Thoughts on United Way Goal

Posted Friday, August 27, 2010, at 7:13 PM

I don't know about everyone else, but I was a bit confused by the article (nicely written, by the way) about the new United Way fundraising goal. Typically, the goal for the new year is higher than the one for the previous one. This year, however, the opposite is true. Simple enough; I can understand that.

What I don't understand, though, is the reasoning behind the decrease. From reading the article, I got the distinct impression that the goal was lowered due to the economic climate. But aren't more families, more people in our area, in need at a time like this? It seems to me that this a time when the United Way should be making even more of a push to raise money so that it can provide more funds to the organizations that, in turn, help those most affected by the touch economic situation.

That led me to wonder if the focus of the local (and perhaps even the national) United Way organization is more on setting an achievable goal in order to publicize and celebrate its "success" than it is on raising as much as it possibly can. Just a thought.

What really caused me to perk up was a comment by one of the local co-chairmen of this year's campaign. Let me explain. There have been many times when, as an employee in the Southeast Missouri area, I have felt pressured (sometimes very much so) by an employer to contribute to the United Way. A few times I've seen someone share that same feeling in Speak Out or in commenting in response to a blog here at the Southeast Missourian, and each time, a United Way spokesperson would scoff at the notion.

Yet one of the co-chairmen for this year's event stated, "Maybe they've [the employers] had layoffs or they felt they were stressed hitting their goal last year." Feeling stress implies, to me at least, the idea that you must do something and feel under pressure to do so. If the employers feel that reaching their goals is mandatory, it seems likely that, contrary to the protests of United Way officials in the past, these employers may be communicating that feeling to their employees and putting undue pressure on them so that the company's fundraising goal can be met.

I've got a novel idea. The United Way could do an assessment of the needs of the organizations it funds and set a goal. That goal could then be divvied up so that all participating companies have their own goal. Employers could give their employees the opportunity to give as they feel led. At the end of the campaign, the United Way, its participating companies, and those companies' employees could celebrate the fact that, from their heart, they were able to help those in need.

Works for me!

Comments

View 5 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.

Suggest that the goal-setting is a balance between appearance and substance.

As for appearance, continued failures to meet the stated goals may lead to future revenue declines, on the premise that people would be more likely to contribute more, and more often, to an organization with a history of successful campaigns, as opposed to a history of failures.

As for substance, agree there is likely a greater need leading to the support of higher targets. However, those who have contributed in the past may not have the ability to continue, or perhaps are not able to continue at the same levels. Essentially, more are in need, but less help appears to be available. Suggesting that the remaining contributors pick up the slack would be a delicate proposition that may cost more than is gained.

Ah, the challenge of maximizing current revenues while sustaining the goodwill toward future donations.

Propose that a participating company's reputation is at-risk, also - thus the stress factor. Not being able to meet a charitable goal is not the type of PR sought, which could affect future company-wide participation - so I can understand why businesses and charitable organizations should be interested in partnering to target challenging yet achievable goals based on things such as historical giving levels, employee head count changes, and current economic environments - toward maintaining a sustainable relationship where both parties can be viewed as 'winners' with plenty of good press that follows.

Not a fan of being pressured, and fortunately have not yet had to deal with uncomfortable levels of 'encouragement' with respect to company-sponsored charitable donations. More in favor of positive reinforcement methods such as 'doughnuts for donors' as compared to being 'unofficially' black-listed as a tightwad or not a team player.

I'll give what I feel comfortable with, to those organizations that I feel comfortable with.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Aug 28, 2010, at 3:18 PM
I agree with you on several points, fxpwt, particularly the one regarding positive reinforcement. I worked for more than 5 years at a job where 3 or 4 supervisors roamed the room, overseeing less than 30 employees as we filled out our contribution forms. One year, I did not turn mine in (due to dh being on disability for awhile and our charitable giving for that time period maxed out already) -- I was called in and personally reminded to turn in the form so we could meet our goal. I was also reminded that "supporting the larger community" was considered on our job evaluations!!

I'd love to keep everything I earn, but that's not the way it works in my belief system. Like you, I give to organizations I am comfortable with and who most closely represent causes/issues I want to support.

-- Posted by pmiinch on Sat, Aug 28, 2010, at 3:55 PM
Great point, Nil -- another reason I prefer to give directly to a specific organization.

-- Posted by pmiinch on Sun, Aug 29, 2010, at 8:23 AM
Maybe if we lived in a city where the business community supported education, community organizations, charities, etc the United Way could have a larger goal. And, giving to directly to a speciific organization is fine, but you then miss all those small, independent, and extremely valuable small organizations which don't have the monetary or manpower resources to do fund raising. While organizations like the cancer society are great, it is the little guys like counseling centers, child care, food banks, etc. which do the most for our community. Those folks are the key recipients of United Way funding.

-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Mon, Aug 30, 2010, at 6:24 AM
I can't agree with the idea that the smaller organizations do "the most" for our community. More people are affected in this country -- and in this community -- by cancer than are affected by food banks, for example.

From what I read here in the Southeast Missourian and know from folks who work in the community, the business community DOES support education, community organizations, etc.

-- Posted by pmiinch on Tue, Aug 31, 2010, at 10:23 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires a subscription.