Can an Arkansas charity give door-raffle prizes worth more than $100 to public-employee social workers at an event honoring their public service?

Subject

Whether door-raffle prizes given at a 501(c) charity event honoring social workers count as protected "awards" or as regulated "gifts" under Arkansas's public-servant ethics rules, and whether the $100 gift cap applies. AG Tim Griffin (Assistant AG William R. Olson drafting) concluded the prizes are likely gifts subject to the $100 cap, but the Arkansas Ethics Commission has the final say on the facts.

Plain-English summary

A Representative asked the AG about a planned charity event. A 501(c) nonprofit wanted to host a gathering honoring social workers' public service, with random door-raffle prizes drawn for attendees, including social workers and their family members. Some donated prizes would exceed $100 in value. The Representative asked two questions: (1) do those prizes count as "awards" excluded from Arkansas's gift rules, and (2) if not, does the $100 gift cap apply?

The AG's bottom line: the prizes are likely "gifts," not "awards," because the random drawing is open to a broad group (including family members and other attendees), and an "award" under the relevant statute requires a publicly presented merit-based recognition of a state employee for community contributions. A door-prize lottery does not look like merit-based recognition.

If the prizes are gifts, the next question is whether they are prohibited gifts. Arkansas law bars a "public servant" from receiving a gift "for performing the duties and responsibilities of his or her office or position," and the Ethics Commission reads that "for" requirement as a one-directional connection: the gift must be tied to something the public servant has done or will do in office. A door prize from a random drawing at a generic appreciation event is a closer call than, say, a golf shirt handed personally to a legislator. The AG flagged tension on both sides: random selection makes the prize less obviously "for" the job, but the event's stated purpose of appreciating social workers' public service pulls the other way and increases the risk that prizes going to public-employee social workers will be deemed prohibited gifts.

On the $100 cap: if a prize qualifies as a true "award," it is excluded from the gift definition entirely and the $100 cap does not apply. If the prize is a "gift" given to a public-servant social worker to show appreciation for the job, the $100 cap at A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(vii) does apply. A gift over $100 must be reimbursed down to $100 or less within 10 days, or returned within 30 days, to avoid being a prohibited gift.

The opinion does not give a categorical yes or no. It identifies the legal framework, flags the risk areas, and points the questioner to the Arkansas Ethics Commission for a fact-specific advisory opinion before the event happens.

One side note: the opinion confirms that the door-raffle itself is not illegal "gambling," "gaming," or a "raffle" under Ark. Const. amend. 84, § 1, because attendees pay nothing for tickets and winners are picked through a blind drawing.

What this means for you

If you are organizing a charity event for public employees

Treat the AG's framework as a planning checklist rather than a green light. Three practical questions to work through before the event:

• Who is in the prize pool? A drawing open to family members and other attendees is much harder to characterize as merit-based recognition of a state employee. If you want the "award" exclusion, the prize has to be publicly presented in recognition of an individual employee's contributions to the community, not pulled from a hat.
• Are the recipients public servants? Public officials, public employees, and public appointees are covered. Most social workers employed by Arkansas DHS or county agencies are public employees. Social workers in private practice or at nonprofits are not.
• What is each prize worth? If a prize fits the "gift" definition (over $100 in value to a public servant) and is given for the public servant's job, the $100 cap applies and an over-cap prize is a problem unless reimbursed to $100 or less within 10 days or returned within 30 days.

If any of those answers point toward "gift" rather than "award," ask the Arkansas Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion before the event. Their advisory opinions are the authoritative guidance, not the AG's.

If you are a public-employee social worker invited to such an event

Going to the event is fine. The risk is on the receiving side if you draw a prize worth more than $100. A safer practice if you draw a high-value prize: ask the organizer in writing whether the prize was structured as a permitted "award" with the merit-based recognition required by A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(xv)(a). If not, treat it as a "gift" and either pay enough to bring your unpaid amount under $100 within 10 days, or return the prize within 30 days. Document what you did.

If you are a 501(c)(3) charity director

The "award" exclusion at A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(xv)(a) explicitly contemplates 501(c)(3)-presented recognitions of state employees. To fit that exclusion, the recognition needs three things: it is publicly presented to a state employee, it is presented by their supervisors or peers (individually or through your 501(c)(3)), and accepting it would not create the appearance of using the position for private gain or losing impartiality. A door raffle does not satisfy the first element. If you want to fit within the exclusion, restructure the recognition as a named public award to specific honorees for specific contributions, not a random drawing.

If you advise public servants on ethics compliance

The opinion's most useful contribution is its synthesis of the Ethics Commission's prior advisory opinions on the "for performance of duties" link: 99-EC-007 (unidirectional connection), 2008-EC-007 (JP marriage gift), 2001-EC-002 (legislator golf shirt), 2000-EC-008 (teacher excellence awards), and 2000-EC-006 (item based on non-job-related community service). The pattern: the closer the connection between the job and the gift, the more likely it is prohibited; the more attenuated (random drawing, non-job criteria), the less likely. Use those advisory opinions when running the analysis for your client.

If you are a state legislator considering ethics reform

The opinion shows how the current statute creates a fact-specific gray zone for public-employee appreciation events. If the legislature wanted to give 501(c)(3) charities a clearer safe harbor for honoring specific categories of public service (social workers, teachers, first responders), the cleanest fix is to add language to the "award" exclusion at A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(xv)(a) that covers presentations to a defined class of honorees, not just to individuals.

Common questions

Q: Is the $100 gift limit per item, per event, or per year? A: The opinion treats it as per-item: "the gift may not exceed $100, unless it is reimbursed down to $100 or less within 10 days or returned within 30 days." It does not address aggregation across items. If multiple items at one event together exceed $100, ask the Ethics Commission how they aggregate.

Q: What is the difference between a "gift" and an "award" under Arkansas ethics law? A: An "award" must be publicly presented to a state employee in recognition of community contributions, presented by their supervisors or peers (or through a 501(c)(3)), and accepting it would not create an appearance problem. If the recognition has all three pieces, it is excluded from the "gift" definition and the $100 cap does not apply. Without those elements, a transfer of value over $100 to a public servant is a "gift."

Q: Can the event still happen if some attendees might be public employees? A: Yes. The opinion does not prohibit the event. It identifies risk areas. The event itself, the door raffle structure, and prizes given to non-public-servant attendees (family members, private-sector workers) are not regulated by these rules. The risk is concentrated on prizes drawn by public-employee social workers.

Q: Who decides whether a specific prize was a permitted award or a prohibited gift? A: The Arkansas Ethics Commission, under A.C.A. § 7-6-217(g)(2) (advisory opinions) and § 7-6-217(g)(3) (citizen complaints, investigations, and findings). The AG opinion explicitly defers to the Commission for fact-specific calls.

Q: Does it matter that the donor is a 501(c)(3) and not the State? A: For the "award" exclusion, yes, it helps. Awards presented "through a nonprofit organization which is exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)" are within the exclusion's contemplated channels. But the donor's tax status alone is not enough; the structure of the recognition still has to be merit-based and publicly presented to a specific state employee.

Q: Is a door raffle the same as a "raffle" under Ark. Const. amend. 84, § 1? A: No. The opinion confirms that a door-prize drawing where attendees pay nothing for tickets and winners are selected blindly is not the constitutional "raffle" requiring authorization. It is also not "gambling" or "gaming."

Q: What if the event happens and a public-employee social worker wins a prize over $100? A: The recipient's options are to pay enough to bring the unpaid amount to $100 or less within 10 days, or return the prize within 30 days. Either preserves compliance under A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(iii) and (vii)(b). After those windows, the prize is potentially a prohibited gift and exposes both the recipient and (depending on facts) the donor to Ethics Commission action.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas's public-servant gift rules sit in two tightly linked places: statutory provisions at A.C.A. § 21-8-402 (definitions) and § 21-8-801 (the substantive prohibition), and the Arkansas Ethics Commission's rules at 21 C.A.R. § 1-101 (which mirror the statute verbatim). The two layers move together because the Commission's rules track the underlying statute. The opinion notes that A.C.A. § 25-15-218, effective January 1, 2025, replaced the older Administrative Code citations with the new Code of Arkansas Rules numbering. The substantive rules did not change.

The "public servant" definition is layered. A "public servant" is the umbrella term for public officials, public employees, and public appointees, each separately defined at A.C.A. § 21-8-402(15)–(18). A public-employee social worker is a "public servant"; a private-practice social worker is not. The gift rules only reach public servants.

The "gift" definition has two layers: a general definition at § 21-8-402(5)(A) (essentially anything of value at or above $100 that the recipient does not pay enough for to drop below $100), and 16 categorical exclusions at § 21-8-402(5)(B). Two of those exclusions cover "monetary or other awards" and lay out the criteria the AG analyzed: public presentation, peer or supervisor or 501(c)(3) channel, and no appearance of self-dealing.

The "for performance of duties" link, at A.C.A. § 21-8-801(a)(1), is the substantive prohibition: a public servant cannot accept a gift or compensation "for performing the duties and responsibilities of his or her office or position." The Ethics Commission has read "for" as requiring a unidirectional, job-tied connection. A door prize from a random drawing tests that line.

The Arkansas Ethics Commission's enforcement and advisory authority comes from A.C.A. § 7-6-217(g), which lets the Commission both issue advisory opinions on ethics statutes and investigate complaints. The AG opinion repeatedly defers to the Commission for the fact-specific calls the law actually requires.

Citations and references

Statutes (Arkansas):

• A.C.A. § 21-8-801(a)(1), substantive prohibition on gifts/compensation to public servants for job performance
• A.C.A. § 21-8-402(15)–(18), definitions of public appointee, public employee, public official, public servant
• A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(A), (B), "gift" definition and 16 exclusions
• A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(xv)(a), "monetary or other award" exclusion
• A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(vii), (vii)(b), $100 cap mechanics
• A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(iii), return-or-reimburse window
• A.C.A. § 7-6-217(g)(2)–(3), Ethics Commission advisory and enforcement authority
• A.C.A. § 25-15-218, recodification creating the Code of Arkansas Rules
• 21 C.A.R. § 1-101, Ethics Commission rules mirroring the statutory definitions
• Ark. Const. amend. 84, § 1: raffles authorization

Federal:

• 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3): tax-exempt status referenced in the "award" exclusion

Ethics Commission Advisory Opinions cited:

• Advisory Opinion No. 98-EC-008 (April 17, 1998), committee may not conduct constitutional "raffle" without authorization
• Advisory Opinion No. 99-EC-007 (July 30, 1999), unidirectional gift-action connection; gift definition mechanics
• Advisory Opinion No. 2000-EC-006 (May 19, 2000), non-job-related community service item not prohibited
• Advisory Opinion No. 2000-EC-008 (August 18, 2000), teacher excellence awards tied to job performance were prohibited gifts
• Advisory Opinion No. 2001-EC-002 (March 16, 2001), legislator golf shirt as appreciation for job performance, exempt only because under $100
• Advisory Opinion No. 2008-EC-007 (July 18, 2008): JP barred from accepting gift for performing marriage ceremony

Other AG opinions referenced:

• Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2025-022: door raffle not "gambling," "gaming," or constitutional "raffle"

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-119
April 22, 2026
The Honorable Ryan A. Rose
State Representative
819 Powderhorn Circle
Van Buren, Arkansas 72956
Dear Representative Rose:
I am writing in response to your request for my opinion on the Arkansas Ethics Commission's Rules on Gifts and items given to social workers at an event. You note that—to show appreciation for social workers' "critical work" and service—a 501(c) nonprofit charity plans to host an event where door-raffle prizes will be awarded at random through a blind drawing conducted by a "Social Worker Supervisor" to attendees, which will include social workers and their family members. Additionally, you indicate that some "donated items will exceed the $100 limit referenced in Ark. Admin. Code. 153.00.3-303(c)" and that the donated "raffle prizes are awarded solely to honor public service and cannot reasonably be viewed as influencing any Social Worker for private gain."1 Against this background, you ask two questions:

1. When a 501(c) nonprofit organization hosts an event to honor the public service of Social
   Workers, are door-raffle "prizes" considered an "award" as permitted under Ark. Admin. Code 153.00.3-300(b)(15)? Brief response: The door-raffle prizes likely constitute "gifts," not "awards." But whether a particular item given to a social worker is a prohibited gift or compensation under the applicable ethics laws will depend on specific facts. The Arkansas Ethics Commission has authority to review fact-specific scenarios, issue advisory ethics opinions, and enforce its regulations and the applicable ethics laws. 1 While your opinion request cites to the Administrative Code, this opinion will cite to the more recent Code of Arkansas Rules ("CAR"), which was created by A.C.A. § 25-15-218 and became effective on January 1, 2025. TIM GRIFFIN ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Honorable Ryan A. Rose
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-119
Page 2

2. If so, are these "prizes" subject to the same $100 limitation that applies to gifts under Ark.
   Admin. Code 153.00.3-303(c)?
   Brief response: Because an "award" is excluded from the definition of "gift," it is not subject the $100 limitation that applies to "gifts." But if the door-raffle prizes are determined to be "gifts" given to public-servant social workers "to show appreciation" for doing their jobs, the $100 limitation applies. DISCUSSION Because you note that attendees "would receive raffle tickets at no cost" and "raffle winners would be selected through a blind drawing," it is my opinion that the "door-raffle" in question is not prohibited "gambling" or "gaming," nor is it a "raffle" under Ark. Const. amend. 84, § 1.2 Question 1: When a 501(c) nonprofit organization hosts an event to honor the public service of Social Workers, are door-raffle "prizes" considered an "award" as permitted under Ark. Admin. Code 153.00.3-300(b)(15)? While your question is directed at the rules of the Arkansas Ethics Commission, I will begin the analysis by reviewing the relevant statutes that themselves form the foundation for the rules. The applicable ethics rules mirror the underlying statutes. Thus, if someone does not violate the statutory prohibition on the receipt of gifts, then he or she would not violate the Commission's rule. With certain exceptions that are not relevant here, Arkansas law prohibits a "public servant" from receiving a "gift or compensation as defined in § 21-8-401 et seq." for performing "the duties and responsibilities of his or her office or position."3 Because nothing in your request indicates the door prize is compensation for the social workers, I will refrain from analyzing that point. That leaves three statutory definitions to analyze (all of which are repeated verbatim in the Commission's rules): (1) "public servant," (2) "gift," and (3) the connection of the gift or compensation to the public servant's "duties and responsibilities."
3. "Public servant." Both the statute and the Commission's rule define a "public servant" to
   include "all public officials, public employees, and public appointees."4 Each of these terms are themselves defined:
   • A "public official" is "a legislator or any other person holding an elective office of any governmental body, whether elected or appointed to the office, and shall include such 2 See Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2025-022; see also Ark. Ethics Comm'n, Advisory Opinion No. 98-EC-008 (April 17, 1998) (advising that a committee could not conduct a "raffle" when it violates the Arkansas Constitution). 3 A.C.A. § 21-8-801(a)(1). 4 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(18); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(10).

The Honorable Ryan A. Rose
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-119
Page 3
persons during the time period between the date they were elected and the date they took office."5
• A "public employee" is someone "employed by a governmental body or who is appointed to serve a governmental body."6
• A "public appointee" is someone who is "appointed to a governmental body" that is "not an elective office."7 If the recipient of the door prize does not fit into one of the foregoing categories, then the prohibition on receiving gifts or compensation does not apply. Whether, as a matter of fact, a specific person fits into one of the foregoing categories is a question of fact for the Arkansas Ethics Commission. The remaining analysis assumes, for purposes of the opinion, that the recipient of the door prize does fit into one of the subcategories of people who are considered a "public servant."

2. "Gift." In this context, the word "gift" is a term of art. As explained below, it essentially means
   something valued at or above $100 that the recipient does not pay for either at all or enough to reduce the unpaid amount to less than $100. 8 But 16 things are excluded from the statutory definition.9 With the exception of a few (that are discussed below), those definitional exclusions are not relevant to your question. Because you say that the value of the door prizes meets or exceeds $100, they fit into the general definition of a gift. So, unless one of the 16 definitional exclusions applies, the prizes are "gifts." Two definitional exclusions relate to "awards," something you expressly ask about. If the prizes fit into either of the definitional exclusions for awards, then the prizes will not be considered gifts. But, as explained below, and based solely on the facts as you have presented them, neither definitional exclusion applies here. A "monetary or other award" is excluded from the definition of "gift" if it meets the following criteria: 5 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(17); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(9). 6 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(16); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(8). 7 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(15); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(7). 8 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(A); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(2)(A); Ark. Ethics Comm'n, Advisory Opinion No. 99-EC-007 (July 30, 1999). 9 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(i)–(xvi); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(2)(B)(i)–(xviii).

The Honorable Ryan A. Rose
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-119
Page 4
• The item is publicly presented to a state employee "in recognition of his or her contributions to the community";
• It is presented by that employee's "supervisors or peers, individually or through a nonprofit organization which is exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)"; and
• Accepting the award "would not result in or create the appearance of the employee using his or her position for private gain, giving preferential treatment to anyone, or losing independence or impartiality."10 Your request indicates that the purpose of the event is to honor the public service of social workers. But it is also relevant that door-prize eligibility extends beyond publicly-employed social workers to include family members and other attendees. It is unlikely that a random drawing open to a broad group, including family members and other attendees, would constitute merit-based recognition of a state employee. For this reason, the door prizes are unlikely to constitute "awards." The foregoing analysis means that a social worker at this event who is a public servant is prohibited from receiving the door prize if it bears a sufficient connection between the prize and the public servant's "performance of the duties and responsibilities of his or her office or position."

3. Connection to job performance. The Arkansas Ethics Commission has interpreted "for
   performance of the duties and responsibilities of his or her office or position" as "for doing his or her job."11 That is, a "gift" is prohibited "if there is a unidirectional relationship between the gift and the action—the gift is for or because" of an act that a public servant has taken or will take.12 In Advisory Opinion No. 2008-EC-007, the Commission opined that a Justice of the Peace was prohibited from receiving a gift for performing a marriage ceremony because the power to conduct marriage ceremonies "flows directly from the holding of that office." The Commission has also concluded that a golf shirt presented by public agency presenting to members of the General Assembly "as a token of appreciation for his or her support" was "being conferred to show appreciation for job performance."13 Awards presented to teachers "who are furthering excellence in education" as demonstrated by meeting certain criteria such as developing innovative teaching methods, exhibiting "[e]xceptional educational talent," and "[p]lay[ing] an active and useful role in the community as well as the school" were connected to job performance, with the award giver going "so far as to describe the awards as 'financial rewards' to individuals who are furthering 10 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(xv)(a); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(2)(B)(xv)(a). 11 See Ark. Ethics Comm'n, Advisory Opinion No. 2008-EC-007 (July 18, 2008). 12 Ark. Ethics Comm'n, Advisory Opinion No. 99-EC-007 (July 30, 1999). 13 Ark. Ethics Comm'n, Advisory Opinion No. 2001-EC-002 (March 16, 2001) (finding that the item was exempt because its value "d[id] not exceed one hundred dollars").

The Honorable Ryan A. Rose
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-119
Page 5
excellence in education.'"14 But an agency that removed selection criteria concerning job experience and accomplishment and awarded an item "based upon non-job related service to the community" was not prohibited.15 One might argue that a random drawing open to a broad group of attendees is not tied to the performance of any individual public employee's duties. On the other hand, the stated purpose of honoring social workers' public service may support the opposite conclusion, particularly when a social worker who is a public employee directly receives a gift worth more than a hundred dollars. In my opinion, the prizes are likely gifts, and although the random selection process reduces the likelihood that they are prohibited, the expressly stated purpose of appreciating public-servant social workers increases the risk that they will be deemed prohibited gifts. If the prize does not qualify as a permitted "award" and is not a prohibited "gift," it could be considered prohibited outside compensation, but only if the facts show that it is payment for performing official duties. In the context of a random drawing open to a broad audience, that showing would be difficult. Ultimately, whether a particular door-raffle prize constitutes an "award," a "gift," or "compensation," and whether it is permissible or prohibited, depends on the specific facts. When a factual question arises concerning a potential violation of A.C.A. § 21-8-402 and ethics rules, the Arkansas Ethics Commission has the authority to review the facts and issue advisory opinions on that statute and other ethics law.16 Additionally, after a citizen complaint has been submitted to the Ethics Commission, the Commission may investigate "alleged violations" and issue "findings and disciplinary action."17 The Commission is therefore in the best position to determine whether the door prizes constitute awards.

4. Conclusion. The door-raffle prizes are likely "gifts," not "awards." But whether a particular
   item given to a social worker is a prohibited gift or compensation under the applicable ethics laws will depend on specific facts. The Arkansas Ethics Commission has authority to review fact-specific scenarios, issue advisory ethics opinions, and enforce its regulations and the applicable ethics laws. Question 2: If so, are these "prizes" subject to the same $100 limitation that applies to gifts under Ark. Admin. Code 153.00.3-303(c)? If an item qualifies as an "award" under A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(xv)(a), it is excluded from the definition of "gift." Because the $100 limitation applies only to "gifts," that dollar cap does not govern items that are valid "awards." But if the door-raffle prizes are determined to be "gifts" 14 Ark. Ethics Comm'n, Advisory Opinion No. 2000-EC-008 (August 18, 2000) (finding that such an item was a prohibited gift). 15 Ark. Ethics Comm'n, Advisory Opinion No. 2000-EC-006 (May 19, 2000). 16 See A.C.A. § 7-6-217(g)(2). 17 Id. § 7-6-217(g)(3).

The Honorable Ryan A. Rose
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-119
Page 6
given to public-servant social workers "to show appreciation" for doing their jobs, the $100 limitation in A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(vii) applies. 18 In that case, the gift may not exceed $100, unless it is reimbursed down to $100 or less within 10 days or returned within 30 days. 19 Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve. Sincerely, TIM GRIFFIN Attorney General 18 See also 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(2)(B)(vii) (mirroring the statutory definition). 19 A.C.A. § 21-8-402(5)(B)(iii), (vii)(b); 21 C.A.R. § 1-101(2)(B)(iii), (vii)(b).