University of Virginia Library

Physician Heal Thyself:
The United Fund Comes Under Attack

During the 1960s, United Fund and Community Chest organizations across the nation faced increasing criticism. Most of the objections pivoted around the need to reevaluate the allocation of charity funds collected by these groups. There was a growing feeling, in many cases supported by evidence, that funds were being disproportionately allocated to organizations with predominantly middle-class clients. Most visible, for example, were groups such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls.

The rising awareness of poverty in the country left the United Fund organizations vulnerable. While much of this criticism came from the outside, many within the organizations also desired change and openly denounced some United Fund operations. United Fund boards, however, were generally not representative of the interests of minorities or the poor and hence were seldom receptive to the proposals for change. Rather, their self-perpetuating memberships, selected from the ranks of community corporate structures and the boards of recipient agencies, huddled to protect their own interests.

At the national level, though, pressures did mount for reform from within. At the 1968 annual meeting of the United Commu

nity Fund and Council of America (UCFCA), it was proposed that "United Fund dollars be used principally to make services available to those who cannot pay for them and to enable agencies to use fee systems which make possible the extension of services to the largest possible numbers." [3] An even more aggressive role was advocated by William Aramony, executive vice-president of the United Way of America:

In response to these growing expressions of discontent, the UCFCA in 1968 appointed a task force to study community fund organizations and to make recommendations for new priorities. In February 1970 they announced the adoption of a new set of priorities resulting from the task force study. These priorities included the following:

• To support new and innovative services aimed at helping families and individuals break out of the poverty cycle and achieve fuller lives.
• To extend services to blighted areas in cooperation with the residents of such areas.
• To strengthen or develop approaches aimed at reducing crime, delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism and other manifestations of antisocial behavior.
• To maintain services that build character and self-reliance, promote physical and mental health and preserve individual dignity and family solidarity.
• To enable established agencies to achieve more nearly their full service potential by narrowing the gap between their validated need and present contribution level.
• To increase the participation of citizens in planning and overseeing both voluntary and government social welfare programs.

---

97



• To make more funds available by shifting money from outdated or low priority programs, charging more fees to those able to pay for services and raising annual contributions to one billion just as soon as possible. [5]