Apathy

After speaking to a group this weekend about the work Mennonite Central Committee is helping accomplish in Lebanon and Syria, someone approached me and asked what was the biggest challenge I faces raising funds for this work. Almost without thinking, I responded, “apathy”.  The rest of the afternoon I’ve been thinking through exactly what I meant with this response. Apathy is a very loaded word.

If you are like me, the busyness of day-to-day activities, the pre-occupation with my own “challenges” and my own special brand of selfishness, keeps me from doing anything that seems even remotely good such that it would leave a dent in the ever increasing mass of wrong taking place all around the globe. When I hear the news of another earthquake, war or oppression, I find it challenging not to put my head down and make my world as small as I can, protecting my state of normalcy. When that happens, its game over. I’ve shut down and even the most heinous or dire of situations won’t stick to my heart or mind. It’s as if all bits in my body tasked with feeling have been Teflon coated. Nothing sticks. 

So its not that I’m not interested or concerned, it’s that I’m unwilling to let any new stories in. I’m full up. I haven’t exercised my values in such a way that I’m feeling I have room for more. 

What does this mean for those of us raising funds for important causes? 

There is so much talk these days about the value of good storytelling in fundraising. I agree. Stories are essential for connecting with donors. But if your stories aren’t sticking? If your audience shuts down when you start to talk, you need to find a new way connect. You need to start doing gooder.  

For more information on DOING GOODER visit doinggooder.com

A Response Gerald Caplin and the Globe & Mail

While I appreciate Mr. Caplan’s desire to draw attention to the needs of many non-profits during the lean summer months, his article perpetuates a narrative many organizations are working hard to rewrite.

Mr. Caplan rightfully applauds organization’s that seek to work cooperatively with other organizations, as well as those who prioritize working with local partners. These actions are a part of a relief and development model that is now considered “best practice” by most NGO’s. But his understanding of the donor perspective in assessing an organization is out of date and does little to help someone who is motivated to give consider anything of great value, as the title of his article suggests. 

To use terms like “begging” to describe the activity of raising funds for important causes creates hurdles for many prospective donors and worthy organizations. This term suggests that there is an “us” and “them” in a transactional experience. 

The reality is that inherent in the act of giving is an opportunity for a mutually transformative relationship. Making the decision to release personal resources for the benefit of another is a truly radical act in a culture that regularly tells us success in life is dependent on the accumulation of more. Yes, the recipient of donate funds, goods or services may find his or her situation transformed, but in choosing to release these resources, the donor has exercised his or her personal values. In doing so, the donor has become more like the person they hope to be. This is a great reward and of great benefit for the giver. By giving, the donor has chosen to express a love for humanity, the very definition of being “philanthropic”.

Mr. Caplan also chooses to extoll a tried and not entirely helpful measurement matrix, one where the highest virtue an organization can express is that of efficiency. In this system, top marks are given to the organizations with the least amount of administration costs, this being the working definition of efficiency in non-profits. The trouble with this matrix is it does little to assess an organization’s effectiveness. I, for one, if ask to choose between efficiency and effectiveness, would choose to give to the organization that was having the greatest impact, the organization that is most effective. Not that efficiency isn’t important. It can be a good measure of how seriously an organization takes its responsibility for stewarding well the resources entrusted to it. That said, if 100% of the money I give to an organization is designated to “administration” but in doing so, that organization can change the lives of thousands of people, rather than hundreds of people the organization could help when holding fast to a policy of spending no more than 20% of its budget on admin, I say “designate my gift for administration and blow the roof off the efficiency metric”. I want to see impact, it’s the number one reason I give.   

What most donors long for is to participate in making the world a little bit better. When choosing an organization to partner with choose an organization that helps you best express your values. Then terms like “begging” and “efficiency” will have little to do with which organizations you consider and how you ultimately choose to express your love for humanity.

For more info on DOING GOODER visit doinggooder.com

“Once Upon a Time” by Paul Lagasse | Advancing Philanthropy, Summer 2016

The subtitle of this article is “How storytelling can motivate donors to support your nonprofit without being asked”. Quoting fundraiser and author Ken Burnett, Lagasse distills a breadth and depth of storytelling resources into a handful of opportunities fundraisers can employ when working to motivate donors. Of particular interest may be an idea that turns upside down the default story narrative of charities, that of extolling the virtues of the organization. 

Donors want to read about themselves. 

There are three possible characters in a fundraising story; the charity, the recipient, or the donor. Most often organizations write stories that establish themselves as the hero of the narrative. If an organization creates an alternative to this common storyline, they will often replace themselves with the recipient. Now the beneficiary becomes the hero. But it is rare for organizations to make the donor the hero of their stories. Quoting Burnett, Lagasse writes that the purpose of stories to is motivate donors “to leap to their feet, passionate, angry, impelled and determined to make change happen.” In a list of suggested approaches, Lagasse leads off by suggesting charities write stories “about the reader, not the cause.” 

Donors don’t empathize with an organization, because donors aren’t organizations. Donors can sympathize for those in need, but the donor is not in their situation. But the donor who reads a story about another donor making an impact, a person living out his or her values, is inspired. The narrative is aspirational. And if the story is authentic and well crafted, the fundraiser is well on the way to creating opportunities where donors self-identify as supporters and the fundraiser’s need to craft a formal “ask” takes a back seat.

To know more about DOING GOODER visit doinggooder.com