Do the Word

…is demonstrated, comprehensive generosity in relation to the cause.

“Good with people”, “sales experience”, and “willing to work for a percentage of money raised” (yikes!) are typically the characteristics that rank most highly among nonprofits seeking development staff, but I actually would view each of these three as detriments, not advantages.

• Someone who is “good with people” may end up being liked by your champions, but when s/he finally leaves your organization (often at your behest), your champions, upon learning of the departure, will say things like, “Ah, that’s too bad. Really nice person.” If you hire a really nice person to do your development work, they will be, um, really nice to your champions.
• Someone who has “sales experience” likely has the wrong set of experience for the next generation of development. Coaching is the important skill, that is, helping the champion grow in relation to the cause in their sphere of influence. Selling your nonprofit these days is like selling real estate: just not a lot moving out there…
• Someone who is willing to work for a percentage of money raised has just been incentivized to all kinds of bad behavior. See “sales experience”, above.

Instead, when looking for a development person, start by asking your most mature champion–the one who is already owning the cause in his or her sphere of influence, already giving their time, money, education, passion, attention, and lifestyle to the cause–to take the position. Ask them to replicate themselves. Tell them they’re not there just to raise money but rather to replicate themselves. Hire teachers. Trainers. Coaches. Anyone who loves your cause and knows how to get others active in it comprehensively.

And that last word is key: If they’re not already giving generously financially in relation to the cause as a percentage of their income, don’t expect them to be able to motivate others to do the same. Jeff Brooks notes this great post from Seth Godin on this very subject. Read it and rewrite your position posting for the development officer you’re seeking to hire.

My stomach hurts.

In a post on the Freakonomics blog entitled Freakonomics Quorum: The Economics of Street Charity, Stephen J. Dubner poses the following question to personages as varied as Arthur Brooks (author of Who Really Cares?), Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, and Barbara Ehrenreich (author of Nickled and Dimed):

You are walking down the street in New York City with $10 of disposable income in your pocket. You come to a corner with a hot dog vendor on one side and a beggar on the other. The beggar looks like he’s been drinking; the hot dog vendor looks like an upstanding citizen. How, if at all, do you distribute the $10 in your pocket, and why?

Here’s what’s curdled my stomach cheese:

Not a single respondent–from either the “celebrity” panel or the nine pages of comments to the blog–mentions the possibility of getting involved with the homeless man beyond the hot dog or the handout.

Responses fall into one of three general categories, vociferously argued:

1. Give money to the homeless man
2. Give a hot dog to the homeless man
3. Give nothing to the homeless man

From a Christian perspective, Barbara Ehrenreich, a self-identified atheist, offers the most interesting response:

Although I’m atheist, I defer to Jesus on beggar-related matters. He said, if a man asks for your coat, give him your cloak too. (Actually, he said if a man “sue thee at the law” for the coat, but most beggars skip the legal process.) Jesus did not say: First, administer a breathalyzer test to the supplicant, or, first, sit him down for a pep talk on “focus” and “goal-setting.” He said: Give him the damn coat.

As a matter of religious observance, if a beggar importunes me directly, I must fork over some money. How do I know whether he’s been drinking or suffers from a neurological disorder anyway? Unless I’m his parole officer, what do I care? And before anyone virtuously offers him a hot dog, they should reflect on the possibility that the beggar is a vegetarian or only eats kosher or Hallal meat.

So if the beggar approaches me and puts out his hand, and if I only have a $10 bill, I have to give it to him. It’s none of my business whether he plans to spend it on infant formula for his starving baby or a pint of Thunderbird.

It would be unfair to hold Ehrenreich to the standard of a full and proper exposition of Christian doctrine, but a few thoughts do bear mentioning here:

• Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan portrays a much more transformational approach to human tragedy than hot dog/tenspot/bupkus. The Samaritan does not simply give money. He becomes personally involved, with head, heart, and hand attached to his check.
• Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats shows that it does matter what we give to the homeless man. If you give the homeless man directions to a homeless shelter, you have given Jesus directions to a homeless shelter. If you give the homeless man a hot dog, you have given Jesus a hot dog. Do you want to stand before the great white throne of judgment and have Jesus say, “Hey, thanks for the hot dog and the directions to the homeless shelter. You really put yourself out there for me, man.”
• One might protest that I seem to be advocating for an impractical level of involvement here. Perhaps. But perhaps God is advocating an impractical level of involvement for us with the homeless. After working with the homeless for a goodly number of years and serving as president of the largest rescue mission in the US, I certainly don’t harbor romantic notions about homeless people and how easy it is to be regularly committed to involvement with them. But I do know this: they are neither a separate species nor objects of pity in God’s view, and He seems to spend a lot of time thinking about how to be involved with them, too.
• I realize that Ehrenreich’s vegetarian comment is intended to be a bit snarky, but all snarkiness aside, is it just an oversight that she writes, “before anyone virtuously offers him a hot dog, they should reflect on the possibility that the beggar is a vegetarian”  rather than writing, “before anyone virtuously offers him a hot dog, they should ask the homeless person whether he is a vegetarian”? Transactional giving thinking turns people into objects of pity or scorn, not subjects of their own lives.
• It does matter what the man does with the money. God holds us accountable not simply for our generosity but for what results from it. Again, transactional giving separates head, heart, and hands from checks. Transformational Giving bundles them together and considers them inseparable.

I feel much better now. I think I’ll go get a hot dog.

We think wrongly if we define a Transformational Gift in terms of the emotion it evokes in us, the sacrifice which we undertake in giving it, or the worthwhile nature of the cause for which our gift is intended.

Transactional gifts can prompt tears to run down our cheeks (in response to a touching speech or testimony or DVD, for example). They can radically change our lifestyle as we cut out other expenses so that we can afford to give. They can cure diseases, save lives, teach people to read, or lift a family out of poverty.

In other words, it’s simply not true to say that Transformational Gifts are good and transactional gifts are bad.

What differentiates Transformational Gifts from transactional gifts is that transactional gifts are incomplete.

Transactional gifts are, by definition, financial transactions. What changes hands can fit on a receipt.

Transformational Gifts, by contrast, are more than financial transactions. In a Transformational Gift, the head, heart, and hand come attached to the check, meaning:

• The gift is a reflection of a maturing thought process about the cause, ourselves, the person we’re giving to help, etc., and
• The gift is a reflection of a deepening of heart commitment in relation to the cause, and
• The gift involves more than just our money; that is, there is an action component in which we are directly interacting with the cause in tangible ways in which we, not just the organization through which we gave, are the subject.

Two notes on this last point:

• Many Christian nonprofit organizations will immediately respond, “Oh, yes–we definitely want people not only to give but to pray.” To which I respond, “Pray for…?” The answer typically is some combination of the organization, the project, the people the organization will help. To which I respond, “That’s a transactional gift with Christian goofer dust sprinkled on the top.” In Transformational Giving, prayer is intended to draw us into the cause as subjects, not supporters, and it’s designed to directly connect us to the cause, not simply through mediation by the organization.
• Christian organizations patronize their supporters by saying, “You really made a difference! You fed the hungry! You saved a life! You changed the world!” when all the supporter really did was write a check so that the organization could do those things. (It’s interesting that in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats He does not say, “[W]henever you gave to an organization that helped the least of these brothers of mine, you did unto me”. Instead, he says, “[W]hatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did unto me.” The emphasis remains on direct action. Don’t rob your champions of that. Besides, if Jesus were homeless, would you really help him simply by sending a check to the homeless shelter? Come on, people.)

Rule of thumb: When financial giving becomes a substitute for acting, it’s transactional. When financial giving becomes one aspect of comprehensive involvement in the cause, it’s likely Transformational.