Now Trump is getting rid of CFC!

[Anonymous]

I also support this. CFC used to take a 7% fee from our donations. Now it just charges non profits up front to list. I’d rather just donate to charities directly. We don’t need another middle man taking a cut for a service we don’t need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely you can make your own donations without the government doing it for you.

The government isn’t doing it for you. Lots of companies have philanthropy programs, not just the fed gov. You can participate or not, up to you. No one says anything if you don’t. No one says anything if you do. There are literally thousands of charities employees can choose from.

The difference is that in the cases you mention private companies are drawing from their own budgets (although admittedly almost certainly writing off some portion of the expenditures in taxes) to fund these philanthropy programs.

With the CFC, federal government agencies are diverting taxpayer dollars that are intended to be specifically directed to a stated mission to fund a generic philanthropic campaign of questionable efficiency without any say in which charities will benefit/how the money will be used.

Well, no. The time spent is minimal. I’d guess people spend just as much wasted time on talking to colleagues about a lot of things. These days, maybe Jesus, maybe not. But no one, government or not, spends 100% of their workday on mission related work. Doesn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely you can make your own donations without the government doing it for you.

The government isn’t doing it for you. Lots of companies have philanthropy programs, not just the fed gov. You can participate or not, up to you. No one says anything if you don’t. No one says anything if you do. There are literally thousands of charities employees can choose from.

The difference is that in the cases you mention private companies are drawing from their own budgets (although admittedly almost certainly writing off some portion of the expenditures in taxes) to fund these philanthropy programs.

With the CFC, federal government agencies are diverting taxpayer dollars that are intended to be specifically directed to a stated mission to fund a generic philanthropic campaign of questionable efficiency without any say in which charities will benefit/how the money will be used.

Well, no. The time spent is minimal. I’d guess people spend just as much wasted time on talking to colleagues about a lot of things. These days, maybe Jesus, maybe not. But no one, government or not, spends 100% of their workday on mission related work. Doesn’t happen.

Our agency actually had several people each year who were completely diverted from their regular jobs to serve as cfc campaign leads, in addition to the dozens who were asked to provide more ad hoc support.

Regardless, do you think that the people who are tapped to provide part time cfc support are not still taking additional time to chat with their colleagues, take coffee breaks etc? It’s just added time diverted from mission work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely you can make your own donations without the government doing it for you.

The government isn’t doing it for you. Lots of companies have philanthropy programs, not just the fed gov. You can participate or not, up to you. No one says anything if you don’t. No one says anything if you do. There are literally thousands of charities employees can choose from.

The difference is that in the cases you mention private companies are drawing from their own budgets (although admittedly almost certainly writing off some portion of the expenditures in taxes) to fund these philanthropy programs.

With the CFC, federal government agencies are diverting taxpayer dollars that are intended to be specifically directed to a stated mission to fund a generic philanthropic campaign of questionable efficiency without any say in which charities will benefit/how the money will be used.

Well, no. The time spent is minimal. I’d guess people spend just as much wasted time on talking to colleagues about a lot of things. These days, maybe Jesus, maybe not. But no one, government or not, spends 100% of their workday on mission related work. Doesn’t happen.

Our agency actually had several people each year who were completely diverted from their regular jobs to serve as cfc campaign leads, in addition to the dozens who were asked to provide more ad hoc support.

Regardless, do you think that the people who are tapped to provide part time cfc support are not still taking additional time to chat with their colleagues, take coffee breaks etc? It’s just added time diverted from mission work.

Listen, I could not care less if the CFC stayed or went. But this discussion of the value of time is a red herring. It was minimal at my agency, which is likely what was originally intended. Maybe people at my agency were more generous so it didn’t take that much cajoling. Not sure why employees spent so much time on this at yours. That wasn’t my experience and that sounds more like a leadership issue vs. a CFC issue.

[Anonymous]

CFC was dying anyway, especially when we were working from home during and post-pandemic.

As for taxpayer expense, at my agency it was a big thing for decades, and there was definitely expense. Time, materials, gifts for key workers….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CFC is a relic and makes no sense in a world where anyone can make donations online to any org.

The quoted text above is not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CFC was dying anyway, especially when we were working from home during and post-pandemic.

As for taxpayer expense, at my agency it was a big thing for decades, and there was definitely expense. Time, materials, gifts for key workers….

We had none of this at my agency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely you can make your own donations without the government doing it for you.

The government isn’t doing it for you. Lots of companies have philanthropy programs, not just the fed gov. You can participate or not, up to you. No one says anything if you don’t. No one says anything if you do. There are literally thousands of charities employees can choose from.

The difference is that in the cases you mention private companies are drawing from their own budgets (although admittedly almost certainly writing off some portion of the expenditures in taxes) to fund these philanthropy programs.

With the CFC, federal government agencies are diverting taxpayer dollars that are intended to be specifically directed to a stated mission to fund a generic philanthropic campaign of questionable efficiency without any say in which charities will benefit/how the money will be used.

Well, no. The time spent is minimal. I’d guess people spend just as much wasted time on talking to colleagues about a lot of things. These days, maybe Jesus, maybe not. But no one, government or not, spends 100% of their workday on mission related work. Doesn’t happen.

Our agency actually had several people each year who were completely diverted from their regular jobs to serve as cfc campaign leads, in addition to the dozens who were asked to provide more ad hoc support.

Regardless, do you think that the people who are tapped to provide part time cfc support are not still taking additional time to chat with their colleagues, take coffee breaks etc? It’s just added time diverted from mission work.

+1. My agency too. Total waste of time and distraction to staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CFC was dying anyway, especially when we were working from home during and post-pandemic.

As for taxpayer expense, at my agency it was a big thing for decades, and there was definitely expense. Time, materials, gifts for key workers….

We had none of this at my agency

We didn’t have this either.

[Anonymous]

I also support this pause to really think about whether the CFC should move forward. If so, I would hope decisions are made to minimize roles and time spent administering.

Look at the roles and expectations outlined last year:

https://givecfc.org/sites/default/files/24CFC%20Leadership/CFC%20Memo%20to%20Federal%20Department%20and%20Agency%20Leadership%202024.pdf

I’ve worked at an agency that utilized a lot of staff resources for the campaign. It is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it did encourage people to donate when they otherwise might not have thought about it

Exactly - it’s easier and more consistent when it’s done through payroll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also support this pause to really think about whether the CFC should move forward. If so, I would hope decisions are made to minimize roles and time spent administering.

Look at the roles and expectations outlined last year:

https://givecfc.org/sites/default/files/24CFC%20Leadership/CFC%20Memo%20to%20Federal%20Department%20and%20Agency%20Leadership%202024.pdf

I’ve worked at an agency that utilized a lot of staff resources for the campaign. It is ridiculous.

Wow, that’s a lot. I’ve never heard of our people doing any of this.

[Anonymous]

It used to be a lot more work when there were paper forms. Now everything is electronic and all messaging can be sent over email.

[Anonymous]

I used to be my office's POC about 15 years ago. I did it for two or three years. Keyworkers (or whatever we were called) put a ton of work into fundraising. I was pretty young, but I remember thinking it was a bit of a waste of time, too.

I noticed over the years that it had been scaled back, and I had already thought it was phased out totally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely you can make your own donations without the government doing it for you.

Surely you don’t care that a program was available to help people donate if they wanted. It cost the taxpayer nothing.

Celebrating this means celebrating charities getting fewer donations. If the CFC didn’t help them earn money, they wouldn’t have participated.

Sorry you hate charity, I guess.

Actually what I hate about CFC is that some supervisors would put pressure on their employees to "voluntarily contribute" because the supervisors above them were trying to meet a certain $$$ goal.
Good riddance.