A vicious thing happens when workplace campaigns decline, and United Ways raise less money. United Ways caught in this situation are often forced to make a difficult decision between maintaining partner agency funding and cutting staff, or, maintaining staff and cutting partner agency funding. This is a choice between two bad situations, but the decision a United Way makes has both immediate and long-term implications for the future sustainability of United Way.

Reducing Staff

If a United Way chooses to maintain partner agency funding and reduce staff, two bad things happen. First, the partner agencies will continue to feel entitled to United Way funding, even if the fundraising environment and situation has changed. When partner agency funding is not reduced, partner agencies may not fully realize the financial challenges facing United Way. They will continue to expect funding levels to be maintained in the future, even if it means United Way reduces staff.

Second, when a United Way cuts staff to maintain partner agency funding, they are reducing their capacity. In my 35 years of working with United Ways, I have rarely encountered a United Way that has too much staff capacity and can afford to cut staff with minimal impact on operations. Reducing staff means a United Way has less staff time and capacity to do the work that needs to be done. Less staff capacity means either things do not get done (most often marketing and donor relations suffer the most) or the other staff are overworked and overwhelmed trying to do all the work they did before but are then also expected to assume additional responsibilities.

Cutting Partner Agency Funding

If a United Way chooses to cut partner agency funding and maintain staff, the United Way often gets a black eye. If partner agencies yell loudly enough, donations and fundraising suffer as the community becomes even more critical of United Way’s administrative expenses. Normally, United Way donors do not pay much attention to administrative expenses, but when the United Way appears to prioritize their own staff over the funding of local partner agencies and programs, the spotlight shines brightly on United Way’s administrative expenses.

So, What is the Answer?

If reducing staff is not good, and cutting partner agency funding is not good, then what is a United Way to do?

First, you need to admit there is a problem. The trend of declining workplace campaigns over many years shows no sign of stopping. The changes in the business, economic, and social environments that have negatively impacted workplace campaigns are not going away. As a result, the long-term financial sustainability of your United Way cannot be dependent on workplace campaigns.

Second, you need to be honest with your partner agencies. If your United Way has been using reserves to cover workplace campaign shortfalls, or has cut staff or left positions unfilled, then you need to tell your partner agencies. One United Way I worked with ended up cutting partner agency funding because of workplace campaign declines, and when I met with the partner agencies, they were incredulous that funding was cut because the United Way had never cut funding before. What the partner agencies did not realize, and the United Way did not tell them until the funding cut, was that United Way had used up their reserves over three years to maintain the current levels of partner agency funding.

Third, a United Way that does not exist, does not fund any partner agencies. Think about this like the message you hear on an airplane about if the air pressure changes in the cabin and the oxygen masks fall down. They tell you to “put your own mask on first before helping others.” You can’t fund partner agencies, raise money, or create impact if your United Way does not exist. If there is a need for your United Way in your community, then you need to save yourself first in order to meet that need. Quite simply, cutting staff and the capacity to do good work will not save your United Way or your partner agencies.

Fourth, you need to do something different. Continuing to do the same thing you have always done, and expecting different results, is insanity according to Albert Einstein. You can’t just say to your partner agencies, “We are going to cut your funding but keep our staff doing what we have always done.” You need to have a plan for the future that does not continue living in the past.

Fifth, and this is the big one, you need to actively and intentionally work to raise money from sources other than workplace campaigns. Keep your staff, but have them work on diversifying your resources beyond workplace campaigns. United Ways that are issue focused typically raise more money from grants, sponsorships, events, planned giving, and alternative giving opportunities combined than they do from workplace campaigns. The reason issue focused United Ways can do this is because their goal is not funding partner agencies but making measurable impact by changing lives around an issue like poverty, hunger, homelessness, early childhood literacy, high school graduation, etc.

At issue focused United Ways, the goal is not how much money is raised, but rather how many lives are changed. The ability to obtain grants, secure sponsorships, and get planned giving commitments is only possible if you can show people how their contribution will change lives. It is difficult, if not impossible, to diversify resources if you are only asking people to give to achieve a financial goal. Doing what United Ways have always done will not allow you to diversify your resources.

The answer in one sentence: admit there is a problem, level with your partner agencies, commit staff to raising money beyond workplace campaigns, and refocus your United Way from raising money for a campaign goal to measurably changing lives with an issue focus.