In poverty alleviation, it is easy to get swept up in the “tyranny of the urgent.” We pay so much attention to immediate needs that we neglect to think much about the future. However, there are many important problems an organization must solve that will not yield to a simple flurry of activity. We need to solve complex problems like how to grow our organizations, maximize long-term impact on clients, change the character of deprived neighborhoods, or create effective joint efforts among multiple organizations in a community.

Even when we carve out time to think or meet about these hairy problems, the most common result of such a “strategic planning session” is either a broad vision of change or a list of ambitious goals.

“We envision a community in which all churches work together in unity to help people flourish.”

“We plan to grow our donor base by 20 percent next year.”

Of course, specific goals and broader mission and vision statements are all important, but they aren’t the same as a strategy.

A strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve your vision and goals. Strategies must change as situations change, even if the mission remains the same.

Without a deliberate strategy, you can justify any set of inconsistent, vision-oriented actions. Imagine you have an economic development vision for a small town and a $100,000 budget. You could conduct any number of initiatives, from building an affordable housing unit to painting a mural or providing a small business startup loan. It’s possible that each of these actions may align with your vision, but lack of a long-term strategic plan will likely result in poor outcomes.

A good strategy has at least three elements (adapted from the book Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, by Richard Rumelt):

• A clear diagnosis of the problem – an outline explaining the primary causes of the problem.
• A guiding policy – a focal point that describes what the organization will do in response to the problem.
• A mutually supportive set of actions – a coordinated set of specific plans which amplify each other.

A strategy containing these essential elements will allow you to achieve your ultimate mission and whatever mile-marker goals you have set along the way.

There are countless ways to respond to a community economic development problem—each dependent on the details of the situation. Here are two examples:

Strategy 1:

Problem: Living-wage jobs are available in our town, but much of the population doesn’t have the technical skills to take advantage of them.

Guiding Policy: Raise awareness of and access to the town’s medical supplies manufacturing jobs.

Action Plan: Build a bridge between the industry and the community to make residents aware of the opportunity through plant tours and local block parties with representatives and booths from the facilities. Build a training and internship program in coordination with the facilities and local community college to train talent in the small town.

Strategy 2:

Problem: Most people can find decent employment, but exorbitant housing costs make it difficult to get ahead.

Guiding Policy: Lower housing costs through increased supply.

Action Plan: Lobby the city council to pass an ordinance allowing additional dwelling units on existing property. Work with a developer to clear community support hurdles halting work on an in-progress housing development.

These are just two of the many different strategies that could be used to support community economic development. Of course, of all the possible strategies, some will yield extremely high returns, others marginal returns and others will have no impact.

Determining which plan will generate the most success is similar to the scientific method. A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess informed by deep expertise in the subject and then subjected to rigorous testing. We can apply the same process to strategic formation with the following approach:

 

1) Widen your options

There’s a good chance that you “already know” what strategy your organization needs to pursue. There’s also a good chance it was one of your initial ideas when you thought about the situation. When your mind generates a solution to a complex problem, it’s like being rescued from a choppy ocean by a life preserver. It’s natural to cling to that idea for the security it provides. However, the first “life-saving” idea you find is unlikely to be the best solution to the problem. Say a more secure lifeboat comes along later, representing a better solution to the problem – it’s going to require you to let go of your original idea and swim to it, which can be very difficult.

The best way to keep from getting stuck with a single poor strategy is to generate more than one option at the outset. Good ways to do this include getting independent ideas from people with different perspectives on the issue. For poverty-related issues, this could include people in poverty of various sorts, people who work with them regularly, True Charity Network members from other communities, and scientific research on the topic.

Another way to generate ideas is the “vanishing options test.” Imagine that it was impossible to implement your preferred strategy: what would you do instead? What if your second-choice option was impossible, and your third? This method forces you to identify multiple, unique ideas to diagnose the problem, create the guiding policy, and develop action plans.

 

2) Multi-track and fail fast

Once you have a range of possible solutions, you can reality-test your assumptions to eliminate some of them. For instance, two team members may disagree about the relative need for job skills vs. financial management skills for ministry clients. A little field work can identify which of these two issues is most pressing by asking a small sample of people to share their budgets, which can be analyzed to see whether lack of income or better financial management is the most pressing need.

However, many strategic questions can’t be resolved so easily, and you may be left with 2-3 promising possible strategies and split opinions about which to pursue. In this case, it may make sense to pilot small experiments with multiple strategies simultaneously while establishing clear benchmarks for relative performance and identified windows to reevaluate the projects. After a few months or a year of trial data, you should be ready to drop the strategies showing less promise and commit to those performing best.

A poor solution is to pursue multiple, non-mutually supportive strategies indefinitely. If businesses with 100,000+ employees generate higher profits when they pursue single strategies, then it seems sensible that resource-constrained nonprofits would need to be especially diligent about focus. 

Suppose you’re a visionary who gets bored by the idea of focusing effort on a few actions. While your visionary gift is likely a big asset to your organization, it can also tempt you to “chase two rabbits and catch neither.” Your best approach is to find advisors who are more pragmatic to help you catch one rabbit at a time. Determining when multiple actions are coherent and supportive vs. disjointed and inefficient is often a difficult judgment call for the wisest of leaders. When in doubt, default to doing less, better and you can always expand your efforts later.

 

3) Focus your solutions over time

The 80/20 rule observes that 80 percent of outcomes often come from 20 percent of efforts. For example, in a company’s sales department, 80 percent of sales often come from only 20 percent of customers. Similarly, you will often find that within a single strategy, some of your action steps yield much better results at a lower cost than others. 

If you run a youth gang prevention program, your in-school education efforts may not be definitively improving the situation, but your after-school clubs may very well be having a measurable impact. While both of these efforts are a part of the same strategy, it may be time to cut one of them. Alternatively, your afterschool program and your in-school education may be having similar effects, but the afterschool program may cost five times as much per student. In this case, it may be time to cut or reduce your effective afterschool program and redirect resources to expanding in-school education.

Just because you have two programs worth keeping doesn’t mean they should each consume half of the resources. If a retail store sells books and candy, the astute store owner will allocate the shelf space for each product until the profit per shelf space is equal, which will most likely be 95% books and 5% candy, not a 50-50 split. 

Similarly, a small amount of one program may generate beneficial outcomes that justify its resource cost, but scaling the program up won’t necessarily be worthwhile. You may do six community block parties annually to recruit applicants for your financial literacy programs. Upping this amount to 12 parties a year is likely a waste of effort, but cutting them back to four a year may give you the most efficient ratio of results to effort. 

You can use an objective measure like “hours of staff time setting up block parties per new program applicants from the block parties” to help optimize how many block parties you perform. You could learn through trial and measurement that a block party takes 40 hours of staff time to set up and at four parties per year, you get 16 applicants at a cost of 10 hours of staff time per applicant. With six parties a year, you get 20 applicants at the cost of 12 hours of staff time per applicant.

 

4) Factor in Sustainment

In business, a good strategy generates profit, which funds the enterprise. Sustainment is often separated from impact in nonprofit work. An organization with poor results can be well-funded if it presents itself well, and an organization with excellent results can go under if it doesn’t raise enough cash. It’s okay to acknowledge that certain approaches are more attractive to donors, volunteers, and grantors in your community and to lean towards strategies that are easier to fund. But you simply can’t let the resources pull you away from your mission or into strategies that are ineffective or counter-productive—doing so results in what is referred to as “mission drift”.

Also, don’t underestimate your power to re-educate supporters on what strategies you believe are best. If you have expertise and evidence, you can likely convince a major donor that it’s time to wind down an old program she has been funding for years and launch a different one.

You also need to deliberately invest in your own organizational infrastructure and avoid the pull toward the nonprofit starvation cycle.

A strategy is not a vision, a mission, or a set of goals. It is a plan that provides a clear diagnosis of a problem, a guiding policy to address it, and a coherent set of mutually supportive actions. A good strategy can be the difference between outsized success and decades of frustrating and fruitless effort. You can dig a ditch with spoons using fifty volunteers, or you can dig it with one using a tractor. Strategic thinking rarely feels urgent, but it is always important—make time to do it well.

 

For two great books which inspired some of the ideas in the article check out:

Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work by Chip and Dan Heath

Good Strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why it Matters by Richard Rumelt

 

Strategic thinking requires you to identify and measure outcomes which will show progress towards your mission and help you assess the performance of your strategic plans. True Charity Network members have access to a detailed toolkit for Outcomes Measurement.

 

 

 

---

This article was originally published on August 22, 2022 in The Gospel Coalition.

---

 

“She had an abortion appointment the next day. She’d already been to the pro-life pregnancy center, and I had no idea what to say.”

My friend sighed as she told the story. The new Dobbs decision, combined with this recent encounter with a struggling single mother, motivated us to start searching for programs—and if nothing existed, to start one ourselves.

In this new post-Roe world, many Christians and churches desire to support the women who carry their babies to term. The issue isn’t whether caring communities will go about this important work, but rather how they’ll do it.

Here are 10 ways your church can foster relationships with women in need and build a culture of life.

 

1: Call your local pro-life pregnancy center. 

Ask what their present needs are and how you can help. Be open to things you could do outside of Sunday morning. Could you donate 10 hours a month of your bookkeeper’s time? Host a baby shower in your space? Ask a church member to help them with a specialized skill like social media marketing or outcomes measurement? Commit to organizing a meal train when babies are born?

 

2: Make church baby-friendly.

Especially if children are welcome during the main service in your church, mothers might be keenly aware of every peep their little ones make during the service. Put new parents at ease by making it clear that their babies and toddlers are a part of Christ’s body. Create a space for nursing mothers, make sure you have changing stations in the bathrooms, and laminate pew cards explaining that children are welcome!

 

3: Open a maternity library or host a clothing swap event.

Any woman who has been pregnant knows that ill-fitting clothes can have a real effect on her sense of dignity. Maternity clothing is expensive and hard to thrift, so your church can help by gathering gently used maternity wear and either hosting a one-day event or devoting a section of your building to a maternity library, where women can “check out” clothes for a few dollars. Be sure to make the experience relational and welcoming by having coffee or lemonade on hand and inviting the mothers to sit and chat.

 

4: Create accessible ways for single moms to serve.

Women who have overcome heartbreaking challenges and chosen life have so much to give! Welcome them into volunteer opportunities by providing childcare during VBS or one-day service events. Most importantly, let them know that your church family values and needs them by getting to know each individual’s unique gifts and then asking for help in those areas.

 

5: Offer childcare or a co-op.

Do your church’s Sunday school rooms sit empty during the week? Put them to use! Many single mothers struggle to afford daycare, and churches can step into the gap by offering childcare at a discount. For mothers struggling financially, you could even offer a co-op alternative, where moms become trained classroom aides and help out with the kids one day a week in exchange for free tuition.

 

6: Start an Embrace Grace support group.

Women who are overwhelmed by a recent positive pregnancy test don’t just need diapers; they need a family. Embrace Grace is an international organization that trains churches at no cost to launch support groups for pregnant women and single moms and dads. If you aren’t ready to start a group, consider downloading their pro-love social media toolkit or hosting a “love box” party—assembling boxes that can be given to moms at a local pregnancy center.

 

7: Support alternatives to foster care.

Your church can walk with families at risk of entering the foster care system by partnering with outstanding groups like Better Together or Safe Families. These organizations offer help to parents in need by offering job coaches, parent mentors, temporary host families for their children, and more.

 

8: Host a finances or jobs class.

Many single parents feel stuck working long hours away from their children at low-paying jobs. By providing a meal, free childcare, and a soft skills class, you can make a huge difference in the lives of struggling parents. The best part? Your church doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel—Faith and Finances and Jobs for Life are excellent examples of faith-based, relationship-oriented programs with a proven track record of success.

 

9: Facilitate mentorship.

Welcome young mothers into your community by creating the space for deep relationships. Consider establishing a mothers’ mentoring initiative, creating an adopt-a-grandparent program for single parents, or adding a mentoring component to an existing premarital counseling, baptism, or benevolence ministry. Check out True Charity Initiative’s Mentoring Model Action Plan for tools and guidance.

 

10: Fill in the fatherhood gaps.

Children growing up without a father are more likely to fall into poverty and substance abuse and to continue the cycle of broken families. Fathers in your church can come alongside single mothers by providing positive male role models for their kids. Programs like Fathers in the Field help your church facilitate these relationships.

Whether your community is big or small, high church or low, urban or rural, you can reach out to women and children in need. Grab a friend and introduce one of these ideas to your pastor—we did, and our church now hosts a “New Mom Community Night” every Thursday.

Praise God, the woman we were praying for didn’t go through with her abortion. And praise God, now we have a community into which we can welcome her.

 

 

 

Jump to:

How Are We Doing? | Dependency & Paternalism | Look Up | Expect Up | Size Up

 

---

---

 

Some days more than others, I wait with just a bit more earnest desire for the new heaven and new earth Peter wrote about at the end of his second letter (2 Peter 3:13). Nationally, we’ve seen homelessness rise for the last handful of years, and for the last few decades, the poor have been slipping into deeper poverty. On the world stage, we’re witnessing events that none of us have seen before unless we were around for the Second World War and the Spanish flu. Whew. Things are far from the perfected end we read about in Scripture — that day when all things will be made right, or fully justified, as they ought to be.

But, as compassionate ministry leaders, you and I live and work in a world much more granular than homeless counts, poverty levels, quarantine numbers, or inflation rates. We’re dealing with unique individuals, some who have dashed dreams, others wounded hearts, and many with broken minds or bodies or both. It rarely takes more than a five-minute conversation with a person in one of our missions to recognize injustice: not the injustice levied by some past abuser or a corrupt institution, but the unjust condition that’s simply opposite of the final and just condition described in the Bible.

In his book, Pursuing Justice: The Call to Live and Die for Bigger Things, Ken Wytsma describes truth as pertaining to what is and justice as what ought to be. This idea of justice elevates us above discussions of social justice or distributive justice and points us toward biblical restorative justice. As we pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, we are praying for this kind of justice — that life around us in our families, ministries, and communities would be more as it ought to be. For many of us, our passionate pursuit of this is the dedicated work of our lives. It is for justice that we fight, with great faith and hope of helping one person at a time step into a better life — one that is more as it ought to be.

 

How Are We Doing?

Well, it’s a hard calling with a tough job to match, isn’t it? Yet we’re a driven and motivated bunch, and certainly those qualities, with earnest prayer, have resulted in some great testimonies from our missions and ministries. It’s time to level up, though. I know, I know. Level up? Are you kidding me? I can barely keep pace at the level I’m on! I get it. There’s no more drive or motivation to muster up. I’m with you, and I’m not suggesting you muster it up. I’m suggesting you transfer it. Right, transfer your motivation and drive to those you’re helping. Successfully transferring that motivation to the person you’re motivated to help is one way to bring just equity into what is often an unhealthy and imbalanced relationship, one in which the recipient is dependent and the giver, paternalistic (not to mention overworked!).

You might recall Robert Lupton’s five steps to dependency from his book, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It): If you give something to someone once, the person will appreciate it. If you give it a second time, he’ll develop an anticipation that you might do it a third. If you do it a third time, he’ll expect you’ll do it a fourth. A fourth time, he’ll feel entitled to the transfer, and a fifth time, he’ll be dependent on you for it.

Appreciation, Anticipation, Expectation, Entitlement, Dependency. Because we live in community with the people we help, this type of unhealthy reliance is not without its countereffect on the well-intentioned charitable soldier. Consider these five steps to paternalism that occur in concert with the downward march toward dependency: Giving something to someone results first in a sense of exhilaration. Again, and you may feel a deepening purpose in relation to whom you’re helping. A third time and you’ll feel necessary. A fourth, essential and a fifth, paternalistic. Exhilaration, Purpose, Necessary, Essential, Paternal.

 

How Are We Doing?

Well, it’s a hard calling with a tough job to match, isn’t it? Yet we’re a driven and motivated bunch, and certainly those qualities, with earnest prayer, have resulted in some great testimonies from our missions and ministries. It’s time to level up, though. I know, I know. Level up? Are you kidding me? I can barely keep pace at the level I’m on! I get it. There’s no more drive or motivation to muster up. I’m with you, and I’m not suggesting you muster it up. I’m suggesting you transfer it. Right, transfer your motivation and drive to those you’re helping. Successfully transferring that motivation to the person you’re motivated to help is one way to bring just equity into what is often an unhealthy and imbalanced relationship, one in which the recipient is dependent and the giver, paternalistic (not to mention overworked!).

You might recall Robert Lupton’s five steps to dependency from his book, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It). If you give something to someone once, the person will appreciate it. If you give it a second time, he’ll develop an anticipation that you might do it a third. If you do it a third time, he’ll expect you’ll do it a fourth. A fourth time, he’ll feel entitled to the transfer, and a fifth time, he’ll be dependent on you for it.

Appreciation, Anticipation, Expectation, Entitlement, Dependency. Because we live in community with the people we help, this type of unhealthy reliance is not without its countereffect on the well-intentioned charitable soldier. Consider these five steps to paternalism that occur in concert with the downward march toward dependency: Giving something to someone results first in a sense of exhilaration. Again, and you may feel a deepening purpose in relation to whom you’re helping. A third time and you’ll feel necessary. A fourth, essential and a fifth, paternalistic. Exhilaration, Purpose, Necessary, Essential, Paternal.

 

How Are We Doing?

Well, it’s a hard calling with a tough job to match, isn’t it? Yet we’re a driven and motivated bunch, and certainly those qualities, with earnest prayer, have resulted in some great testimonies from our missions and ministries. It’s time to level up, though. I know, I know. Level up? Are you kidding me? I can barely keep pace at the level I’m on! I get it. There’s no more drive or motivation to muster up. I’m with you, and I’m not suggesting you muster it up. I’m suggesting you transfer it. Right, transfer your motivation and drive to those you’re helping. Successfully transferring that motivation to the person you’re motivated to help is one way to bring just equity into what is often an unhealthy and imbalanced relationship, one in which the recipient is dependent and the giver, paternalistic (not to mention overworked!).

You might recall Robert Lupton’s five steps to dependency from his book, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It): If you give something to someone once, the person will appreciate it. If you give it a second time, he’ll develop an anticipation that you might do it a third. If you do it a third time, he’ll expect you’ll do it a fourth. A fourth time, he’ll feel entitled to the transfer, and a fifth time, he’ll be dependent on you for it.

Appreciation, Anticipation, Expectation, Entitlement, Dependency. Because we live in community with the people we help, this type of unhealthy reliance is not without its countereffect on the well-intentioned charitable soldier. Consider these five steps to paternalism that occur in concert with the downward march toward dependency: Giving something to someone results first in a sense of exhilaration. Again, and you may feel a deepening purpose in relation to whom you’re helping. A third time and you’ll feel necessary. A fourth, essential and a fifth, paternalistic. Exhilaration, Purpose, Necessary, Essential, Paternal.

 

Dependency and Paternalism

Though intentions may be honorable, both local and national efforts to address poverty through simple, transactional charity not only have failed to close the income gap but have widened the relational one. A strange codependency between the recipient and the provider continues to feed the hungry without ever solving hunger, shelter the poor without solving homelessness, and transfer wealth without ever empowering people to create it themselves.

Across our land, people are reading the papers or watching the news, shaking their heads, wondering how the problems of poverty and homelessness can be solved. Let’s provide the answer. We are the leaders to set a new standard, modifying or creating innovative programs that flip the steps. Yes, flip the steps to dependency and paternalism, leading a renewed national vision of communities marked by an exhilarated and appreciative people, not codependent but interdependent. In fact, our goal should be to bring these two groups so close together that we can’t tell the difference between them. Can the provider be a recipient and the recipient a provider?

These ideas sound a little lofty, I’ll agree. Here are some practical questions to ground us a bit: How do we shift the balance of our programs from relief towards development? How can we meet vital and basic needs repetitively without also being complicit in the dependency trap? How can we motivate the people we help to do more to help themselves?

How can we level up?

Look up, expect up, and size up.

 

Look Up

Being a member of Citygate Network, it’s unlikely you have a cultural problem in which staff or volunteers at your mission look down on people. But do they “look up” to people? Looking up to a person is to admire a personal quality, respect an achievement, or recognize a gift in a person. That’s tough when you’re sitting across from someone who has been ravaged by the elements, is dazed by the latest drug, or is wildly confused and incoherent. Where is that quality, achievement, or gift to admire, respect, and recognize? This is where compassion fails us. Don’t get me wrong — compassion is vital and we’re certain to fail without it. It’s awakened by the injustice and brokenness we see in lives around us and it is what fuels us to act, but it is Christ’s vision that enables us to see beyond the physical to recognize the inherent dignity and worth in even the most wretched and wrecked soul. Through the eyes of Christ, we are able to see beyond the physical to the imago Dei — the image of God. And when we do see it — that nobility of God residing in a person — our faith is suddenly ignited to believe that what ought to be is attainable.

When Jesus landed on the shore of the Gerasenes, he was met by a naked, self-destructive man who lived among the tombs. You know the story. Jesus saw what ought to be. He delivered the man from his demons and left him clothed and in his right mind (Luke 8:35). When Jesus stepped out of the boat and first saw this tormented and possessed man approach Him, don’t you think He also saw a man clothed and in his right mind? We need Christ’s vision if we’re going to “look up” to people we serve.

One way to develop the look-up culture in your ministry is to adopt the right terminology. Are the people you serve “residents” or “guests”? Are those in your social enterprise “clients” or “partners”? The culture of looking up is also reinforced by a ministry’s core values, ensuring that respect of inherent human dignity is included. Noble creation, imagebearer, human dignity, highly esteemed, ennobled may be words to consider in the adoption or revision of a core value. As an example, one of the core values at our mission is Human Dignity — Every Person is a Noble Creation. Regardless of how you choose to emphasize it in your ministry, remember this truth: What you value is what you cultivate, and what you cultivate becomes your culture. So value “looking up.”

 

Expect Up

How you and I view people informs how we treat them, and how we treat them influences how they respond. If we look up to a person and genuinely respect his or her God-given gifts and abilities, then shouldn’t we “expect up,” also? Having no expectations communicates, “You’re unable.” Lowered expectations speak, “I don’t think you can do it.” But right expectations of a person communicate, “I believe in you.” Those are four words too many have never heard before. And remember, how we treat people impacts how they respond. If we don’t “expect up,” who will rise up?

“Expecting up” is a major encouragement and motivation to people, and we see it throughout Scripture. The word if is found over 1,400 times in the Bible, often linking God’s expectation to some reward or blessing. Second Chronicles 7:14 is one of those that many of us know by heart: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” God’s expectation for us is clear, and many of us are motivated by it! We also see expectation in the New Testament. In John 8, Jesus verbalized His expectation of the woman He had forgiven of adultery: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” I’m sure the blend of His grace and expectation motivated her to change.

In our ministries, motivation by expectation starts with a search for the ability and gifting of a person. Expect to find it. This is the practice of function-based categorization. Rather than simply qualifying a person as a recipient of a particular program because of his or her poverty level or disability (dysfunction-based categorization), consider placing equal energy during your assessment on uncovering a person’s capacity, potential, and functional ability. You may have a tool that helps with this, or you might want to consider a SWOT box assessment tool. This tool helps any person consider not only Weaknesses and Threats but, more importantly, Strengths and Opportunities in the areas of education, work, relationships, and health. True Charity has a SWOT box assessment tool you can use; you can find it here: www.truecharity.us/swot

If you discover the person you’re assessing has ability (and most do), then expect exchange. That’s not to say that there aren’t situations in which one-way handouts are necessary, but they should be rare and few. Most people have the capacity to exchange a little of their time and talent for what they need. Expect it.

The father of modern economics, Adam Smith, noted something very simple but profound in his seminal work, The Wealth of Nations: “Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I’m willing to give this for that.” Although we intuitively know this, its implications are weighty. Exchange is a unique aspect of humanity found in markets. So when we strip people of their opportunity to exchange something they can do for something they need, we also strip them of some aspect of their humanity. An expectation of exchange spares both parties from falling into the trap of dependency and paternalism.

Practically speaking, consider establishing an “earn it” program. Creating a way for people to exchange a little of their time to earn vouchers that can be traded for basic needs is a powerful way to “expect up” and break free from an unhealthy dependency model. It’s not an easy lift to shift your model of ministry to an “earn it” model, but its rewards are great. Having folks work in various spots of your ministry or help in one of your social enterprises for even short amounts of time to earn an item from your thrift store or food from your pantry is an empowering form of charity that reminds people they were created to be more than the recipients of someone’s benevolence. Your community will likely embrace your new approach as you communicate your inspiring belief in the people you serve and how you are providing them opportunities to experience the joy of purposefulness and contribution.

Depending on the size and history of your ministry, the work of transitioning to an “earn it” model can vary. It’s not the only way to level up your expectation, though. You might start with good goal writing. Taking case management beyond resource connection to dreaming, planning, and establishing goals is a great way to introduce expectation. I prefer the PIVOT acronym to guide the process. Goals should be action steps that Point to the vision, are clearly Identifiable, Verifiable, Owned by the individual, and Time-driven. 

Lastly, sharing those goals and other case management information with like-minded organizations serving the same families and individuals is another way to address unhealthy dependency in your community. There are different tools to accomplish this, but one easy, web-based option is Charity Tracker. In one Oregon community, we use Charity Tracker to connect one ministry’s thrift store to a vocation-training ministry in the same town. Rather than continue with a handout model for folks who have no money, the thrift store allows people to shop and then tallies the time required to earn the items, enters that information in the Charity Tracker system, and then sends the individuals down to the training center. Once the time is completed, personnel at the training center enter it in the system and the people are free to pick up their items from the store.

We’ve connected scores of churches and nonprofits together with this tool which aids in ministering more seamlessly and cohesively, and stems the tendency for dependency to form in an otherwise benevolent but disconnected community. This type of practical collaboration collectively signals to a larger audience, “We’re expecting up!”

 

Size Up

Looking up to the inherent dignity of every person and then matching it with right expectations are vital to motivating and empowering people. However, doing this is no more important than measuring the results. If we don’t “size up” or compare our results to our own expectations, we’ll never know if the cultural and programmatic changes we’ve made are actually making the difference we hope to see. We must measure what matters. Beyond outputs like number of meals, pounds of food, nights of shelter, etc., we must establish outcome domains like employment, social capital, and spiritual growth as well as the indicators that help meter progress in those areas. These may include jobs landed, social capital score changes, or progress on the Engel Scale (a spiritual-growth measurement tool).

For example, at Watered Gardens Ministries, we have three primary outcome domains for most measurements: Connections, Career, and Character. Under our outcome domain “Connections,” we measure how well we do at reconnecting people to family or helping them form new relationships in the Church. So we now also measure recidivism, with a hope to see people will be returning less to our shelter!

Sizing up requires brutal honesty and painful humility. My experience has been that when sizing up the progress in our programs, we often have to swallow our pride and make changes in the ways we’re doing things. Outcome development and training is worth the time and effort. Remember, Jesus came to radically change lives. That change is measurable.

 

Size Up

Looking up to the inherent dignity of every person and then matching it with right expectations are vital to motivating and empowering people. However, doing this is no more important than measuring the results. If we don’t “size up” or compare our results to our own expectations, we’ll never know if the cultural and programmatic changes we’ve made are actually making the difference we hope to see. We must measure what matters. Beyond outputs like number of meals, pounds of food, nights of shelter, etc., we must establish outcome domains like employment, social capital, and spiritual growth as well as the indicators that help meter progress in those areas. These may include jobs landed, social capital score changes, or progress on the Engel Scale (a spiritual-growth measurement tool).

 

For example, at Watered Gardens Ministries, we have three primary outcome domains for most measurements: Connections, Career, and Character. Under our outcome domain “Connections,” we measure how well we do at reconnecting people to family or helping them form new relationships in the Church. So we now also measure recidivism, with a hope to see people will be returning less to our shelter!

 

Sizing up requires brutal honesty and painful humility. My experience has been that when sizing up the progress in our programs, we often have to swallow our pride and make changes in the ways we’re doing things. Outcome development and training is worth the time and effort. Remember, Jesus came to radically change lives. That change is measurable.

Size Up

Looking up to the inherent dignity of every person and then matching it with right expectations are vital to motivating and empowering people. However, doing this is no more important than measuring the results. If we don’t “size up” or compare our results to our own expectations, we’ll never know if the cultural and programmatic changes we’ve made are actually making the difference we hope to see. We must measure what matters. Beyond outputs like number of meals, pounds of food, nights of shelter, etc., we must establish outcome domains like employment, social capital, and spiritual growth as well as the indicators that help meter progress in those areas. These may include jobs landed, social capital score changes, or progress on the Engel Scale (a spiritual-growth measurement tool).

For example, at Watered Gardens Ministries, we have three primary outcome domains for most measurements: Connections, Career, and Character. Under our outcome domain “Connections,” we measure how well we do at reconnecting people to family or helping them form new relationships in the Church. So we now also measure recidivism, with a hope to see people will be returning less to our shelter!

Sizing up requires brutal honesty and painful humility. My experience has been that when sizing up the progress in our programs, we often have to swallow our pride and make changes in the ways we’re doing things. Outcome development and training is worth the time and effort. Remember, Jesus came to radically change lives. That change is measurable.

♦    ♦    ♦

Looking up, expecting up, and sizing up is a simple formula to answer the call of our cities and our nation. More importantly, it is the way we empower people in poverty and honor God who has entrusted us with a mission so close to His heart. May God’s peace, passion, and wisdom continue to reign in your life and direct your calling!

 

---

Reprinted with permission from Citygate Network. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Once leaders start to understand the difference between relief and development, they naturally look for ways to address root problems in clients’ lives through programs that integrate classes, relationships, and other opportunities for personal growth. However, since development isn’t something that can be done “to” someone, the person for whom the programs are designed must be willing to embrace the opportunity.

Individuals who aren’t ready to commit to a program will often squander resources and not experience any positive impact. Maybe this means dropping out of a class after a few sessions, or receiving a significant amount of assistance designed to help them get out of a financial bind, only to make choices that put them in the same bind the following month. This is not only frustrating to ministry leaders, but it is demoralizing to clients who may feel like they will never see change. Furthermore, it derails other clients, who would have succeeded, but get sidetracked by seeing the apparent failure of the less committed.

We should optimize our programs to maximize the chance that people will stick with them. There are plenty of techniques ranging from providing text message reminders to working through transportation and childcare barriers. But we also need to make sure we have the right people in the programs to begin with—people who are most ready to benefit from change.

One intuitive approach is to use a screening process consisting of application forms and interviews to vet people’s motives. This can be beneficial, but even the best interviewer will be hard-pressed to accurately assess a stranger’s motivation and commitment. Not to mention that the screener will also have to be the “bad guy” and make a subjective determination of whether someone is allowed in the program.

There is another way. It’s a way that reveals critical information to the charity and simultaneously gives the client more control over his or her situation. It was also memorably illustrated by the rock band “Van Halen.”

Van Halen pioneered many techniques in the modern concert. Their shows integrated unprecedented quantities of lights, electronics, and other heavy equipment. For a Van Halen concert to succeed, venues had to be ready. To that end, Van Halen had a 53-page contract specifying the hundreds of minute details necessary for the setup. On one page of the contract, they even detailed the snacks which needed to be ready for the band members backstage – including a bowl of M&M chocolate candies with a note that all of the brown M&M’s needed to be removed from the bowl.

This was more than rock band diva behavior. This was a brilliant application of “self-selection.” When the Van Halen band manager showed up on site before the concert, one of his first stops was the bowl of M&Ms. If the venue had done a good job and followed the contract thoroughly, the M&M’s would be as ordered–no brown pieces present–and more importantly, the wiring, speakers, stage and the rest would likely all be to specification. If the brown M&M’s were present, it meant that the venue was probably not ready to rock. There were only a few hours to go over everything with a fine-toothed comb and ensure that the other details weren’t messed up, which could result in a dangerous incident or injury.

The venue received clear instructions and then signaled through their own actions whether they were “ready to rock.” In the metaphor, clients are like venues. Some are “ready to rock” and some not, but how can we get them to signal to us whether they are?

Van Halen venues had to show that they were ready, willing, and able to follow a detailed contract. Clients who are ready to develop must show that they are willing to make at least some effort to improve their situation, given the opportunity and ample encouragement. Like Van Halen, we can create a deliberate context for “self-selection.” Instead of a lengthy contract and chocolate candies, we can use the principle of “challenge.”

Challenge is anything that requires effort on the part of the client. This can be something that helps only them, such as goal setting and achievement. It can be something that allows them to help others outside of the program, such as community service. Alternatively, they can “pay it forward” by volunteering for the nonprofit running the program or paying a service fee. Many more examples are included in the excellent programs we feature here. In general, the level of challenge is scaled against what the client is receiving from the program. (It isn’t full compensation but covers some fraction of what they receive.) For a budgeting class or food co-op, it doesn’t have to be very large; for a residential rehab or college scholarship program, it would need to be more significant. As your program evolves, you can tweak the level of challenge until you find that the majority of the people entering the program are ready and able to benefit from it.

There are other reasons to offer an up front challenge, such as the fact that creative work or goal setting tends to expand someone’s sense of self-worth, but the self-selection aspect is also critical. People who are ready to grow will be willing to put forth effort on the front end. 

When a handout program becomes more developmental and starts integrating challenge, you will usually see the number of clients served decline–often by half or more. While this fact is scary to nonprofit leaders, the clients that keep coming are not a random sample of the original crew; they are a self-selected bunch who are more likely to benefit from your programs. Even though fewer people are coming, more people are meaningfully helped, because you start with the right people in the room and are then able to invest more relational and financial resources into helping them. In fact, it’s common for total results to improve–not just “average” results, but the total number of people who leave poverty increases even as the total number of “clients served” decreases.

“Rock and roll” is relatively new, but charity self-selection through challenge is ancient wisdom. Historian Marvin Olasky points out that early American charity workers frequently used what they called a “work test” to determine whom they should assist. For able-bodied men, this was typically splitting firewood in exchange for food or other assistance. In biblical times, God commanded the Israelites to leave some of their crops unharvested so they could be “gleaned” by the poor and the travelers (Leviticus 19:9-10). The fact that they left crops in the field rather than distributing bread meant that there was a lot of work a poor person had to do to harvest the grain and process it into food. In some ways, it was even harder than it would have been to work one’s own fields, since the grain left standing was more widely scattered. No one would have taken advantage of this system because they were too lazy to work their own land; only those with legitimate circumstantial need would have self-selected this “gleaning” form of charity.

What does challenge mean for the people who aren’t ready? We can continue to love, pray for, and engage them in conversation, but we cannot force them to grow–and it is both unhelpful and arrogant to try. 

Given our limited resources, the most successful programs will invest heavily in people ready to embrace change. The good news is that we don’t need to be clairvoyant to determine who those people are. We can let them tell us, by offering them a challenge. Those who rise to the challenge are the real rock stars.

 

---

Network Members: For more information on the topic of challenge in charity, check out the True Charity Takeaway titled The Earn-It Model and the Earn-It Program Model Action Plan.

Non-Members: Learn more about Network membership at truecharity.us/join.