On Dec. 4, the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations, organized by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, delivered the first of two reports to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA). Sen. Grassley, who has conducted hearings on nonprofit-sector missteps and was rebuffed by several Christian mega-media ministries when he sought information about their use of donations, asked the EFCA in 2011 to consider how to strengthen the accountability of religious and other charities to the public and to donors. The Commission’s report, “Enhancing Accountability for the Religious and Broader Nonprofit Sector,” is the outcome of extensive research and deliberations by a 14-member ECFA commission, which was advised by a multi-faith Panel of Religious Sector Representatives, a diverse Panel of Nonprofit Sector Representatives, and a Panel of [notable] Legal Experts.

Major topics included: limiting excessive compensation of executives, enhancing the accountability of houses of worship to their donors, fair tax treatment of “love offerings,” and the clergy housing allowance. A theme throughout: promoting greater accountability and transparency for the financial activities of religious organizations without violating their constitutional rights nor subjecting them to unnecessary new legal requirements.

In general, consistent with that theme and with the genius of the ECFA itself (which was created in 1979 as a way for Christian ministries to demonstrate their accountable use of resources following growing public concern about questionable nonprofit fundraising practices) the Commission advocates better enforcement of existing laws and regulations, more informative materials from the IRS about existing requirements, and greater engagement by donors with those organizations they support. One important recommendation: secular nonprofit organizations and religious nonprofits that do not fit within the ECFA’s mission to work with evangelical organizations should consider setting up their own counterparts of the ECFA, thus promoting broader and more effective self-regulation in the nonprofit world.

The Commission’s report has been criticized as proposing feeble solutions to the real problems uncovered by Sen. Grassley. Some seem to think there need to be new laws,additional legal requirements. Yet if, as the critics admit, the IRS already is understaffed and underfunded-and has already been given a huge new regulatory responsibility with respect to the health reform law-it is hard to see how adding new laws and regulations will be effective. Government rules do not enforce themselves.

Some have proposed that houses of worship, which currently automatically have 501(c)(3) status, should be required to apply for that status from the IRS and then be required annually file a 990 or other financial report to government. Yet the IRS already is unable adequately to monitor 990 reports or give much scrutiny to 501(c)(3) application. More important, in protecting a zone of privacy around houses of worship, the government honors the First Amendment’s religious freedom requirements. Churches and religions are diverse and necessarily have diverse ways of relating to adherents and donors and diverse ways of maintaining accountability. The 990 reports, even if not necessarily adequately monitored by the IRS, are routinely publicized by charity watchdog websites–providing a form of public accountability, but potentially also a means to subject unpopular and misunderstood houses of worship and religions to public opprobrium.

Transparency is not a miracle tool. The Commission’s report proposes that the IRS should permit nonprofit organizations that file annual 990 information forms to set apart from public view certain details of their operations. Currently the names of donors, while reported to the IRS, need not be revealed in public copies of the 990 form. Organizations should be permitted also to shield from public view other sensitive information, such as overseas activities that might be disapproved by certain foreign governments or the addresses of shelters for victims of domestic violence.

Are the Commission’s accountability recommendations adequate? The Commission is right not to expect overburdened government officials to miraculously assert better oversight if they just have more rules to administer. And it is right to strongly defend the legitimate sphere of religious freedom against the many contemporary pressures to squeeze it for one good cause and another. It is right to call on religious organizations to be more accountable to their constituencies and to ask donors to be more diligent in learning about organizations they might decide to support.