I support charities directly, not through United Way. It serves a purpose for people that can’t/don’t want to be bothered making individual donations and keeping track of them.
I decided against having anything to do with United Way back when the national organization dropped Planned Parenthood. Interestingly, a number of anti-abortion groups currently are hassling United Way because a small number of local UW chapters donate money to Planned Parenthood.
I was on the organizing board of a United Way in a rural county of Ohio some decades ago. I do not recognize whatever it is that you’re talking about. It was decided that, rather than having 20-
35 organizations competing with one another and irritating everyone with perpetual appeals, to do it all at once in a professional manner and divide it among all. I’m not sure anyone was paid.
At organization I am sure we debated whether the “dues” to national were worth it, we decided the services we received from them were. I believe we held fund-raisers to cover over-head and it didn’t come out of contributions. There was a high degree of local control, and getting quality people is essential. Some businesses were over-zealous in making sure they had good reports; not everyone approved of all participants - there were humans involved, and they are sometimes not infallible. I do not understand the hatred shown here.
Begin with your idea of an umbrella organization.
Get it set up.
Watch it trundle along with a fair degree of success for several years, (perhaps decades).
Then, some group comes to the umbrella group seeking support and, for one reason or another, their request is denied. They are likely to complain that the umbrella group siphons off funds (through the sheer power of its campaign) to support “favorite” groups or to discriminate against other groups.
Nearly simultaneously, someone discovers that a group they oppose is receiving support. They now begin to actively campaign against the umbrella group on the grounds that that larger organization is supporting “bad” or “unworthy” organizations.
Now the umbrella group has to make choices: do they reduce the allocation to each group in order to provide support for the group that was previously denied? How big a hit will overall fundraising take if they either continue to support or decline to support the group being identified as “unworthy”?
In one metropolitan area, thirty-five years ago, it was discovered that the group receiving the largest share of funds was the Boy Scouts of America to support their administration costs. At that time, (long before the whole issue of homosexuality became a news item), the overwhelming number of troops were in the suburbs at a time when the central city had housing issues and problems with kids suffering malnutrition, issues of medical care for the poor, transportation (for food and medical services) for the elderly, and a host of other issues throughout the metropolitan area, were being under-funded or not funded. Setting aside a huge amount for one group’s administration struck a lot of people as a poor use of funds. Even the Girl Scouts got only a pittance compared to the BSoA. I suspect that similar events have occurred in other communities.
If the UW gives money to Planned Parenthood, one group hates them. If they refuse to give money to Planned Parenthood, a different group hates them.
Back in the vanilla land of the early 1950s, the Community Chest/Red Feather/United Way concept worked because “we all” “agreed” on who should get support. In 2016, not only cannot we all agree on who should be supported, many are mad at UW for whom they do support.
If a person who is already angered at the choices of UW decides that UW’s own administrative costs are too high, they are not going to less angered.
There have also been local scandals, including one in the Bay Area. I have been dragooned into being a departmental UW solicitor. There was no direct coercion but there were metrics about what percent gave Fair Share. It was not a pleasant job. Then I changed jobs to one where the CEO hated their guts, and have never been bothered again.
It was possible, but not that easy, to direct your donation back then. I assume it is easier now. I doubt many do it, though.
Actually, they have made it more difficult around here. You can choose to specify an associated (not directly dependent) organization to receive funds, but they put a limit on the percentage that they will pass on, so at least some portion of your money must go to UW to do with as they please.
I do not support the United Way. They support numerous racist agencies. Not only for that reason, but their “administrative” costs are too high. Their CEO is paid an absurd salary. Also, I do not like the heavy handed tactics they use (or at least did use) to solicit contributions. No thanks. I recommend giving directly to the charity of your choice, and cut out the middle man. jmo
Scamenfraude ?
Which ones?