Stein isn’t the only Harold Stassen on the charity fund-raising circuit. Scores of perennial also-rans say they’ve been left behind by the United Way system. In 1990 charities outside the United Way’s domain collected only about $200 million of the estimated $2.1 billion raised in the workplace; the United Way received the rest. But the recent forced resignation of United Way of America head William Aramony could create a window of opportunity for the charitable underdogs, many of which represent women, minorities and environmental concerns. “Now that the United Way’s motherhood and apple-pie image is unequivocally tarnished, " says Robert Bothwell, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), “some doors might open. "
What’s kept them locked for so long? Corporate America tends to gravitate toward middle-of-the-road, noncontroversial charities-the kind that the United Way has traditionally funded. Moreover, it has a huge stake in preserving the organization’s dominance, says Eleanor Brilliant, author of “The United Way: Dilemmas of Organized Charity.” Companies view the campaigns as a source of publicity and prestige, as well as good training for their managers who run them, Brilliant says. “It’s a symbiotic relationship in which both the United Way and the corporation stand to gain. "
The United Way of America, the umbrella group for more than 2,100 local United Way organizations, has been extraordinarily successful in fostering such relationships. The group says limiting the number of charities in its campaigns has allowed it to closely monitor the ones it funds. Its formula is hard to fault: as the largest charitable organization in the country, it channels about $3 billion annually to causes ranging from child care to soup kitchens. Local United Ways are reeling from the news that Aramony is still collecting his $390,000 salary and from allegations that documents from a United Way affiliate were shredded. With the appointment last week of interim president Kenneth Dam, however, the organization attempted to restore public confidence.
Even before Aramony’s departure the United Way’s grip on the workplace was loosening. For the past few years, alternative charities such as Philadelphia-based Women’s Way have been making inroads in the workplace. Between 1985 and 1990 work place contributions to such charities almost doubled. The United Way has clearly noticed. Recently the big charity rolled out new “Donor Choice " programs designed to allow contributors to better target their donations. But a report released last week by the NCRP asserts that any “Choice” the programs offer is largely an illusion: only 26 percent allow contributors to select charities unaffiliated with the United Way. “United Way still ends up making all the decisions,” says Bothwell.
How would a free-market charity system affect workplace giving? At Nike, which opens its doors to such groups as the Black United Fund, employee pledges increased more than 100 percent in 1990. At Polaroid, which also offers expanded choice, total giving was up 13.5 percent last year. If more groups were allowed in, “the pie would be bigger for everyone,” says Irwin Becker, chairman of the Fund for Community Progress in Providence, R.I. And that, after all, is what charity is all about.
title: “A Gift For The Little Guys” ShowToc: true date: “2023-01-16” author: “Charles Campbell”
Stein isn’t the only Harold Stassen on the charity fund-raising circuit. Scores of perennial also-rans say they’ve been left behind by the United Way system. In 1990 charities outside the United Way’s domain collected only about $200 million of the estimated $2.1 billion raised in the workplace; the United Way received the rest. But the recent forced resignation of United Way of America head William Aramony could create a window of opportunity for the charitable underdogs, many of which represent women, minorities and environmental concerns. “Now that the United Way’s motherhood and apple-pie image is unequivocally tarnished, " says Robert Bothwell, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), “some doors might open. "
What’s kept them locked for so long? Corporate America tends to gravitate toward middle-of-the-road, noncontroversial charities-the kind that the United Way has traditionally funded. Moreover, it has a huge stake in preserving the organization’s dominance, says Eleanor Brilliant, author of “The United Way: Dilemmas of Organized Charity.” Companies view the campaigns as a source of publicity and prestige, as well as good training for their managers who run them, Brilliant says. “It’s a symbiotic relationship in which both the United Way and the corporation stand to gain. "
The United Way of America, the umbrella group for more than 2,100 local United Way organizations, has been extraordinarily successful in fostering such relationships. The group says limiting the number of charities in its campaigns has allowed it to closely monitor the ones it funds. Its formula is hard to fault: as the largest charitable organization in the country, it channels about $3 billion annually to causes ranging from child care to soup kitchens. Local United Ways are reeling from the news that Aramony is still collecting his $390,000 salary and from allegations that documents from a United Way affiliate were shredded. With the appointment last week of interim president Kenneth Dam, however, the organization attempted to restore public confidence.
Even before Aramony’s departure the United Way’s grip on the workplace was loosening. For the past few years, alternative charities such as Philadelphia-based Women’s Way have been making inroads in the workplace. Between 1985 and 1990 work place contributions to such charities almost doubled. The United Way has clearly noticed. Recently the big charity rolled out new “Donor Choice " programs designed to allow contributors to better target their donations. But a report released last week by the NCRP asserts that any “Choice” the programs offer is largely an illusion: only 26 percent allow contributors to select charities unaffiliated with the United Way. “United Way still ends up making all the decisions,” says Bothwell.
How would a free-market charity system affect workplace giving? At Nike, which opens its doors to such groups as the Black United Fund, employee pledges increased more than 100 percent in 1990. At Polaroid, which also offers expanded choice, total giving was up 13.5 percent last year. If more groups were allowed in, “the pie would be bigger for everyone,” says Irwin Becker, chairman of the Fund for Community Progress in Providence, R.I. And that, after all, is what charity is all about.
