Why Not Full Disclosure About the United Way List To Public Sector Employees?

These days it's not uncommon for United Way campaign solicitation materials distributed to donors to not include any list of "United Way Member Charities."  Many United Ways no longer have "member" charities.  In any case, the "new United Way" paradigm is to encourage gifts to the United Way community fund and discourage gifts to individual charities.  Including a list of charities with the solicitation materials would only remind donors they have a choice.

But when it comes to at-work fund drives for public sector employees at the federal, state, and municipal level, the participating federated groups, including the United Way, are required to list their respective member charities in the campaign materials.  In the cases where the United Way has no members it nevertheless "certifies" charities that it has persuaded to apply for inclusion in the fund drives under United Way's name. 

Everyone turns a blind eye to the fact that these charities are not "members" in any commonly understand definition of the term.   When donors see the United Way list they presume those charities are somehow supported by or affiliated with the United Way.  They also presume that if they make a gift to United Way that money will be shared among the "members."  After all, that's the traditional federation model.

But nothing could be further from the truth.  United Way will not share any funds designated to it with these charities.  The only support United Way will give these charities is to pass along any gifts that have been designated by donors to these individual charities, and it will charge a 10, 15, or 20 percent service fee off the top for the privilege.

Isn't it time for this practice to be disclosed?  If a federation is not going to share gifts with the charities it lists under its name, shouldn't donors have right to know that?

Comments

[Christopher Scott]

It appears that you have something against United Ways and that you accuse all of them of these practices.

Why?

[Patrick Maguire]

Reply to Christopher: In fact, yes, all United Ways do this. But to be fair, the public employee campaigns are not United Way-owned campaigns. United Way doesn't make up the rules. There is nothing illegal in doing this. My point here is not that United Way should disclose the arrangement it has with these charities, but that the campaigns themselves should disclose this to donors -- that the United Way list is not like the other federation lists they see in their donor brochures. It should also be noted that United Ways don't have to list a set of charities to be included in most of these campaigns. They could participate on a "stand alone" basis. But then they wouldn't get that cut off the top of the other charities' money.

[Patrick Maguire]

2nd reply to Christopher: Excuse me a minute, Chris, while I take my dumb foot out of my smart mouth. Technically, you are correct. Not all United Ways do this. If you re-read my post I think you'll see I was only referring to United Ways that have no "member" charities. Yes, many other United Ways DO have members and DO, presumably, share this income with them. But I'm nevertheless correct, I believe, that the practice I refer to among this sub-set of United Ways is accurate. If you or anyone else knows of a non-member United Way that does share it's public sector campaign income with charities it lists I'll create a special post giving them full credit and accolades. I am not "against" all United Ways -- in fact I cheerlead for some of them -- but I am against deceptive practices that erode donor trust. That results in donors not supporting the campaigns, to the detriment of all the participating charities, not just United Way.