Democratizing the Philanthropic Sector
By Lilian Tse, Everett Intern 2001, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Washington, DC

"There is a loftier ambition than merely to stand high in the world. It is to stoop down and lift mankind a little higher." - Henry Van Dyke

When I became an intern at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), I was skeptical of the organization's harshness towards a philanthropic sector that, in the words of Van Dyke, is only trying to lift mankind a little higher. However, I came to understand that only through disclosure, criticism and democratic advocacy can the philanthropic sector become more responsive and accountable to the poor, and to people with the least voice. As an Everett intern at NCRP, an organization that was created to survey, critique, applaud, and demystify the philanthropic sector, I looked at charitable giving from different angles. Through my projects, I gained a critical awareness about issues such as The United Way "monopoly" and the Alternative Funds movement.

How much do ordinary workers contribute to charities? It may surprise you to know that in 1998, individuals gave 75% of total charitable contributions, compared to 10% from foundations and 6% from corporations, according to Giving USA. Through traditional workplace giving campaigns, where contributions are voluntarily deducted from their paychecks, individual employees in fact generate an impressive $2 billion a year in charitable funds. Who benefits from this $2 billion annually? One would hope that this money is fairly distributed to a number of diverse charities.

Funds from workplace giving campaigns, however, are usually turned over to The United Way. An organization of enormous size and considerable power, The United Way redistributes the contributions of individual employees to various non-profits. Traditionally, this funding has not been channeled towards policy, advocacy, environmental, and arts groups. By excluding such groups from workplace giving campaigns, The United Way may in fact be involved in limiting the resources of smaller and less prominent charities. The word, "monopoly," is usually associated with the corporate world, Microsoft, or Bill Gates with pie on his face, but might the case of The United Way represent a monopoly in the philanthropic sector?

The Alternative Funds movement, federations of non-United Way charities that came into existence in the 1980s, create a venue for a diverse set of non-profits to participate in workplace giving campaigns. Representing over 4000 charities under their umbrellas, alternative funds raise monies for various nonprofits that provide employment training for the disabled, give support to families of prisoners, offer art spaces for gays and lesbians and other such progressive services.

NCRP fully supports the alternative funds movement by providing technical support, evaluation and fundraising ideas. Throughout the summer, I compiled a database that extensively documents non-profits that are funded by the alternative fund federations. The product of this project will be a breakdown of exactly which constituents, issues and places are being funded by alternative funds, and which are being excluded. If alternative funds are to effectively support the needs of communities currently ignored by United Way, we must determine if alternative funds are also leaving anyone behind. The data will hopefully provide constructive recommendations for the alternative fund movement and help it to create a larger impact on all disenfranchised communities.