Online Assessment Tools for Identifying Organizational Issues

Nonprofit Leader,

As an Executive Director I often wanted to know how well my board and staff understood our organization’s mission and vision, and if they were being clarified well enough.  I needed to assess the awareness of my board of how critical their understanding our programs and networking was to the organization and to our position in the community.  

Each time I looked over an organization’s financials and fundraising, I found areas needing improving, and fundraising issues that the staff and board had not recognized had changed over time.  It was that process of discovery and analysis that helped me revitalize several stagnant nonprofits and help them thrive. 

It was the fresh perspective of an outsider that made the difference.  In many cases a consultant is hired to show an organization’s leaders what they have been missing and help them make the right changes.  Some of the leadership and/or staff may recognize the issues, but may not be able to be the agents for the needed change.  Thus, the third-party consultant is engaged.  But how do small, struggling under-funded nonprofits afford the rates for an experienced consultant?  They can’t, and so they keep struggling through tough organizational issues, ineffective programs, staff turnover, disconnect with the community, and loss of funding as a result.  And what are the options for well-run organizations to take an occasional fresh look at their organizational dynamics and leadership?

It was recognizing these issues that led me to create several online assessment tools that provide the data nonprofits need to get the overall view of their organization and start recognizing the needed changes to make.  By limiting travel and time of on-site interviews we reduce the cost and still provide a needed summary analysis to help an organization: 1. understand the stage in their life-cycle, 2. examine Staff-CEO-Board relationships, 3. measure their fundraising effectiveness.  

By developing anonymous surveys administered online, I have been able to assist a number of organizations of various age, size and budget.  The survey results are graphed for ease of understanding, and a brief, interpretive assessment is provided of potential action steps for further considerations.  The next steps are up to your organization’s leadership and funding capabilities.  You may decide to engage me or other advisor to help you move forward.  In any case, you will have this very important data with which to help change your organization for the better.

I invite you to take a few moments to examine my website and my background, and the four levels of low-cost assessment analysis tools I offer at jklewis54.wixsite.com/charisnp.  Whether you decide to engage my services beyond the surveys is completely up to you.  I am available to you to discuss how these can help your organization and help you lead quality change.

 

Serving together,

James K. Lewis, m.a., ccnl, cfre^®

When do you need a consultant?

 

Numerous issues in a nonprofit organization rise to the occasion of requiring paid outside assistance. These involve acknowledging you’re facing something larger than your in-house skill set can handle alone. Accepting that help is needed is the first step in any weakness or dysfunctional behavior – whether of a person or an organization.

Sometimes a struggling organization just needs help transitioning to its next stage of growth. Perhaps a well established organization needs help re-inventing itself. Facing reality is the most difficult when leaders and staff are deeply ingrained in the present organizational culture. It becomes even harder if the leader is a founder or long-term CEO, where he or she may be sensing a loss of control or that recent changes are becoming overwhelming. A lack of positive organizational dynamics keeps many dysfunctions hidden, and people are unwilling to be the one vulnerable enough to upset the apple cart.

Consulting with outside professionals isn’t limited to the need of addressing serious issues . . . most leaders could use regular coaching with peers and/or professional consultants. But some circumstances call for more serious consideration for outside help:

Strategic Planning. This process can require an anonymity that an independent consultant allows. Often I’ve found a key staff or board member who admits to not being sure of the direction or even of the organization’s mission and vision. In one case it was found that a new board member wasn’t aware of the organization’s religious core principles of faith. Appropriately laying the foundation before discussing strategy is critical to success. 

Analyzing fundraising effectiveness. In such a volatile economic landscape, it can become comfortable for an organization to stay the course with tired or limited funding appeals and stale communications. Organizations tend to stay with old metrics and “shot-gunning” rather than using new tools to target a segment of their donor base who are more likely to respond to different types of communications. E-commerce is still only effective in a small portion of demographics, and it is key to understand when and how to phase that in.

Closely aligned with fundraising is an understanding of an organization’s publics – those who can control or limit an organization’s ability to flourish. Many times an organization has “blinders” and they are not aware that they’ve grown myopic in their programs and vision. I’ve seen organizations atrophy due to ignoring the reality of their external context and relationships. This is where familiarity breeds contempt; stakeholders who once supported and helped form the organization can, if ignored or taken for granted, become the worse critics.

A most serious issue that desperately demands immediate assistance is internal organizational conflict due to a lack of unity in mission and vision. It's critical to quickly re-establish clarity of mission and unity between the leaders and the staff or board. This requires outside intervention. But choose the consultant carefully, as this requires a professional who is able to decipher the organization’s deeper cultural and personal issues – not merely personnel or HR issues that are on the surface. The former is ripe with personality clashes and broken trust, while the latter involves organization policy and procedure – which may need addressing, but is not the root cause.

I will mention briefly the need for a consultant and/or interim management through a period of crisis leadership change. Addressing this will require a separate blog, but it's most critical to contract with outside assistance rather than use internal staff in such a case.

These are just a few areas of concern where an independent third party will be able to increase awareness, broker unity, and ensure the stability and sustaining of the organization’s mission. Don’t wait until you realize the need – develop relationships with those you trust and who will be ready and willing to intercede within your organization when needed. While these resources may be costly, you will save time and money with the judicious use of consultants. They will be worth it to the organization, as you will gain much more than you spend. They may be reported as an expense, but they are an asset to any organization.

For more information on choosing Consultants:

http://strengtheningnonprofits.org/resources/guidebooks/Working_with_Consultants.pdf

http://www.first5la.org/files/Nonprofit%20Consultants-How%20to_Buttenheim.pdf

http://charisnp.com/
http://www.artiosinstitute.com/

http://www.theedgegroup.org/

The Sales Pitch

[One of our speaking modules from 1990]: Years ago friends of ours were lured to a sales presentation by the guarantee of winning a prize; either a microwave (that's what they wanted), T.V., refrigerator, etc. You've heard of those before.

If they bought a life-time supply, $2500 worth of soap – that would clean everything from the car to the dog – they would also get the prizes free. What a sales pitch! Someone went to great lengths to sell soap.

Back in 1978 after we were married my wife and I read Shadow of the Almighty by Elizabeth Elliot. You may know of it – the story of her husband, Jim Elliot, and four other men who were speared to death by the "Auca" Indians in Ecuador. They were martyred in 1956 while trying to take the Gospel to this unreached group. 

The actual reassembled remains of Nate Saint's Piper on
display at  MAF's headquarters in Nampa, ID

This story has been the initial motivation for thousands of people over the years to get involved in missionary service. And so it was with us. The death of committed missionaries led to our choice of a mid-life career change with Wycliffe Bible Translators.

Later, while attending a class at Wycliffe's support center in North Carolina, we all shared about how we were led into missions work. All ten of us had read Shadow of the Almighty. No promise of a washer, dryer or microwave . . . nothing to keep the dog clean. But we wanted to be involved in giving the Word of God, whose message received in faith, will cleanse the souls of those who have, as yet, never heard that Christ died for them.

That's how we were introduced to missions. We didn't know what that commitment would lead to, but we made it. If we'd known what we would go through later, I hope we would have had the fortitude to stay with it.

2013: Well, we did stick through it and continued to serve - and have since in various ministries. Now I found myself back at the origin of our missionary quest. As I arrived for an interview at MAF's headquarters today, I came face to face with an element of that story of 1978 when we read that book, and others since. What an emotional moment as I stood in front of what has been for thousands a call to give our lives in Kingdom service. 

Mailbox Missionaries

Overhearing a conversation between my wife and me about bills and our limited funds, our 9 year-old daughter piped up, “Maybe there will be a check in the mail today for $200!”

In 1989, after being accepted as approved missionary candidates with Wycliffe Bible Translators, it was recommended that I get further training in avionics and acquire my FAA General Airframe Mechanic certification in order to better serve in Communications – my technical support missionary position would require installation of radio equipment and antennas on aircraft. Having recently left my position with Eastman Kodak as a Field Engineer – and its relatively secure salary and benefits – our family of 6 was residing in East Tennessee while I attended Moody Aviation.

But while we were only approved candidates, we could not raise financial support through Wycliffe until this course was completed and we were ready to continue our Wycliffe training. So, we had written our friends, explaining to them our quest toward missionary service, and left it to the leading of the Lord through them for our personal support . . . we were now “Mailbox Missionaries.” 

Later that day the mail was opened and there was, indeed, a check for $200; the faith of a little girl and her family was fulfilled and strengthened. Through these vignettes of God working through His people, we were able to trust that our support would be realized and His work would go on as an extension of those who supported and prayed for us.

Such is the plight of para-church ministries and nonprofit charities that do not receive government funding, but rely primarily upon the generosity of donors in order to provide critical relief and services to the remote, disadvantaged, victimized, homeless, poor and needy. This work is only possible through the partnership of others who sense the call to reach out and fulfill the command of God to treat these people as we would the Lord Himself.

Many bemoan the numerous pieces of mail that tend to flood our mailboxes. But I realize that educating the public on services ministries provide and the opportunity for changed lives is often the only way the average person will know of that work. Many times I’ve heard donors make the comment, “I didn’t realize you did all this”; and this from those who have been supporting the organization for years!

Public concern for the percentage of donated funds used for solicitation is warranted. Interested donors can check out charities on websites such as Guidestar.org and review nonprofits’ 990 reports. If a 990 is not available, it is often an indication that the charity is reportedly operating as a church, and therefore not required to file a 990. Donors should carefully consider religious charities transparency in reporting information such as program, administration, and fundraising ratios as good stewardship of their giving.

However, the mechanics of fundraising and accountability should not be allowed to overshadow the ministry accomplished by small charities that exist primarily as “Mailbox Missionaries.” The response envelopes that come in the mail each day are the lifeblood of critical services and can often limit the ability to sustain ministry. When you consider supporting a ministry beyond your normal church tithe, consider if that organization is utilizing every inch of its facilities, every donated penny, and every offered prayer for the service of others and to the glory of God.

And the next time you see that envelop in your mailbox, remember a little girl and a young missionary family whose faith was answered through someone responding to a need. The possibilities that your support provides toward the faith of the organization and those individuals and families that benefit are endless. Your investment is an extension of the church’s responsibility to reach out to a needy world – and often, it is through a response to a piece of mail. 

"We CAN do what we do without you, However . . ."

As a ministry leader and fundraiser I have to confess that I have disliked the phrase from the first time I heard it . . .“We can't do what we do without you.” The misguided mantra we use in an effort to convince our donors and volunteers how valuable they are to the ministry.

After over a decade of feeling this way, my perspective was finally confirmed by my good friend Doug Shaw in his recently released book, “The Rules of Fundraising.” Doug’s Rule #9 states: You don't have to lie to raise money [or get people to volunteer].¹  This admonition is included with a few of the “little white lies” we advance, along with overstating the impact of our organization.  

Now don’t get me wrong – what ministry partners do and give is no less than critical to a successful and effective ministry. But to make such an overstatement robs the glory from the true origin of all our available resources and abilities to serve people in need . . . that of our heavenly Provider.

God is the true owner and provider of all that we have – and all that the donor and volunteer share with us. Those who share are merely His chosen stewards of what is His. I actually verbalized this a few times when thanking those who served my ministry by saying that while we could still do most our work without their involvement, their participation made it so much more meaningful and less challenging . . . and our success wouldn't be such a blessing if we weren't sharing it with them. I wondered though, if that resonated as much.

If what I feel is right, in what way can we make our gratitude known to those who invest their time, treasure, and talents in the ministry? We can appreciate them and their investment by acknowledging that they empower us to serve in a manner that is enhanced and more effective – and which pleases our Lord. I feel the more important idea to convey is the vital impact our partners bring to the table through their efforts.

Their involvement has a direct bearing on the breadth and depth of the ministry to, and the life-change produced in, those we serve. That impact is the mantra we should voice – and not understate.

¹ Douglas K. Shaw, The Rules of Fundraising, Naperville: DSA, 2013, pg 58, brackets mine.  

A Case for a New Leadership Paradigm

We are in a world of change as paradigms are being challenged. Gone are the days of the broad community acceptance of the Christian service provider. Postmodernism is taking its toll . . . leadership is changing, urban demographics are changing, legal regulations are changing, staff and boards are changing, donors are changing, and ministry core services are changing. Change is as certain as the sun rising.

In this day and age, faith-based service providers and their staff need to be on the cutting edge to keep up with an ever-changing environment that challenges the sustainability of the mission and vision of an organization. In order to meet these challenges there needs to be a constant – and two critical constants are proper stewardship and increasing core competencies through accreditation.

Stewardship of the organization, program curriculum, staff resources, liabilities, finances, and board governance are paramount – and most importantly, is stewardship of the physical and spiritual health of the leader.
Artios Institute provides collaborative accreditation through coursework designed with stewardship as the focus. Through a peer cohort of fellow leaders, development staff and board members, your knowledge, skills, and capacity for change is strengthened and profound impacts are cultivated. In this two-year course, meeting two and a half days every other month for the first year and three times the second year, we will explore four foundational pillars:

1. An Understanding of Biblical Stewardship, Fund Development & Advancement 
2. The Keys to Balanced Personal & Professional Growth of the Leader 
3. The Core Components of Building Boards & Effective Teams
4. The Role of Strategy in Determining Vision & Direction 

Whether you are a seasoned executive or development leader, or just starting in ministry, this course of study will challenge and strengthen you and your organization – and prepare both for the challenges of today and years to come. This is an investment in stewardship you can’t afford not to explore. Examine the course elements and consider Artios Institute for yourself and your team.

  Review the Four Pillars               Examine the CCNL Credential

Leveraging the Passion of our Emerging Leadership in Philanthropy

Just a year ago in an article discussing the changing culture of nonprofits and the failing economy, I examined the decline of the nonprofit sector due to its failure of facing the realities of a changing market and demographic.* Following this marked decline, in just a few years we have seen an increasing flow of new blood in the sector . . . young leaders (I dislike tagging them “millennial”) are bringing a new passion and desire to impact their society.  

To this aging Boomer, having served most of my vocation in nonprofits, this brings a surprising feeling of promise and a desire to see them become empowered in a way my generation failed to realize through our efforts in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

This upwelling of philanthropic youth is more than evident here at the 50th International Conference of Fundraising in San Diego. The San Diego Convention Center is teeming with young people, wherein such a conference a decade ago would have witnessed an older attendee. In a review class for the CFRE – a certification for those with fundraising experience – there were quite a few young people who obviously did not bring experience of the level normally expected to such a class. I propose that not a few of them thought some of the material and processes discussed a bit mechanistic and antiquated. Additionally, the crowd was standing room only and overflowing the room of the First Timers orientation meeting.  This leads me to wonder what is the impetus of these new fundraisers? 

For those of us who have long been involved in nonprofit fund development, we may recognize the surge of funds now flowing from our generation’s estates, and how best to help divert them from the government and invest in charitable efforts. I sense, however, that the new conference attendees are not so much interested in investing these funds, but rather investing themselves in the empowerment of others. They recognize the weakness of government and institutions to meet the growing gap in services and bring a new paradigm to the task.

While wanting to encourage and empower this new generation, we need to sensitively guide them and their enthusiasm into this sector. Just as the ‘90s saw a growth of nonprofits that was impossible to properly fund, we can allow them to be change agents within existing organizations, as well as lead collaborations, acquisitions, and mergers which will increase capacity, reduce duplications, and bring a new face and paradigm to, not just the nonprofit sector, but to the for-profit sector and world-wide commerce as well.

How we assist, educate, encourage and empower this emerging leadership will be the fulcrum on which their impact is leveraged.  

http://ym.christianleadershipalliance.org/?CriticalShift

Fundraising isn't about the ASK

The ASK is all about relationship and trust.

I have a lot of experience in nonprofit ministry wherein we are dependent upon others for support of our programs, operations, and our salary.  A difficulty of most organizations in this sector is fundraising; asking people for money.  I believe that is due to a lack of a focus on trust and relationships.

Much of nonprofit fundraising training and practice focuses on marketing and communication.  Too much, I think.  What that focus may not clearly understand is that people want to be an integral part of the doing of good – of the ministry which meets needs and changes lives.  What they don’t want is to be seen and used as a “target.”  But all too often nonprofits see and use their clientele and donors as targets: one to do good to, and one to fund it.

Both our recipients and our donors want to have a relationship with us – but on their terms, for their purpose.  I think the secret of successfully providing services and responsible fundraising lies in how we relate to them. For both, respect must be openly given, without expectation of reciprocity.  How do we provide respect?  Through our relationship and building trust . . .

My learning curve began as a technical support missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators as we learned their partnership development (i.e. fundraising) mantra of “Full Information, No Solicitation.”  When Leslie and I built relationships and communicated the mission and vision of Bible Translation, this brought buy-in and people desired to trust us with their investment. It didn't hurt that we traveled across the country with our four children in a '74 VW Camper and people we stayed with saw us interact as a family, warts and all.

This paradigm was clarified for me so powerfully today through a video from the TED Conference and an unlikely teacher of the ASK, “Amanda Palmer: The art of asking” (click to view)  I think you will understand as you share in Amanda’s experience in building relationship and trust as you watch.

Are you willing to become as vulnerable to, and trusting of your clientele and donors?  It's what the ask is really all about.

Starting a nonprofit revisited

Once again a recent question from someone starting a nonprofit brings me back to this topic. I will share an edited version of an e-mail response to some serious questions someone asked on seeking help getting funding, for what he sees as unique and critical services.

Bob:

Blessings to you! You are attempting daunting tasks.

First, be careful of making claims of exclusivity... other local providers do similar, if not identical work that you share here. Sometimes under the radar as you are. You may unintentionally alienate yourself from other providers you will need to work with.

Ensuring accountability is a first step for funding requests. To whom are you accountable? Who is working to assist you (church, board, committee)? Do you have a clear, well written case for support? In trying to understand all the areas you are attempting to serve I would ask if you aren't biting off too much and are at risk of choking on your own good works. Start with one thing, get good at it so you are sustaining it before adding an additional service.

It also brings up legal issues to ensure you are covering...to protect yourself and those you serve. For example: Are you a registered sober living home in order to be under the protection of state regs (so local codes don't apply)? Do you have appropriate program documentation to protect against federal fair housing laws and claims of discrimination? Funders will need assurance you have legal oversight as well.

"Tentmaking" (funding through outside income) is still a viable method of starting and funding a ministry, but the above questions are still relevant. God's clear leading should/will be accompanied with like-minded people wanting to help.

Quite a few people ask me about starting a nonprofit, and I always state, "DON'T"!

First couple yourself with a local or nearby similar organization and work under and with them -- and learn. (When my son wanted to get a horse, he spent a year volunteering at a horse ranch before buying his own) Oft times, after proving yourself, they will be open to suggestions in serving your area of interest. Then, and only IF that organization's goals do not match what you see as a clear leading from God, should you strike out on your own...hopefully with their blessing and support. I never endorse a new work too similar and too close to another viable current work unless the goals are significantly different. Dilution of your community's support and donor funding, along with a potential competitive spirit and confusion to the public serves to harm the ministry. This happens far too often.

These are just a few items for discussion. Let's meet at our fall conference and talk more about it. 

Blessings!  Read my article: Critical Shift

Want to start a new nonprofit? Don't!

Want to start a new nonprofit? Don't do it! Well, at least not yet . . . Instead, involve yourself in a similar existing nonprofit; increase or broaden their capacity; and learn from them... Then - and only then! - only if your service and mission are dissimilar enough, should you consider a new nonprofit. What usually happens with the growth of new nonprofits in a community today is a tragic duplication of services and a dilution of funding across the sector - weakening all nonprofits. Collaboration is the "critical shift" for both new and old nonprofits alike.
Click to read my article:

Do You Launder "Tainted" Donations?

Is there any donation for which the source of would require your nonprofit to refuse? What do you consider tainted money? Gambling, soft or hard liquor sales, non-PC investments....? When would you say "no thank you" to a donor? Or does it matter, and why or why not? When should the nonprofit responsibly scrutinize the source of charitable donations?

Nonprofits need to ask these questions.

Usually it is the Christian or other organization that takes a moral stand on issues, or serves at-risk clients, that questions the source of their funding. Some foundations limit allocating investments to those funds they consider socially responsible. Boards are now developing donor policies that prohibit investments and/or donations perceived as not being in alignment with the organization’s core values. However, in this season of economic decline, can nonprofits afford to be picky? As a nonprofit CEO whose organizations serve those affected by addictions, I’ve had to wrestle with this question.

During a round-table discussion with other homeless shelter executives, this topic came up and the responses were from both extremes: While one CEO based in California’s wine country readily accepted the lead donation for a capital campaign from a famous vintner, a fellow CEO denounced that, stating in no uncertain terms that he would never accept such a tainted gift.

A personal experience came after giving a tour of our homeless shelter ministry to a local businesswoman who owned a high-end restaurant and custom jewelry and art gallery on upscale El Paseo Drive in Palm Desert, CA. Upon exiting our aging women’s’ shelter, with her eyes misting over, she exclaimed she was going to help the Mission build a new shelter. She created a fundraiser titled “Winefest: Celebrating Wine, Food, and Art.” She flew in top restaurateurs, vintners, and art for one night in her art gallery; and invited her clientele, including Stephanie Powers and Clint Eastwood . . . and underwriting the total cost of the event. At $500 a head, and exotic auction items from celebrity clients, she raised $750,000 in three years – enough to purchase 8 acres for a new shelter campus! How could we not accept such heartfelt charity, especially as it was her event, with little participation from Mission staff or board!

Or the call I got from Jesse James’ executive assistant asking if my organization would like to be the recipient of the annual West Coast Choppers charity motorcycle rally. Should I accept a $5000 gift from such an infamous character? (I did readily accept it, but that was prior to his life hitting the fan). These are examples of donor-owned and directed events – of which we were the recipient. I would not have necessarily created either event, nor sought out these donors to do so for us.

Have we considered what service and ministry we provide to donors in accepting their donations? Realistically, each nonprofit will have their own limit to undesirable funding. At some point that decision will have to be made – and such a decision should be made prior to having to make it. What should constrain donations to your organization: your mission, core values, media coverage that construes ill will with a major portion of your donor base – or that triggers community sensibilities? Does the questionable donation seek to control your program services or pull you off core purposes, or does it provide public notoriety to the donor?

I sometimes wish we had such a problem more often, as deciding whether to accept large donations . . . but somewhere in the midst of our policy and practices, we are making that decision daily without realizing it. There is a limit to what scrutiny we can provide into our donors’ charitable intentions. However, where there is clear intent of a donor to personally benefit or control, nonprofit executives and boards need to be willing and able to “just say no.” Otherwise, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

we're expecting from the world what we're not doing

While I am shocked that American's spent $1.5 billion this past week at an infinitesimal chance at winning a lottery, I hold more disappointment for the Church. Why? A mere tithe of that amount could have put a huge dent in the issue of homelessness. However, the issue is rooted in a lack of stewardship.

Recent news stories are evidence of the Church’s failure to provide needed steward leadership. Faith leaders decry the recent GOP budget proposal, citing its oppression of the poor. Critics charge that it balances the budget on the back of the poor while not sufficiently taxing the wealthy. Members of the Faithful Budget Campaign demand more aid supported by increased taxation – calling on national leaders to: “act with mercy and justice by serving the common good, robustly funding support for poor and vulnerable people, both at home and abroad, and exercising proper care and keeping of the earth.” The incongruity for this writer is these leaders want the government to do what they are not doing – at least not to the extent that the historical Christian Church has done on its own.

They’ve forgotten that subsequent to Christianity becoming the accepted religion of Constantine’s empire, “government” resources supplanted the Church’s role as provider of public assistance. It was during this period that the response to needs became institutionalized as social service. What had been considered personal hospitality became separated and distant from the church and the home. Charity became so far removed from the church that in the fourth and fifth centuries John Chrysostom challenged that “hospitality remained a personal, individual responsibility as well,” urging Christians to make a place for the needy in their homes to serve “the maimed, the beggars, and the homeless.”

Even Emperor Julian (a.d. 362) provides historical evidence of Christian charity as the sole responsibility of the Church, and directed those of his own religion to “imitate Christian concern for strangers,”

“For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort.”

Later, John Calvin admonished the Church, for the “demise of ancient hospitality,” toward those in need:

“This office of humanity has . . . nearly ceased to be properly observed among men; for the ancient hospitality celebrated in histories, in unknown to us, and [public] inns now supply the place of accommodations for strangers.”

He warned that the increasing dependence on inns rather than on personal hospitality was an expression of human depravity.

I don’t see the Church giving nor serving as it should; many merely call for more government action. While current church-based giving has reportedly dropped by $1.2 billion last year, it’s still a reality that if Christians tithed, the resulting funding available to God’s work would be nearly 2/3rds of recent stimulus spending. But it’s not just the lack of funds at issue; it’s what ministry leaders are misspending. Currently the families of Trinity Broadcasting Network and Chrystal Cathedral are fighting over millions of assets and control of their empires. The public is treated to weekly reports of misuse of charitable donations and the breakdown of relationships in various ministries. It’s no wonder Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle are considering capping charitable deductions – to both secular and religious organizations.

If that isn’t enough, nonprofit postage rates are at risk, as well as the definition of what constitutes a “religious” organization. Non-sectarian religious nonprofits may face raising funds without such exemptions and tax-deductible benefits; likely crushing many under fiscal collapse and dissolution.

The Church needs to do what it is supposed to do . . . without the assistance of taxpayers. I find no directive to love one’s neighbor after first raising taxes. On the contrary, we are to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. To expect of the world what is our responsibility is falling short of steward leadership. To fail at stewardship is to fail in our faith.

AGRM DC Forum on Policy and Advocacy

Spending a couple days in the seat of our republic for most people is an exercise in observing history, memorials, and art – not necessarily an observation of our political process . . . unless one goes there to influence that process in order to get something (if only a gallery pass). In joining 38 fellow leaders in our Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, I spent two days doing the latter . . . not to get funding, but to ask for continued ability to serve our community.

You see, many of the regulations that come from DC hamper fundraising and provision of services through onerous regulation and tax law. The issues we took to the offices of our Congressional representatives involved: a cap on charitable deductions; a potential loss of nonprofit postal rate discount; fixing vehicle donation rules; and the erosion of the definition of “religious organization” by narrowing it to an ecclesiastical church. My observations of our issues and meetings with representatives are mixed.

In sharing with staffers (who actually wield the power in DC), their response varied according to party and office. My meetings with two Senate staffers were met with a measure of aloofness and push-back against our issues. Even though we weren’t asking for funding, they made plain to us that our requests were clearly seen as expenditures; any reduction in tax revenue due to charitable deductions was a loss to them. As if the money was already theirs to begin with . . . and there was little admittance of savings to government services due to the services we provide. It was obvious that they saw what we do as within their preview. When one asked for the CBO “score” of our legislative issues it was evident that the gain or loss to tax revenue would be the deciding factor rather than principle. One actually began to argue with our position on religious exemption with their partisan argument of the need for government to ensure equal access, rather than address the long-standing moral exemption provided to religious organizations.

On the other hand, congressional staffers took more time and asked questions – sometimes surprised at our statistics of services provided and impact of regulations on our operations. A lot of notes were taken, and there seemed to be genuine interest in what we do and the struggle we have in this economy. Their raised level of interest was perhaps because the representatives are closer to us and our issues – if not outright concern for their constituents (and that we would take the time to visit them). When I shared that because of withdrawing principle from an investment in response to our emergency funding request, one donor paid more than 30% tax on their charitable gift, the absurdity of that issue hit home.

As mentioned earlier, it was evident who controls the inflow of information to our elected leaders. But it was brought home when I heard of one representative who, upon leaving the office for a 15 minute floor vote, asked the staffer, “This one is a YES, right?” I think we need to trust these staffers as much as those we actually elected to get our message to them.

Do I think it worth the efforts of the thousands of people who make the trek to DC each day to bring issues and requests to staffers – and hopefully to our elected representatives? I think so . . . it was obvious that some of what we shared was news to them and brought a fresh understanding of how regulations and legislation affect those of us who provide critical services to the most at risk in our communities. WE are the safety net – not government services. Although a letter can do some of that – sitting across from us, hearing our stories, and seeing our concern will, I believe, accomplish so much more . . . if only continued freedom to raise funds and serve others in the Name of Christ.

Organizational Leadership: Considerations for a Nonprofit Merger ~ Part 6

“No nonprofit organization can survive and succeed in advancing its mission while living independently of other nonprofits. Organizations gain information, political power, and personal and professional support from and in concert with other nonprofits. Thus, close working relationships, partnerships and even joint ventures between nonprofit organizations are a fairly natural occurrence.” ~ David La Piana

Organizational Leadership: Considerations for a Nonprofit Merger ~ © by James K. Lewis

STEWARDING CHANGE

What is the role of the leader seeking to assist his or her (or another’s) organization in creating change? In The Making of a Leader, Robert Clinton asks successful leaders to expect to be led into these types of situations in which God will use them to humbly undertake action in the life of other leaders [or organizations]. This action can be through: affirming or encouraging leadership potential; offering guidance on a special issue; giving insights that broaden the leader [or organization]; challenging the leader [or organization] Godward; or opening a door to ministry opportunity [or collaboration] (Clinton 1988, 149 brackets mine).

Resistance
Resistance to needed change can be due to several issues. Resolving change and its related conflict through the abuse of position and/or power are common maladies – such as the founder refusing to step aside, or a board chair disallowing discussion on the topic. Staff resistance – either preceding or subsequent to decision-making time – may create additional issues. An existing dysfunction of the organization, or the breakdown of a successful transformation, may be caused by an incongruence between people’s actions and the organization’s stated values. Addressing this mis-fitting of people to organizational values cannot be overstated; as Peter Drucker said in an interview with Bruce Rosenstein, “When people are very unhappy, they are in a position that the values of the organization don’t fit them.” The result is that they must be assisted into other work. (Rosenstein)

It is imperative in this scenario for the leader to focus attention on the primary purpose of the organization . . . that is, the sustaining of the mission of the organization. If the mission cannot be continued through an alliance with or mentoring by another organization, then the choice will be between a merger and acquisition, whereby the organization’s core purposes are sustained by and through the resulting entity. If the mission has been sufficiently accomplished, then either the reimagining or dissolution of the organization is the appropriate and normative choice. It takes a sensitive leader and/or consultant to lead the board and the staff to either of those responsible conclusions.

To reiterate: the role of the leader is to steward change in such a manner that the core mission is sustained. If it is determined that the mission has been completed, unless the mission is revised, the organization’s life-cycle is at its end. The leader must then develop the process for the required transformation of the organization, or for the legal dissolution of the organization.

Responding to Change
While the leader may be working on the process for change within the organization or with another entity, he or she must recognize and address specific change issues. In Reframing Change: Training, Realigning, Negotiating, Grieving, and Moving On, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal outline several critical strategies leaders must implement in order to realize success through change of this magnitude. Three of these that I will share here are Realignment, Conflict, and Loss (Bolman and Deal 2006, 447-469).

The leader needs to begin to realign the organization’s structures to invite and provide the impetus for change. While an organization’s maladies may have developed due to deterioration or lack of structure, this is the time to act. The need for structure at this time is more imperative than ever; people need clarity, predictability, and security. Policies and procedures become welcome and bring cohesiveness to an otherwise chaotic work environment. Often, people are looking for structure in this scenario. Additionally, the formal delineation of authority informs all concerned who is responsible and provides continuity.

Change often brings about discord, which requires a leader to be able to identify the real issues, develop collaborative efforts and provide an environment in which discord can be mediated towards common ground. Two conflicting, and sometimes alternating, responses to change are status quo (to hold onto past accomplishments), and ignoring the situation (staying busy enough or throwing money into the organization hoping that the problems will go away – or solve themselves). The loss of what “once was” can also cause paralysis, and in the midst of responding to the changes, leaders and staff can go through cycles of grief. Providing appropriate counsel during this time will help the staff to handle the challenges and uncertainty they face.

Human Assets
In coping with the issues within a merger or acquisition, leaders must recognize the pressures that are being carried by our most important asset – our staff; human beings with feelings for the past and dreams for the future. Appropriately responding to how people deal with change is likely the most critical element for the success or failure of the organizations involved (Beckhard 2006, 12). Critical to the success of the resulting organization is the communication of its mission and core values that the staff is charged with embracing while supporting the development of new direction and purpose of the organization (Lawler 2006, 551).

Bolman and Deal also address several issues that leaders must assist staff in facing as the organization transitions and realizes stability through change: values, symbols, and celebration. It is crucial for people to be able to hold onto their organization’s core values. For many these values are what kept them in the ministry, struggling in order to provide crucial services for individuals in need and to benefit their community; perhaps having been asked to give up compensation and forgo raises, but remained loyal to the organization rather than taking a more lucrative position outside the ministry and the nonprofit sector.

Ensuring that symbols—either real or perceived—are protected and endure beyond the restructuring may help in dealing with the loss of what they identified with in the organization and its ministry. Keeping a logo or being identified in name as a ministry of the surviving organization can keep that flame alive for those surviving the change. Investing in ceremony is also an encouraging process that aids in bringing the positive to the forefront of significant change and celebrating a successful transition.

Organizational Leadership: Considerations for a Nonprofit Merger ~ Part 5

“No nonprofit organization can survive and succeed in advancing its mission while living independently of other nonprofits. Organizations gain information, political power, and personal and professional support from and in concert with other nonprofits. Thus, close working relationships, partnerships and even joint ventures between nonprofit organizations are a fairly natural occurrence.” ~ David La Piana

Organizational Leadership: Considerations for a Nonprofit Merger ~ © by James K. Lewis

OPTIONS FOR CHANGE

Although this paper is discussing mergers and acquisitions, these may not necessarily be the most effective way to deal with the issues at hand. The duty of the steward leader, in concert with his or her staff team and board of directors, is to determine the best course of action for the preservation and sustainability of the organization’s mission. A leader may find that a temporary mentoring, collaboration, or strategic alliance may be the best tool to get the organization on surer footing, providing time to determine the long-term solution. One option I spoke of in a previous paper is increased collaboration with the local church. One should keep all options open at the outset as he or she becomes more aware of the extent of the issues the organization is facing (Carlson and Donohoe 2010, 215-216).

A broadened outlook by an independent third party—such as a consultant or potential partner—can go far in revealing potential blind spots that the leader may have overlooked. Consultation with a professional, or collaborating with a potential partner—although sometimes difficult due to pride and fear of change—can be a great benefit in combining efforts, developing broader resources, and identifying common mission, vision, and core values with others.

While identifying potential joint ventures, in The Executive Director’s Guide to Thriving as a Nonprofit Leader, Carlson and Donohoe discuss several formal options available to the organization seeking partnership opportunities:

• Joint programming or Joint Venture: Broadly defined actions such as program collaboration between nonprofits that may serve to minimize duplication and, competition, or jointly doing business, fundraising, or awareness campaigns.

• Administrative Consolidation: Sharing core administrative functions. Each keeps their separate boards and staffs, however, a portion or all of support systems are shared, such as Accounting, Payroll and HR functions.

• Merger: The legal and permanent blending of two or more entities into a separate entity. Agreeing to integrate processes, programs, governance, and staff – establishing an entirely new organization that merges all operations and programs. This is sometimes referred to as a consolidation.

• Acquisition: Much the same as a merger, except that the surviving entity is usually the larger and/or more capable organization that assumes control of the smaller organization. Much of what is termed “merger” is actually an acquisition of a smaller, weaker organization by a larger, more successful, or well-known organization. Although the term acquisition can have negative connotations, the benefit of both merger and acquisition is the designed potential of the resulting organization being greater than the sum of each organization.

• Only vaguely alluded to by Carlson and Donohoe, is mentoring – or what they might call collaborative assistance. As a stronger, more able organization—and/or perhaps a consultant—comes alongside of a struggling organization, a relational collaboration can take place – helping strengthen that weaker organization in areas of needed growth. This is especially helpful when the organizations are not similar in mission, program or values, perhaps as a preliminary step for those considering a merger or acquisition.

Case Studies

In the following three situations, six organizations followed one of the above scenarios with positive outcomes:

1. In light of external forces causing downsizing and other remedial responses in two similarly recognized and successful organizations, one of the boards sought a discussion with the other on how they could work more closely together – initially without including the topic of merging. They came to recognize their joint efforts could be more powerful and effective than continuing separately. One of the CEOs was skilled in program and the other in administration. As one CEO was adverse to a co-leadership position, the boards set one in place as CEO of a true merger of the two organizations, and the other over program/operations. (Frank 2011)

2. RRM was a newer, larger, more successful and well-managed—but lesser known—service provider. SHMC was a much smaller, less funded—but more recognized—service provider in the same town. Due to external economic and operational issues, they both sensed a need to collaborate – especially when both faced the loss of their respective properties. After an initial period of trading staff and testing the culture of the new combined team, the two boards came together and accepted the acquisition of the larger by the smaller, joining the name, using the prefix of the more recognized name of SHRM. Although a true acquisition, they used the term “merger” as it was more acceptable to the community, who recognized great benefit in this apparent joining of efforts, rather than an acquisition of the more recognized by the other. It was seen as the biggest thing to happen in the Province in years. So positive was this collaboration that they were able to present a new giving opportunity, resulting in a gain of about three thousand new donors in the first year alone. Also, having a single provider, people were less confused about which to support. (Porter 2011)

3. Unlike the first two cases, a third set of organizations realized that one of them desperately needed help and initiated a discussion about how the stronger could best serve the other. Upon examination of the differences in culture and programs, the more established organization offered to come alongside the weaker one and support its reorganization and strengthening through mentoring; leaving intact both viable organizations continuing to serve the community. (Anon 2011)

These are examples of merger, acquisition, and collaborative assistance (or mentoring), respectively. Although these narratives are brief—without detailing issues and processes—they serve to illustrate that every situation calls for its own remedy for a successful outcome. The critical issue is finding the process and outcome that best sustains the mission of the organization and serves the community. Some cases may require amending the mission – or, if there is no longer a recognized related need, to dissolve the organization.

Organizational Leadership: Considerations for a Nonprofit Merger ~ Part 4

“No nonprofit organization can survive and succeed in advancing its mission while living independently of other nonprofits. Organizations gain information, political power, and personal and professional support from and in concert with other nonprofits. Thus, close working relationships, partnerships and even joint ventures between nonprofit organizations are a fairly natural occurrence.” ~ David La Piana

Organizational Leadership: Considerations for a Nonprofit Merger ~ © by James K. Lewis

Organizational Reluctance

A reluctance to act is often due to complacency based on many fruitful years of funding and stable compensation. Many larger nonprofits began to model for-profit corporations, and nonprofits became attractive destinations for the corporate executive. The reluctance of the government to provide oversight of the nonprofit sector also played into this contentment, until issues began to crop up in larger, national nonprofits. Revelations of high compensation and benefits invited investigation, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 began to be increasingly enforced upon the nonprofit public benefit corporations on a larger scale. Recently, the U.S. Congress started holding extensive hearings about nonprofits. Until these troubles began to manifest themselves, there were few market forces to compel additional governance, consolidation, or restructuring of nonprofit organizations.

This lack of discipline led to inadequate regular and rational methodologies of measuring services and outcomes. Some business-savvy nonprofit leaders do not necessarily differentiate between sectors, and similarly fail to recognize that one does not measure nonprofit performance in the same manner as for-profit businesses. Equally detrimental, many nonprofits lack discipline in developing consistent and rational methods of assessing output and tracking. Jim Collins, in Good to Great and the Social Sectors gets direct in this matter when he admonishes the leader that “It doesn’t matter whether you can quantify your results. What matters is that you rigorously assemble evidence—quantitative or qualitative—to track your progress.” (Collins 2005, 7) Many nonprofits merely lack the know-how or resources to measure their program results. However, this information can be critical for improving their activities and reporting to funders. While nonprofits were formed with the best of intentions, merely “doing good” is not sufficient in light of economic downturns.

With wise foresight Peter Drucker, in Managing for the Future: 1990s and Beyond, warned of the temptation of resting on the “goodness of our cause.” There needs to be a shift from the “good cause” mentality to one of accountability and results [with a view of ROI]. Unfortunately, nonprofit organizations develop a strong emotional attachment to [services they provide] and a resistance to facing reality. Drucker provides an illustration of this resistance to change from an old medical saying: “‘As long as the patient eliminates there is a chance. But once the bowels and the bladder stop, death does not take long.’ If organizations cannot get rid of their waste products, they poison themselves. They must organize abandonment.” (Drucker 1993, 206, 229, 340 brackets mine).

Facing Reality & Awareness

Henry Cloud, in Integrity: The Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality discusses the need to face up to new realities and question what the world is really like – rather than rest on assertions and assumptions that made sense a few years ago. Many nonprofit leaders do not desire quantitative feedback, but it is only by looking at reality will we see our true strengths and weaknesses. Once a leader accepts reality he or she can examine how to best develop assimilation and accommodation . . . to change and adapt the organizational culture and context (Cloud 2006, 116-117, 133-138).

There needs to be both awareness that something has changed, and someone in a “strategic position” to effect change. Some conditional awareness that can motivate this process for change is a:
• Need to change managerial strategy
• Need to make the organizational climate consistent with individual and environmental changes
• Need to change cultural norms
• Need to change structure and roles
• Need to improve (or introduce) intergroup collaboration
• Need to open up the communications system
• Need for better planning
• Need for coping with problems of merger
• Need for change in motivation of the workforce
• Need for adaptation to a new environment

Any one, or a combination of conditions, too long ignored may bring about the decline of an organization and the need for examination of reorganization and/or restructuring, including consolidation or merging with another entity or if needed, acquisition. Glenn Parker, writing in Organizational Development, discusses conflict and denial as conditions that call for assessing the organization (Parker 2006, 664).

In this scenario, there has likely been an ongoing ignoring or denying of dysfunction that begged to be addressed, but the hesitancy to recognize a shift in reality, or new paradigms, leads to a weakness in the organization. Whether it is prior to, or subsequent to a merger, the failure to address the human problems is inevitably destructive to the health of the organization (Beckhard 2006, 10). This dysfunction has the most likelihood of affecting staff cohesiveness and organizational synergy; thus furthering the demise of the organization. Before such injurious effect is realized, a leader should begin to investigate options for the survival of the organization.

"Porker Fundraising"?

A recent Press Telegram editorial on "Porker Fundraising" painted nonprofit charities with a pretty broad brush. The so-called charities they mention that pass on little to actual programs are often professional money machines and do not reflect what our local charities are doing. When a charity calls, potential donors should always ask, "How much of my dollar goes directly to the programs?" Then get their tax ID number and find them on Guidestar.org.

Due to the past public flaws of large national charities, regulations for nonprofits are being made more strict each year. Even small charities will now have to file some form of an annual 990 - a nonprofit's tax return. Organizations such as Guidestar, Network for Good, and Charity Navigator make it easy for the public examination of any charity.

Financials, annual goals, board members and other information is just a few clicks away. Christian charities who are not certified members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (http://www.ecfa.org/) should be carefully vetted prior to making any donation - if you give to them at all. Here in Long Beach you should check if a nonprofit is a member of the LB Nonprofit Partnership or the Chamber.

The Long Beach Rescue Mission endeavors to provide quality services while building trust with its donors through honest donor appeals and transparent financial accountability. While increasing budget for needed expansion of programs and staffing, we have been able to keep our fundraising under 15% for the last two years. How a nonprofit allocates expenses is often the best way to measure program effectiveness. But beware of functional expense allocations that hide fundraising within printing, postage, or contractor fees. Also check to see how the chief executive and other administrative staff compensation is allocated; many times that is allocated to program only, not to management or fundraising.

Capital campaigns for critically needed expansion and infrastructure as well as donor acquisition may temporarily inflate fundraising, which is not indicative of mismanagement. Just as in business, it takes money to raise money. The difference is that in a nonprofit, no one individual may receive personal benefit. It is not easy leading a nonprofit these days and it takes as much or more business acumen for a charity to be successful as does a for-profit.

Is there a local community service charity that you are interested in helping? Sit down with the organization's chief executive and ask questions. The best questions to ask are: What is your mission statement? What are your core values; i.e. what drives your programs? What percentage goes to program; what has been the average over 5 years? Do you have an annual independent audit? Are financials made available to the public? What is your debt load, if any? Is the organization certified by a national association? Is the executive staff involved in the community beyond the four walls of the organization?

Then ask yourself a few questions: Does the mission statement of the charity and your interests align? Do you feel comfortable with the organization's leadership and communications? Charities working with the least and the last of our society need strong community support, and in such a busy world as ours it is difficult to find good leaders to provide proper board oversight. Are you willing to give of yourself beyond a check to see them succeed? Volunteering is a good way in which to investigate a potential major gift investment. A well-run community charity is an excellent entity in which to leave a legacy, but often the last consideration in one's planned giving.

The key is finding a cause that is close to your heart and investing your time, talent and treasure into it; you and the needy of our community will be blessed for your investment.

Commentary on Nonprofits

With the growth of nonprofits setting a breakneck pace we are barraged with a never-ending stream of mail, infomercials, and appeals to give. All too often donors to nonprofits or parachurch organizations do not consider fiscal responsibility or accountability of the organization when writing their checks. Donors respond to needs or to perceptions of need without much thought for their giving being an investment in the Kingdom of God – as Scripture directs.

Fundraisers know all too well how to craft messages to move people to give. Often the elderly will be moved to give due to a tug on their heartstrings as they see infomercials showing needy children or critical needs in the world. Marketing groups study giving patterns in order to more directly focus on your giving patterns – just as shopping club cards enable grocery stores to market to your specific shopping trends. In recent years we have also seen giving increase dramatically in response to tsunamis, earthquakes or other natural disasters – often to the financial detriment of local ministries.

But the questions we should be asking are: is the nonprofit ministry really serving a need; are they well run; do they provide proper due diligence and exercise fiduciary responsibility with donor funds? A more important issue is: in what ways do Christians consider their giving as a stewardship of God’s treasure that is entrusted to them? If they do, then they may well need to heed signs of a nonprofit’s wellbeing and stability when considering their giving.

In this column I will share some basics for giving, whether to Christian ministries or local community nonprofits; issues that should guide our giving as we seek to be stewards of God’s time, talent, and treasure.

To start, one should recognize whether the organization claims to serve as a Christian ministry or a secular nonprofit. If as a Christian ministry, we need to begin by asking if that organization is truly Christian in their foundation and operations – are they acting or serving in my place as a believer. Most faith-based organizations will have a Statement of Faith (SOF). If they are members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) they must subscribe to a clearly evangelical SOF. This seven element statement covers the essentials of the Christian faith (here is a summary):
1. Belief in the Bible as the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God
2. Belief in the eternally existent persons in the Trinity
3. Belief in the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, sinless life, miracles, atoning death through His shed blood, bodily resurrection and ascension, and His personal return
4. Belief in the need for salvation of the lost and absolute need for regeneration by the Holy Spirit
5. Belief in the present work of the Holy Spirit who enables a godly life
6. Belief in the resurrection of the saved and lost – unto eternal life or damnation
7. Belief in the spiritual unity of all believers, with equality across racial, gender and class

There are two primary reasons why any such a requirement exists in a Christian organization: one relates to why it exists in the first place – its purpose; is it truly serving as an extension of the Church. The other relates to the preservation and continuity of that purpose; is the leadership continuing the original Christian purpose of its founder. For those desiring a more in-depth look at the purpose of a Statement of Faith I will provide a summary paper upon request.

This column should start us thinking about the organizations we support and question if they are truly representative of the Church, and us, as they serve the helpless and hurting in our place as Good Samaritans. Further columns will focus on board leadership, financial statements and audits, allocation of funds, conflicts of interest, and critical issues within fundraising. With the ever-encroaching oversight and regulations of the IRS in our churches and nonprofits, we need to be much better stewards of our resources. I hope these columns will be a help to you in that process.

Mailbox Missionaries

Overhearing her mother and my conversation about bills and our limited funds, our 9 year-old daughter piped up, “Maybe there will be a check in the mail today for $200!”

In 1989, after being accepted as approved missionary candidates with Wycliffe Bible Translators, it was recommended that I get further training in avionics and acquire my FAA General Airframe Mechanic certification in order to better serve in Communications – my technical support missionary position would require installation of equipment and antennas on aircraft. Having recently left my position with Eastman Kodak as a Field Engineer – and its relatively secure salary and benefits – our family of 6 was residing in East Tennessee while I attended Moody Aviation.

But while we were only approved candidates, we could not raise financial support through Wycliffe until this course was completed and we were ready to continue our Wycliffe training. So, we had written our friends, explaining to them our quest toward missionary service, and left it to the leading of the Lord through them for our personal support . . . we were now “Mailbox Missionaries”.

Later that day the mail was opened and there was, indeed, a check for $200; the faith of a little girl and her family was fulfilled and strengthened. Through these vignettes of God working through His people, we were able to trust that our support would be realized and His work would go on as an extension of those who supported and prayed for us.

Such is the plight of para-church ministries and nonprofit charities like the Long Beach Rescue Mission that do not receive government funding, but rely primarily upon the generosity of donors in order to provide critical services to the homeless, poor and needy. This work is only possible through the partnership of others who sense the call to reach out and fulfill the command of God to treat these people as we would the Lord Himself.

Many bemoan the numerous pieces of mail that tend to flood our mailboxes. But I realize that educating the public on services that we provide and the opportunity for changed lives is often the only way the average person will know of our work. Almost every time we conclude a tour of our facility we hear the comment, “I didn’t realize you did all this”; and this from those who have been supporting us for years!

The concern of the public for the percentage of their donated funds used for solicitation is warranted. Responsible and concerned donors can check out charities on websites such as Guidestar.org and review nonprofits’ 990 reports. If a 990 is not available, it is often an indication that the charity is reportedly operating as a church, and therefore not required to file a 990. Donors should carefully consider religious charities not filing 990s; this lack of reporting limits accountability of nonprofits and shields information such as program/administration/fundraising ratios from public scrutiny and limits the donor’s responsibility as a steward of their giving.

However, the mechanics of fundraising and accountability should not be allowed overshadow the ministry accomplished by small charities who exist primarily as “Mailbox Missionaries.” The stack of response envelopes that come in the mail each day (some stacks a lot smaller than we’d like) are the lifeblood of critical services to the poor and needy and can often limit our ability to offer that hand-up and the opportunity for a changed life. When you consider supporting a ministry beyond your normal church tithe, consider if that organization is utilizing every inch of its facilities, every donated penny, and every offered prayer for the service of others and to the glory of God.

And the next time you see that envelop in your mailbox, remember a little girl and a young missionary family whose faith was answered through someone responding to a need. The possibilities that your support provides toward the faith of the organization and those individuals and families that benefit are endless. Your support is an extension of the church’s responsibility to reach out to a needy world – and often, it is through a response to a piece of mail.