When the Government Gets Involved in Charity

"...and don't forget-we want 100% participation."


During the current election, we are hearing a lot about the role of government in helping out needy people. it, of course, leads to philosophical questions about the role of government and the issue of taxes to achieve that end. Many (including me) argue that using taxes and income redistribution to help out the less fortunate actually decreases the amount of disposable income that Americans have to give to charity. In the area of volunteer work, Barack Obama has said the volunteerism is impossible without government involvement. I profoundly disagree.

This whole debate brings back memories of my 25 years of government service-not including the military (DEA). Specifically it reminds me of a government program called the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). This annual event, operated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is a warning sign of what happens when government gets involved in worthy activities.

Let me begin by posting the introductory statement of the CFC's own website:

"The mission of the CFC is to promote and support philanthropy through a program that is employee focused, cost-efficient, and effective in providing all federal employees the opportunity to improve the quality of life for all.

CFC is the world's largest and most successful annual workplace charity campaign, with more than 300 CFC campaigns throughout the country and internationally to help to raise millions of dollars each year. Pledges made by Federal civilian, postal and military donors during the campaign season (September 1st to December 15th) support eligible non-profit organizations that provide health and human service benefits throughout the world. The Director of OPM has designated to the Office of CFC Operations responsibility for day-to-day management of the CFC.

This website will be of interest to anyone interested in workplace giving. It is tailored to meet the particular needs of the Federal donor, CFC Campaigns, and charities participating in or considering participation in the CFC.Campaigns, donors and charities can enter through a portal above or navigate by topic with the sidebar links on your left. If you have comments or questions, please contact the Office of the CFC Operations at cfc@opm.gov.

The Office of Personnel Management announced new regulations governing the Combined Federal Campaign on November 20, 2006. These regulations are effective immediately."

Sounds good, right? Let me explain to you how it works.

Each year, from September 1st-December 15th, every government agency is involved in a drive to solicit contributions from its employees. Each government office designates a CFC coordinator to operate the contribution drive. Pamphlets are printed and distributed to all government employees. The pamphlet contain the names of hundreds of approved charitable organizations to which the employee may designate that his/her contributions be given.

In addition, this is a top-down operation. The President himself will send out a message urging employees to give. Down the chain of command it goes; similar messages from cabinet chairs to agency heads to office heads-until it reaches the lowly worker bees. A lot of time, money and resources go into this drive every year.

Now, here's the rub. What is the goal of the CFC every year? In addition to monetary goals, the goal every year is "100% participation". That means that, while contributions are "strictly voluntary", everyone is expected to give something. That also comes down from the top. Agency heads tell their regional, district and office heads that the goal is 100%. Within offices, group supervisors get the same message. In other words, if you are a supervisor, you are expected to motivate every person under your supervision to contribute.

100% participation.

In fact, supervisors know that their annual performance evaluations will be affected by whether or not their underlings met the 100% goal. Starting to get the message?

If any of you readers are veterans, you may recall being "asked" to buy US Savings Bonds in the military. Those were also voluntary, but try not buying them. I remember one DEA colleague of mine recalling his service time in Basic Training when he initially declined. He was assigned KP every day until he changed his mind. (I don't know how it works today in the Armed Forces.)

Now here is one of my personal stories, which is absolutely true. Back in the 1990s, a couple of years before my retirement (ca 1993), our group supervisor called our group in for a meeting, in which she asked us all to contribute to the CFC. (It was the contribution season.) She then stated that if anyone was unwilling to contribute, she would make up that employee's contribution with her own personal money. That is an indication of the pressure she felt to ensure that her group met the 100% goal expected of her.

The same year, our office received a flyer from the DEA office in New York City. It seemed that one of their agents had a son who was stricken with a serious, life-threatening illness. Due to some insurance complications, the agent was being forced to transport his son to another city for expensive treatment, all out of pocket. His group supervisor was leading an informal agency-wide drive to ask for contributions.

A few days later, an agency-wide memo was sent out from DEA HQs. If I recall correctly, it was from DEA's Chief Counsel Office. In this memo, the New York Office was instructed to suspend its solicitation for funds due to some bureaucratic technicality. Similarly, DEA employees were instructed not to send funds to New York. Finally, the memo stated that no further action regarding this drive could be taken UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN!!

Since I happened to know the group supervisor in New York, I called him to discuss the matter. He confirmed to me the substance of the memo from HQs. I then asked him if he thought the CFC considered the New York drive as being competition for donations.

"That's the way it looks to me", he replied.

I then told him my check would be in the mail that same day.

My point to all this is not to make the case that contributions through the CFC are not a good thing. My point is that charity should be left to the people. The American people are the most generous on the planet and will readily give to worthy causes when they are able. When government gets involved, the inevitable happens. It becomes a numbers game, resources are devoted to things that have nothing to do with the agencies' missions, people's careers and performance are judged by meeting goals, and the bureaucracy takes over with numerous unintended consequences. Coersion defeats the very idea of charity. It is just another area where government should not be involved. They can only screw it up.

Does this have any implication for the idea of government taking over other things like Health Care, for example?

I'll let you be the judge.