We'll fund vaccines and throw in the social stereotypes for free!

[mrissa]

Gmail is not letting me log in; this is annoying, but it says they're trying to fix it.

You know what else is annoying? United Way's print ad campaign. Again, or still. They've got pictures of people saying that they did certain things -- "I pulled 33,000 kittens from burning buildings!" -- and then it says it was through the magic of donating money to United Way. Except it's not 33,000 kittens. It's stuff like -- well, here are the examples I remember:

A bearded, long-haired guy in a leather jacket: helped preschoolers with their social skills
Two middle-aged women: built houses for the poor
(the latest one to spark my wrath) A Hispanic guy with a goatee: helped a bunch of kids get their teeth straightened out

Because everybody knows that those longhair freaky types shouldn't be allowed near children, and girls can't build houses, and Hispanics can't be dentists! Thanks, United Way, for allowing us to pay someone to have humanitarian skills we would lack if we were walking stereotypes!

As I was sitting at a stoplight boggling at a bus that had the one with the Hispanic teeth-straightener on its side, I saw that it had a set of wrenches in the background. So I think the idea was supposed to be, "Mechanics aren't dentists." But it came out, "Them Mexicans ain't dentists, but they'll fix your car up real good!" Oh yah. Much better.

I would like to send -- oh, let's say, all the women from my folks' church's Habitat for Humanity housebuilding team, plus all the Hispanic dentists and orthodontists in the suburb we lived in when we were in California -- after the idiots who came up with this campaign. The leather-jacketed shaggy people, being generally amiable, even-tempered types, can babysit for the housebuilders' and dentists'/orthodontists' kids while they go kick ad agency butt. "United Way: we will play on cheap stereotypes, so give us your money." Great. Thanks. Just what I wanted.

Comments

[sethb.livejournal.com]

I gave up on United Way when I found (and got them to admit) that they use bogus allocation accounting. They allow you to specify that your contribution will go to a particular charity. They then reduce the amount of not-specifically-allocated funds going to that charity by the same amount. So unless the total targeted donations for a charity exceed their proposed allocation, targeting does nothing except allowing the person giving to think he caused more to go to that charity (reduced, in most cases, by an overhead charge taken by United Way).

It's better to give to United Way than to anybody who phones you on behalf of a charity (even assuming that the charity they're calling for is legitimate); the callers take up to 80%, sometimes more. But it's even better just to give directly to the charity.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Once again, please remember that every United Way is different. Your statement:

They then reduce the amount of not-specifically-allocated funds going to that charity by the same amount.

is patently untrue for the UW at which I work. What you're talking about here is the difference between a general fund (for all monies that come in which are not designated) and designations (monies which come in with a specific agency attached). Those who handle the allocation of the general fund (and it's not staff members, it's community volunteers) have no knowledge of how much money an agency is receiving in designations. It doesn't figure into their calculations whatsoever.

Again, I urge people to not assume that the practices and procedures of one UW are the same as another - because they most assuredly aren't.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

I understand that those who "handle the allocation of the general fund" don't know the designated amounts. My question would be about what happens in between that allocation and the actual writing of the checks. Have you, personally, tracked that?

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Yes, we certainly do. :) What you're talking about would, quite literally, be illegal for us to do.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The one my grandfather dealt with was worse than that: even if targeted funds exceeded their allocated amount, not one dime more would go to that group. So -- say they were supporting the Boy Scouts with $1000. Say they got $5000 total, all targeted to Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts would still get $1000.

I'm glad to hear that arielstarshadow's UW doesn't do it this way, but some of them do.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

I'd consider the one your grandfather dealt with to be committing fraud.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

It would be, and they should have been reported.