Alternative Funds Don’t Depend on United Way

To the Editor:

I write to correct some major errors and false impressions in your story on the growth of the alternative-funds movement relative to United Ways (“ ‘Alternative Funds’ Grow Faster Than United Way,” March 12).

You report that “much of the money that alternative funds receive comes through United Way campaigns.” This is incorrect. All the money that alternative funds receive from the Combined Federal Campaign, state-government employee campaigns, and local city and other municipal employee campaigns comes from combined campaigns that may be operated by United Ways but that are not United Way campaigns. The various governments and their employees own these campaigns.

While nearly $90-million for the alternative-funds movement does come through United Way campaigns, this money does not go to the alternative funds themselves, as you reported, but to unaffiliated and other charities which receive only donor-designated gifts. The reason we count this money as receipts for the alternative-funds movement is that there would be no donor-designated gifts for these unaffiliated charities without the existence of alternative funds. Thus, the alternative-funds movement encompasses both the unaffiliated charities and the 208 alternative funds.

The total projected receipts for the movement in 1997 is $310-million, not $130-million — $90-million in donor-designated gifts from United Way campaigns plus $40-million from the Combined Federal Campaign — as you reported. Your discussion thus left the false impression that most of the alternative-funds total comes through United Ways, when in fact only $90-million of $310-million does.

The dramatic $64-million growth of the alternative-funds movement from 1991 to 1996, compared to the $80-million growth of United Ways — a movement 10 times larger — needs much more exposure so philanthropy can understand that donors throughout the U.S. are seeing alternatives as viable giving options.

Robert O. Bothwell
President
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
Washington

Editor’s note: A correction of our March 12 article appeared March 26. This letter further explains the distinctions among the various funds.