Here's an example.
Roughly six years ago, I met some folks from the United Way. I asked if they'd consider funding a small portion of our community work.
Verbal requests were met with verbal, though polite, brushoffs.
The first was, "We don't fund religious organizations."
I clarified that I didn't want any money to run the religious activities of our congregation. I was requesting a little help with bookkeeping on our community work (home improvements, safety, community development, transitional housing, employment, etc.). These initiatives serve people regardless of their church involvement -- or lack thereof.
They explained, "Sorry, but rules are rules." I pointed out that they actually do fund at least one faith-based service agency. The response was less an explanation than an alternative rationale for our rejection.
This continued for several years. This year I approached them to assist with a part-time administrator for Connect 2, a computer-based voicemail system that provides a free messaging service for up to 2,500 Winnipeggers who can't afford phones.
Again they said, "Sorry, but we can't help you."
Then, one day I received application forms for time-limited funding. I thought perhaps they had reconsidered their longstanding rejection of our requests, so I asked for the same help again.
They said no again. This time they clarified that they couldn't help us with something we had already started (even if we couldn't afford to continue it), but would be happy to receive an application for a new initiative.
The upshot of that rejection was that they wouldn't help with what we couldn't afford, but would help us start something new.
So I dutifully went home and created an application for a position for which we didn't need money so we could cover the costs of a position for which we desperately needed money. It's a game often played when community groups with desperate needs meet funders with irrelevant rules.
On Wednesday night I heard that request was rejected as well.
I knew enough not to "shoot the messenger." But I almost lost it when he told me I could phone him in the office the next day to "vent."
I told him I never asked for a shrink. I requested a little help to deliver a valuable community service utilized by more than 30 other agencies in the city.
I've gotten past the personal sense of rejection. The unspoken rule is that if the rejected suffer politely ("take it with a smile" -- in the vernacular) there's chance that the funder may condescend to their need at some time in the future.
But in trying to make sense of their decision, I'm finally understanding something that won't allow me to keep the silence -- even if it jeopardizes any future chance of funding from them.
As I read the 2004 annual report of the United Way, I noticed the names of several directors and committee members who have taken personal issue with some of my approaches to community problems. Perhaps that was the real reason my pleas are continually rejected.
As I examined the glitzy brochure, I was struck by an even deeper concern. Last year, the United Way annual report listed 75 organizations which received a total of $10.5 million. That's great. Really.
Then I noticed how much it cost to collect and distribute that money. The operating costs of the United Way (apart from what it provided to community groups) were $2,680,403.
So what they're saying is that it cost us $2.6 million for the United Way to serve as brokers for $10.5 million of donations. That's their price tag on the consignment of our charity.
Folks at United Way will be quick to point out that all money donated to the United Way is given to organizations deemed worthy by their allocation committee. They emphasize that their operational costs are primarily covered by the Province of Manitoba. That's nice until you realize what that means.
They expect the public to be reassured that more than $2 million of taxpayer money (including that of the working poor) is required to distribute less than
$11 million of donor money.
Most people who give to the United Way are not directly funding charities.
In fact, when you give money to the United Way general fund, you're saying you can't or won't decide who receives your charitable donation. So you actually fund the personal preferences and prejudices of the United Way allocation committee.
Sometimes there are costs associated with telling the truth. I'm quite aware that pointing out a few blemishes on the "sacred cow" of benevolent organizations will not endear me to the people who make the decisions.
It may cause discomfort to donors who congratulate themselves for funding charities if they face the fact they're simply funding the choices of the brokers of benevolence.
Here's a valuable suggestion.
Get to know more about the groups actually doing the good work in your communities. Then check the list of agencies receiving funding from the United Way. The names and figures are available in their annual report (posted online).
If you notice that a group doing good work is not supported by the United Way, contact the group. If they need help, give to them directly. Alternatively, you can specify that your United Way donations go directly to that group.
Be the steward of your own donation. Take a little personal initiative. Don't resign or consign your compassion to a $2 million broker.
Rev. Harry Lehotsky
514 Maryland Street
Winnipeg, Mb R3G 1M5
(204) 775-4929
lehotsky@escape.ca