In an apparent case of having Peter pay Paul, the United Way of the Chattahoochee Valley is seeking millions in donations from the pockets of local residents to combat their own rising poverty rate.

The illogically-circular strategy was announced during the organization’s lavish “kick-off” event at the Columbus Convention and Trade Center on September 13.

Ben Moser, President and CEO of the United Way of the Chattahoochee Valley, provided comments during the event, as did Pace Halter, COO of W.C. Bradley Co., who serves as the United Way’s campaign chair for the year.

Their comments stated the organization lost 4,400 donors in recent years, as Columbus residents simply have fewer spare dollars to give. Those 4,400 lost donors used to provide roughly half of the organization’s annual donations, forcing the organization to rely on large donations from select high-net-worth individuals here in the Columbus area. To prove the point, comments then went on to state the Columbus poverty rate has risen to a ghastly 22% — a ten percent increase from last year’s 20% rate alone. 

The organization then announced how it plans to make up for its loss of 4,400 donors: by lowering the burden on those high-net-worth individuals and asking for another $7.5 million from the pockets of the same people it just stated have grown more impoverished.

There appear to be some obvious flaws in that plan. 

Neither Moser nor Halter appeared to realize their comments were an ironic admission of the ineffectiveness of their organization and its donation model as a whole. 

Firstly, the rising Columbus poverty rate indicates the United Way has failed to decrease poverty over the past decade. This isn’t a so-called “post-pandemic” problem; poverty has grown worse in Columbus for ten years, while the rates in Atlanta, the state of Georgia, and the nation as a whole have all largely improved.

Secondly, that rise in poverty caused 4,400 Columbusites to no longer be able to afford donating — yet the organization continues to ask for even more money from the smaller and poorer pot.

The brazenly-unsound plan appears to be a proverbial case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, serving as living proof of why the donation models of organizations like the United Way are financially unsound: they are demonstrably incapable of decreasing community poverty even in the short-term — let alone over the course of a decade or more — as they inevitably are forced to rely on donations from the same people who continue to grow impoverished.

The donational approach has rightfully left many who understand macroeconomics feeling confused, as the organization’s coffers appear to have simply run out of other people’s money. 

This also begs the primary question of, “Why does poverty in Columbus continue to rise in the first place if the United Way is supposed to be lowering it?”

Simply put: because the local United Way doesn’t aim at reducing poverty. It instead chooses to focus on “equity,” as stated consistently throughout its own messaging:

‍

‍

“The United Way of Chattahoochee Valley is a non-profit that aims to advance equity and achieve child, family, and community well-being.”

The word poverty is nowhere to be found. Equity, on the other hand, is abundant. The organization’s model is geared on constant cash-flow, receiving donations and redistributing funds as they see fit while paying their employees to help keep the dream alive along the way. That model has proven itself to be a farce, as poverty in Columbus continues to rise past rates twice the national average.

The sheer math of the strategy appears to make no logistical sense at all. If the United Way of the Chattahoochee Valley truly intended to create long-term sustainable impacts, wouldn’t they want to treat the causes of poverty instead of its symptoms? 

If you caught this obvious pitfall for yourself as the reader: good job. 

It is important to remember that charity is a booming business, and solving problems permanently would put the organization into bankruptcy; an event that United Way Worldwide’s CEO Angela F. Williams has a duty to avoid.

‍

‍

While this does not suggest malice in any way, the CEO of the United Way does appear to be financially incentivized to ensure the organization — and by default, poverty — continues to flourish. Without poverty, there would be no business, and with no business, their CEO wouldn’t receive her $1.58 million annual salary.

‍

‍

Other high-rolling United Way executives also receive comparably-high compensation. While private, for-profit business ventures can and should earn as much as possible by delivering goods valued by their paying customers, it does seem particularly odd that a reviewing board would be comfortable with approving a seven-figure salary for a charitable organization. It does not exactly appear to scream, “charitable.”

If the organization eradicated poverty in a region, the organization would shrink as donations would no longer be needed; the previously-impoverished area would be self-sufficient and no longer be dependent. Instead, local chapters of the United Way and other organizations like them are incentivized to increase poverty and further the demand for their services and donation dollars. This does not mean deliberate actions are taken to produce that effect, but rather that the organization simply is incentivized to do so.

Ten years of data show that circular donation strategies like the United Way’s quite obviously have not caught more fish for Columbus. As the city grew poorer, the United Way’s donor list naturally shrank. While it focused on “equity” and “diversity” instead of actually moving the poverty needle in the right direction, the community it is supposed to serve grew measurably poorer while its parent-organization’s executives made off with millions each year.

Now, the organization plans to increase its cash flow by asking the same impoverished community it has failed to help for a decade for another whopping $7.5 million, despite its already-failed track record and measurably-unstable operational model. 

Perhaps teaching a man to fish might be a starting point in the search for alternatives. Sure, we can all help fund the fishing poles — but only until we all run out other people’s money.

Perhaps we  should seek to raise more fishermen instead of funding altruist fishmongers. The math and data tend to agree.

‍