Report to the Board of Directors and membership of Independent Sector. This analysis draws on four different sources of information:

1. A survey of Independent Sector members.
2. Community and statewide studies done by others.
3. Other studies done of specific populations (such as children), specific facts (such as the budget analysis) and specific issues (such as the significance for private education).
4. Newspaper reports and series on the topic.

This presentation is not put forward as a definitive research study. Within the time and information available, the best we can provide is an early profile of the impacts on people and programs, and some preliminary information on who is trying to do what about them. Despite the acknowledged limitations, it appears significant that our four different sources of information all lead to the same conclusions that the reductions impact disproportionately and severely on the already vulnerable in our society, and that many of the voluntary structures the Administration is both counting on and trying to strengthen are themselves unintentionally weakened by the way the changes affect them.

Despite the acknowledged limitations, it appears significant that our four different sources of information all lead to the same conclusions that the reductions impact disproportionately and severely upon the already vulnerable in our society, and that many of the voluntary structures the Administration is both counting on and trying to strengthen are themselves unintentionally weakened by the way the changes affect them. There are three types of impact.

1. Reductions of federal funds from what would otherwise have gone into the budgets of voluntary organizations (the direct reductions). For the four years, '81-'84, the projected total is $25.5 billion. Of this, 50 percent relates to social welfare and 25 percent to education. As a percent of total income, the reductions are not significant, only 4 percent; but the impact is not proportional. Some programs and organizations face not the 4 percent average cut, but devastating slices of 50-100 percent.
   
   
2. Reductions from governmental programs (the indirect reductions). These reductions do not directly relate to the budgets of voluntary organizations but, nevertheless, are of high interest to many philanthropic and voluntary organizations. For the years '81-'84, the total is $115 billion. Here, too, the cuts are not proportional. For example, $68 billion or close to 60 percent, relate to social welfare and income assistance programs and another 25 percent relates to education.
   
   
3. Increased expectations for services from voluntary organizations. Many voluntary organizations are expected to make up for at least some of the reductions in governmental programs.

This seems to be so particularly for America's churches. Though churches have not generally received federal funds, many church-related social services have. It is to the churches that many people are turning for help. Accelerated expectations are hardest to absorb in voluntary organizations whose own budgets are affected by the reductions. The voluntary organizations least able to survive or respond are those:

• Most heavily dependent on the government funds being lost.
• Least able to compete for block grants and other remaining government funding.
• Least experienced in fund-raising.
• Least popular.

CONTENTS
Summary.

1. Background and introduction.

2. An attempt to clarify the figures and other basic information: 

A. Clarifying the cuts or reductions.
B. The overall dollar reductions as of April 15, 1982. 
C. Comparing the planned reductions with the income of voluntary
     organizations.
D. The voluntary sector's dependence on government funding.
E. The ability of private philanthropy to respond.
F. Significance of the 1981 tax act.
G. The increased capacity of volunteers.
H. Relative sizes of roles of the governmental and independent sectors.
 I. A broader perspective.

3. Examination of the impacts on the subsectors: 

A. Preface.
B. Relative impacts on the subsectors.
C. Social welfare, income assistance, and job training. 
D. Education and research.
E. Health care and health financing.
F. Arts and culture.
G. Conservation and preservation.
H. International.
 I. Religion.

4. Other significant results from our information gathering: 

A. Information on some important crosscuts.
B. Impact on public/private partnerships.
C. Competition for funds.
D. Increase in postal rates.

5. Who hurts or will be hurt the most?

6. What is being done to counteract these impacts?: 

A. Preface.
B. Efforts to reverse and influence legislative and administrative
    decisions.
C. Retrenchment.
D. Creative responses.

7. Arguments for re-examination of some of the changes: 

A. The likely weakening of private education.
B. Reinforcement of welfare dependency; ...a pound of cure.

8. Some options and larger public policy issues: 

A. Some options open to Congress and the Administration.
B. Some larger public policy issues.
C. Other studies.

9. Conclusion.