When I was in graduate school, one of my professors asked us which would be better: pulling drowning people out of the river as they float past, or going up the river to stop people from falling in? The United Way of America has recently announced a new 10-year campaign that essentially hopes to move upstream, addressing the root causes of social problems instead of the effects. What will these changes mean for communities across the country?

The United Way is one of those nonprofits that everyone knows about. Over 1,300 local groups have a long history of supporting important social services in local communities. In fact, the history of the United Way goes back over 120 years. Throughout this history, the local organizations have supported a variety of programs. The local United Ways collectively raise over $4 billion a year to provide this support.

The new campaign, outlined in the new report "Goals for the Common Good" (PDF), redefines the United Way's focus in three key areas: education, income, and health. It also sets measurable goals for these initiatives. Brian Gallagher, The United Way's president and chief executive, has said in an online chat event hosted by the Washington Post that he wants to see United Way giving solving social problems:

What's really different is we're no longer measuring our success just by how much money we raise or how much activity we fund but what results are really been accomplished. In other words its moving from funding after school programs to how is that work helping young people achieve academically stay in school and graduate.

Instead of funding a safety net, this initiative looks to help people move past relying on one.

(For more information about the changes, you can also see United Way to Target Health, Education, and Income in the Washington Post and United Way Refocusing On Programs, Reducing Affiliates in the Nonprofit Times.)

What will this mean for communities?

Most immediately, it will mean that some programs that have historically relied on United Way funding will no longer receive it. For example, the Children's Leukemia Foundation of Michigan will no longer be funded by the United Way for Southeastern Michigan. Changes like this are painful for the organizations that lose funding and the families who rely on them. In Austin, a similar shift happened at the local level last year as our United Way was one of the pilot sites for the new model. The city was able to provide some funding to the Salvation Army's emergency shelter when it was not funded, and the United Way itself provided some transitional funding for organizations that will not be funded going forward.

In the longer term, if it works, the United Way hopes that communities will see a high school dropout rate cut in half, financial instability among working families cut in half, and a one third increase in the number of youth and young adults who are healthy and avoid risky behavior.

Will it work?

In an article in The Nonprofit Quarterly titled Your Opinion, Please - The United Way's "Bold" New Strategy, Ruth McCambridge expresses some doubts:

The strength of United Way at local levels -- as I have experienced it -- has been in its role as gatherer and distributor of resources to strengthen local safety nets: the same role that Brian Gallagher now appears to eschew. In the best cases, there was a commitment to the funding of operating costs for mainstay organizations like Boys and Girls Clubs, the local battered women programs, Head Start, Community arts programs, community centers and foster care agencies . . . all badly needed and all expressions of community concern at the local level.

Her article touched off a lively discussion.

Dee Ann Everson, a local United Way executive director, said:

I'm thrilled with the new bold national goals. I also believe United Way of America is catching up to local progressive United Ways who have set bold measurable attainable goals to create community change.

Margaret Trahan, a local United Way staffer, was also pleased with the new initiative and offered some clarification:

The 10-year goals are NOT mandates from United Way of America to local UW's, but they do provide a way to both frame the work that most of us in the system are already doing and a set of metrics that will enable national comparisons.

Commenter Eric Lindblom echoed what Kara Johnson here in Texas had to say in my post last week about the importance of policy change :

The new, transformative 10-year goals outlined by United Way are certainly attainable, but only if promoted not only by United Way and other charities but also through political action at the federal, state and local levels. That means United Way funding of more charitable organizations involved in direct public policy development and related advocacy, including lobbying (within the constraints placed on charitable nonprofits).

Other commenters weren't so positive.

Steve Brazen, a retired nonprofit executive director, had this question:

They believe they should be the convener and/or mobilizer of the community around issues of greatest local concern. This is an admirable role, but is it something that they have the capacity to achieve?

An anonymous commenter was even more blunt:

In my experience, the local United Way is never the primary, or even secondary funder for any organization. They cannot possibly believe they could mandate/control/hold responsibility for the outcomes of organizations for which they provide less than 10% of the funding.

What happens next?

It's an attractive idea to focus on causes rather than effects. In Texas, the Medicaid program pays for about half of all Texas births. Many people in health and social services in Texas are thus understandably concerned about making sure that pregnant women can easily enroll in Medicaid to receive prenatal care and hospitals can easily receive reimbursement for eligible labor and delivery costs. Healthy babies and moms are better for society, as well as cheaper from a health care perspective, and hospitals need cash to continue to provide services.

My question, though, isn't addressed as often in public discourse: why do half of the families in Texas who have babies have such low incomes that they qualify for Medicaid, and they don't have other health insurance? It's not that I don't know quite a bit about the causes of this situation, and I definitely think mother and baby health care is important, but I've always wondered why there isn't just as much intensity of concern about how to help these families become more financially independent. Besides probably being more cost effective, keeping people from falling (or being pushed) into the river in the first place is a whole lot easier on the people.

However, if everyone goes up the river, you are going to lose a certain number of drowning victims until you put a stop to the cause. United Way programs across the country aren't completely stopping support of "basic needs" safety net programs, and in actuality many current programs will continue to be funded - but additional demands will be made to demonstrate effectiveness. As a donor, I certainly would like to know that my help in funding an after-school program not only paid to keep the kids in a room for two hours, but that I helped more of those kids excel in school and graduate than would have otherwise. So it will be interesting to see if the United Way network can deliver on its goals.

In communities where the new campaign has been rolled out, some of the dust has already had time to settle. In communities where the local United Way will be rolling out the campaign, there will undoubtedly be some pain as losers and winners emerge from the funding process. Has your local United Way made any changes thus far? If so, what has happened? Let us know in the comments!