Do the Word

If you regularly read this blog, you know that I steadfastly maintain that the best fundraising books and magazines and blogs are those that ostensibly have nothing to do with fundraising.

In that vein, here’s my latest fundraising-book-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-fundraising-and-is-thus-an-excellent-fundraising-resource book recommendation:

I was just reading last night in the book Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life by Mario Luis Small the following three insights that have real bearing on how nonprofits interact with potential champions:

1. “…[R]epeated exchanges between people reduced their mutual uncertainty, while…repeated interaction between two parties heightened their mutual affection.”

2. “[T]he more frequently two people interact, the closer they become and the more they trust each other.”

At this point, it’s all fist bumping and high-fiving among the “friendraiser” crowd. After all, it turns out that just showing up and not getting kicked out greatly increases the odds of someone giving to your organization!

But Small’s third insight is the eye-poke:

3. “…[N]ot all activities produced new ties in equal measure. Sociologist Scott Feld has defended the significance of ‘focus’, which he defined as ‘any social, psychological, or physical entity around which joint activities of individuals are organized.'”

Sum it up and say:

• The “support raising” approach, wherein a missionary descends into a church like a UFO, gives a presentation, calls for shares, and then disappears, leaving nary a crop circle, violates basic sociology.
• So does friendraising, which makes friendship the focus of the development relationship. Turns out this really is less effective for motivating action and involvement.
• Sociologically, the preferred alternative involves the development officer/champion coach/missionary repeatedly interacting with potential champions in actual acts of service that correspond to how the nonprofit/champion coach/missionary serves in the field. Such an approach is far more likely to generate significant relationships and commitments to join together in service and ministry through the nonprofit organization.

Darn it if that’s not biblical, too. Funny how that works.

…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.