IBJNews

United Way annual campaign raises $38.2M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

United Way of Central Indiana’s 2010 annual campaign fell short of its ambitious $41 million goal, but donations nearly matched the 2009 total.

The Indianapolis-based not-for-profit on Tuesday projected it will end the campaign with $38.2 million, down just 1.5 percent from the previous year.

Local United Way leaders started out last fall knowing they would need to replace $1.6 million in known “losses” from one-time donations and company closures, but nearly 200 new corporate campaigns and bigger gifts from existing campaigns helped narrow the gap.

A partnership with the Indianapolis Colts to offer incentives to donors also “added fun and interest to the campaign,” volunteer campaign chairman Don Knebel, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, said in a prepared statement.

That effort attracted more than 8,000 gifts of at least $100, officials said.

The agency gets more than 98 percent of its 75,809 donors from on-the-job fundraising campaigns. As IBJ reported in September, it lost more than 6,000 donors from 2008 to 2009—likely as a result of layoffs during the economic downturn.

Even so, the organization raised $38.8 million both years.

Nationally, 33 percent of charities surveyed for the 2010 Nonprofit Research Collaborative reported raising less money in 2010 than in 2009, according to a study released Tuesday. Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy is among the collaboration partners.

United Way of Central Indiana supports more than 100 human-service agencies in Indianapolis and five other counties.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • excellent funding for some organizations which deals with youths
    i would like to know your contants and send us an application form to access these grants as we are a youth organization which seeks to uplift the welfare of marginilised youths through the provision of basic needs knowledge and empowerment in Zimbabwe

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT