University of Virginia Library

Summary

In sum, the prolonged struggle between the Congregation for Reconciliation and the United Fund influenced both organizations. It was the Congregation's first major social-action project, encountering a formidable opponent in a credibility drama which has lasted most of the mission's life. The United People campaign provided needed stability and continuity in social action. It also offered the potential for a visible major victory which would generate recognition and influence for the Congregation in

Dayton. In this sense, the United People, more than any other single action project, gained for the Congregation a public image. The image further reinforced the self-view of the Congregation as a local leader in the area of direct social action.

We feel it appropriate to introduce here a personal observation based on a good many years of analyzing public response to social issues. While we have no hard data to verify the validity of this observation in Dayton, we have every reason to believe Dayton to be no different from other communities from which we have gathered information. We are inclined to accept the sincerity of clergy and community leaders who favor reform of the United Fund but object to United People's tactics. On the other hand, it is a mistake to assume that the average citizen favors reform but simply objects to tactics. Average citizens, in all probability, have no quarrel at all with United Fund. They give to United Appeal not because some of their money goes to aid the poor but in spite of this. They give their money because they know it is used to support Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Red Cross, and the Y's. These are organizations from which they have benefitted, and they view the United Fund as a sensible way to support these programs. Similarly, most persons have experienced mental illness in their extended families, and the feeling that some of their money is going for treatment is desirable. In addition, probably a subtle psychological feeling of "goodness" or pietism creeps in simply from giving. But it also seems safe to assume the large majority of the population could not name many United Fund agencies in addition to the ones we have mentioned.

Probably the most effective way to reduce giving to the United Fund in any community would be to publicize those expenditures channeled to help the poor help themselves. Monies for legal aid and community organizations have had a terribly difficult time surviving the hatchets of conservative congressmen. [8] Widespread publicity of the use of the United Fund money for such activities would probably arouse the same responses and would seriously affect giving.

The United People campaign assumed that upper and middle income people, realizing they were giving not to the poor but to those who could afford to pay, would boycott the United Fund and/or demand reform. We believe this to be a misjudgment on

the part of United People. If the issues involved in the boycott were an important component in determining public opinion or the final objective of achieving reform, we believe this would have been a serious mistake in strategy. As our theoretical framework would suggest, however, concrete issues of how the money is spent were not very important in the public drama. Nor was it important that public opinion be sympathetic with the boycott. Indeed, had they succeeded in rallying any serious support for the boycott-that is, had a significant proportion of givers actually withheld their funds-they would have succeeded in sabotaging, not reforming, the United Fund. We are unaware of anyone associated with United People who viewed this as a desirable outcome of the boycott.

The success of United People was in gaining support for the principle of reform in United Fund procedures, an objective many community leaders shared. Indeed, one of the daily newspapers had editorialized for reform several years before United People was conceived. The public specter of a boycott dramatized the need for reform and in the process everyone favoring change, including persons within the United Fund organization, gained a little leverage. United People thus helped grease the wheels of change. And that, after all, was their objective.