I used to work for a megacorp which strong-armed employees to contributing to the local UW. I willingly gave. Then I learned that my local UW was giving money to local organizations which actively discriminated against gays & lesbians. I spoke with a local UW official and I asked him why the UW was continuing to fund these organizations which practiced discrimination despite the supposed rules of the local UW, but would not fund organizations which practiced racial discrimination, also against the UW rules. His outrageous response was "different demographics".
Outrageous indeed. A primary reason I do not contribute to the United Way is due to what I consider their hypocritical policies regarding funding or not funding groups that discriminate against certain demographics. The UW in my area funds dozens of groups that provide services exclusively to women (and girls) (i.e., deny services to men), yet they fund essentially no groups that provide services exclusively to men (and boys). I used keep track. Of those groups practicing this type of discrimination, the ratio was about 20 to 1. This is despite the tremendous and often disproportionate societal problems faced by males (illiteracy, education, homelessness, health care, drug abuse, violent victimization's, justice system, gang activity, etc). I can see both sides of the argument. Just because a group discriminates against a given demographic does not mean that the group does not provide valuable services to the selected demographic that they do serve. However, some UW chapters proudly cite their non-discriminatory policies when defunding groups that discriminate against gays/lesbians, for example, yet they continue to fund groups that discriminate against boys/men. They are inconsistent and oblivious to their own hypocrisy. Either allow discrimination or do not. The UW seems to prefer smugness and the political winds over adherence to their stated policies. This is not the type of organization I wish to support.
The other reason I do not contribute to the UW is due to their "middleman" overhead costs. This equally applies to the high administration costs at many other large charitable organizations. Anecdotal story ...
About 12 years ago, I was out running on a semi-rural road in the San Francisco Bay Area and came across a domestic rabbit that was presumably hit by a car. The rabbit was still alive, but struggling. I ran home as fast as I could and came back with my car. I took the rabbit to a local vet, who recommended euthanasia. I did not like that response so I took the rabbit to a 24/7 veterinary emergency hospital. The internal medicine specialist on duty provided options: 1) euthanasia; 2) care at that hospital, but emphasizing that they were not rabbit experts; 3) care at a near-by veterinary practice specializing in rabbits; 4) 24/7 care at the veterinary teaching hospital at the University of California at Davis. UC Davis has veterinary specialists in everything. I took the rabbit to Davis.
The rabbit was in intensive care for a few days and then went to regular care. About a week later, the primary veterinarian called to tell me that while the rabbit was not in direct pain, his quality of life may be limited (would not get better). While I can evaluate quality of life for an injured/disabled cat or dog, I cannot do the same for a rabbit. I am not a rabbit person. I needed guidance.
On the veterinarian's advice, I contacted a national rabbit organization. It took several days before speaking with a real person. Finally, a woman from Seattle called to let me know that there were options. This woman runs a charitable shelter for rabbits and rodents. A few days later I drove back to UC Davis to get the rabbit, and then drove through the night to the animal shelter in Seattle. I was touched by what I saw. There were perfectly healthy animals available for adoption, and there were some animals in "long-term care" situations who were obviously happy and receiving quality/loving care. The shelter took the rabbit. (Incidentally, I was never able to locate the owners.)
I gave a donation to the shelter at that time and continue to donate today. I never receive any solicitation. I want my money going to hands-on organizations like this, not to large charities that spend time and money continuing to contact me today even though I have not contributed in 20 years.
The woman told me that she cashed in her 401k to start the shelter (there's a FIRE connection if I've ever heard one). While the UW issue itself has limited direct relevance to FIRE, the same cannot be said for charitable contributions in general. For me, they play a big role when calculating my soon-to-be retirement expenses. In fact, I am currently contributing money to a "donor advised fund." I can get the larger tax break today while I am still working and have a higher tax rate. I will be able to parcel these dollars out to my charities, including the one above, throughout retirement.