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