax exempt organization. Lots of wealthy people have one or the other. It allows you to make tax exempt donations to an organization you basically control (as opposed to a public charity which gets contributions from the general public).
Difference between POF versus PNOF is that POFs "operate" or run a program. You'd have to actually rescue a cat, foster some kittens, pay for some neutering, and have actual expenses with a POF, and that would have to consume more than half of your program activities. A PNOF does not have operations of its own and strictly distributes money to other organizations. You'd have to decide whether you want a POF or a PNOF. I personally am more of the PNOF-ish type myself.
There are things you can't do with a POF or PNOF regardless of whether you run a charitable program. You can't perform any type of self-dealing (example: renting real estate from yourself or your company... Eric Trump got in trouble for that not long ago). You can't create a private instrument (setting aside or earmarking money for a specific individual). The kinds of third party organizations you fund would have to be 501(c)3 and none of them can be domestic terrorist organizations (David Green's Hobby Lobby POF got in trouble for that a couple years back). Political contributions, campaign contributions, lobbying, or trying to influence the results of an election are seriously illegal.
The thing you buy, with a POF or PNOF, is control. You don't have control with a DAF; the DAF is basically an account that you have with your charity. The investments in it aren't up to you. You can make recommendations and you can keep your identity secret in a way that a POF or PNOF doesn't allow. You also don't have to participate in the folderol of meetings, Board members, and all the administrative stuff that goes on with the running of a charity.
Does this make sense?
