The “10 years after welfare reform” articles of this past summer are old news, of course. Not surprisingly, indications were that, like any public policy, reform hadn’t been the all-time poverty solution, but that policies had, in fact, helped a significant number of people to move themselves to self-sufficiency. A recent Wall Street Journal series highlighted the broad range of issues related to moving out of poverty. A companion piece to the December 28 entry, “Economists Are Putting Theories to Scientific Test” notes that MIT has set up a center called the Abdul Latif Jameeel Poverty Action Lab focused exclusively on using experiments to study poverty.

Revisiting public policy and referenceing research can be insightful, especially as we attempt to make responsible end-of-the-year financial contribution decisions. What did pundits and experts alike argue is effective compassion, and how far on or off the mark are they in comparison to our own giving standards?

There is an abundance of good how-to-give-responsibly material from varied sources. With the Buffet donation and the Clinton philanthropy meeting in Little Rock, even recent international stories, Big Donors are making their legacy marks. Few of us have such resources, however. Does that mean that very limited, perhaps virtually unnoticed giving is any less valuable?

Less self-focus and more other-focus is a good thing, approached differently but consistently across the world’s faith doctrines. A New Testament Gospel parable underscores the relative value of giving.....not relative to world impact but relative to the personal sacrifice required of the giver.

The story of the Widow’s Mite is worth revisiting. Interestingly, Wikipedia reports: “This tale is held by most modern Christians to mean that a gift should to be judged not by its absolute value, but by how it compares relatively; that it is not the impressiveness or purchasing power which matters, but what it means.” There is theological debate about the ‘true meaning’ of the parable. I’ll leave such to the theologians and consider a ‘face value’ interpretation. There is a quality about sacrificial giving that facilitates my being a better person. To give sacrificially rather than from abundance means that I probably considered my own needs (wants, most likely), weighed them against neighbors’ need, and determined to put the others before myself.

It appears that ready sacrifice isn’t so especially American these days. Unlike the American culture that marveled Tocqueville, twenty first century America is ruefully referred to as the “me” culture--me first, me now, more for me, is there any other consideration except me? Brokaw referred to Americans of World War II era as “the greatest generation.” Sacrifice was a way of life--literally of life, of resources, of simple sacrifices such as sugar and gasoline. But just as our growing abundance has empowered Big Donors to make a Big Impact, has personal sacrifice for others been eclipsed? Arthur Brooks certifies that Americans remain the most generous, and more interestingly, those with less give more

But I’m not just musing over personal sacrifice in the amount given. Am I deferring to personal comfort and ease, i.e., online giving, vs. my having to make a more concerted effort to determine both program and financial effectiveness of a charity helping needy neighbors?

I questioned a Generation Y colleague, who of course is technically astute. Was I reflecting my age, working from an assumption that personal connection was of higher value, that deferring to click (Internet) donation was a contender to Subsidiarity? He offered some insights about the ease of accessing global information about need, that my “needy neighbors” now could reasonably include global neighbors vs. only those in my own community. And I’m not pushing facilitators of online giving in to a questionable position. Many of the charities that we know well now have the capacity to accept online donations.

So this is the recommended benchmark: Give sacrificially. Make the personal effort to discern your need from want and then compare to your neighbor’s need......next door or across the globe. If possible, use the Internet to investigate how well your charity of choice invests resources that you give them. Investigate just how much an Internet “giving intermediary” takes for processing. Don’t ever discount the needs of your own community, those perhaps with no Website, not in high profile charity registries, but helpful to your neighbors with food and health needs, challenged teens, people who simply need a friend.

Those personal expenditures are the epitome of personal sacrifice......and worthy of being categorized with the widow who gave her mite.

John Stossel’s 20/20 show last Wednesday night, “Cheap in America,” asked the tough questions about American generosity. It was an intriguing piece, weaving contrasting arguments for two key conclusions: Bureaucracies, government ones and even big charity ones (national or international), just don’t do as good a job as private, local donors and charities; and (2) Americans are truly more generous than any other people on the planet--no matter their means. Rich and poor alike give generously.

So the “Cheap Americans” slogans making their way around the globe are simply wrong. The well-intended persuaders, even personally generous high-profile Americans, who argue that poverty and disaster relief solutions rest with a bigger portion of the US GNP, demonstrate incomplete information at best, inaccurate at worst.

Stossel interviewed Arthur Brooks, someone I’ve had the pleasure of recently talking with at different charity award events. His new book Who Really Cares, rooted in extensive research of American charity, has made him a high profile voice at a most opportune time of year. He says, “When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30% more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.” Stereotypes that liberals care more and give more, and that a higher income means increased generosity simply aren’t supported.

So one point is clear, defensible, and should motivate that worthy end-of-year giving: Charity does it better. Private donations are more substantial and yield more positive effects on the givers and receivers than any government effort. Volunteerism, direct involvement with those in need, is extremely powerful and productive.

There’s a second, equally critical point, interestingly not in the sites of the “more government money to fight world poverty” campaigns: effective giving. Give to organizations that transform people’s lives and communities.

Jesus told a parable that emphasized stewardship (Luke 19). Don’t “just give,” with no discernment. Marvin Olasky put practical guidelines on such giving with his 7 Principles of Effective Compassion. Maclellan Foundation’s Marketplace encourages givers to be both intentional and proactive. There are multiple charity evaluation tools, albeit with different emphais and valuation paradigms. Due diligence results in good stewardship.

That’s a good reason to include investigation of local needs; the credibility of the appeals and the organizations are more easily verified. Don’t overlook such community needs amid the high gloss, professionally prepared stack of appeals that have already arrived in your mailbox.

Today’s online Philanthropy News Digest carries a story about high hopes among some charity hospital fundraisers based on current stock market performance. And hospitals that include significant charity services do have valid need. But what about little charities? Linda Czipo, executive director of the Center for Nonprofit Corporations in New Brunswick, adds “Not all organizations are going to benefit equally. For small organizations, the impact won’t be as large.”

Individual good stewards can change that proclamation. Giving that is direct, personal, and accountable is the best to give or to receive. Oprah gave her October 30 show audience a chance to prove that. Every member of Oprah’s audience went home with $1,000 and a Sony DVD Handycam with the challenge to “Pay it Forward” to others.…but there was a catch. Oprah challenged more than 300 audience members to donate their money to a charitable cause. Sisters Kristy O’Conner and Kasey Osborne Lumpp were in that audience.

After making some calls, the sisters came upon Atlanta Union Mission and its women and children’s center, My Sister’s House. Once they decided to help the Mission, they took Oprah’s challenge and worked to multiply the effects of their gift. The sisters did not stop with their respective $1,000 contributions. Instead, they asked Q100 for help in getting word out to the community about the needs of Atlanta Union Mission’s My Sisters House. Q100 jumped on board and asked Kroger to be a collection site for donations. In addition, the Mission has been featured every morning on Q100 this week with live interviews with staff, clients, and Kristy and Kasey. They also went to every retailer they could find soliciting donations for the Mission.

And Christmas came early to the women and children at Atlanta Union Mission’s My Sister’s House on November 3 when Kristy and Kasey presented nearly $130,000 worth of gifts and monetary donations they had collected during the previous week.

The president of Atlanta’s Rescue Mission reports that close to a quarter million dollars of inkind and cash gifts have been received as a direct result of the good stewardship of Kristy and Kasey.

I’m a “dot connector” by inclination; I generally network people and resources, but old questions with new answers that have yielded encouraging results are a great thing to connect as well.

In September 2004, the Manhattan Institute hosted an event intended to revisit 1996 welfare reform legislation results with the hope of positive lessons learned and applied for then pending reauthorization. (The fact that such was continually delayed is yet another matter.) “Whither Welfare Reform: Lessons from the Wisconsin Experience,” included panelists Jason DeParle of the New York Times, Lawrence Mead, NYU, and Jason Turner, Visiting Fellow in Welfare Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Turner had been Governor Tommy Thompson’s policy architect for Wisconsin’s largely lauded welfare reform innovations.

Question: “What would be the one critical reform that each of you would institute to bring men back into the family?” Mead suggested improved welfare work programs connected to child support; Turner argued for opportunity as well as punishment in prison, connecting parole to enforced work.

Grand Rapids’ Cascade Engineering is a stellar example of innovative business-public agency partnerships charged to place low income workers in decent jobs with opportunities. Prison Fellowship contractor Innerchange Freedom Initiative developed a re-entry program that facilitates and empowers an incarcerated man’s regeneration and reconnection to his family. The Christian Reformed Church is spearheading related work with strong direction from Grand Rapids’ leaders. Mead and Turner would be pleased.

Another productive strategy to reconnect men to their families has gained momentum in neighborhoods where local knowledge and accountability provide big leverage: healthy marriage initiatives. The Wall Street Journal recently profiled Dr. Wade Horn, head of the federal Administration for Children and Families, who “has employed the zeal of an ideologue and the discipline of an academic to inject marriage promotion into a host of government programs ... ” More than 200 programs across the country seek to change attitudes toward marriage, encouraging teenagers to aspire to healthy marriages and bringing relationship skills to couples of all ages.

Research indicates that marriage education works for middle-class white families; new studies will determine if the same holds for poor, nonwhite couples. The early research coming out of Healthy Marriages Grand Rapids in its work with low income, urban residents is very encouraging. Recent unofficial reports from a Grand Rapids donor who partnered with Horn’s ACF marriage work indicate that a significant number finish the programming and that importantly, neighborhood trainers are ‘moving out’ further in the community to share the skills building tools.

As we ponder the season, I’m thankful for Grand Rapids business and social entrepreneurs who put their talents to work to bring men back to the family.

If David Kuo is disillusioned about the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives -- or about anything else, really -- he’ll need to stand in line. And I say that with no malice toward him or suspicion about his sincerity. Disillusion is part of the human condition. Yes, we’re created in the image likeness of God. Yet we are all people who by commission or omission disappoint our fellow human beings.

Kuo states: “I don’t know how anyone could be a Christian in politics and not be moved to think about matters of economic justice and social justice and racial justice.” A key error here is to equate keen Christian concern with government solutions for all of these problems. For all the flurry surrounding Kuo’s book, though, his isn’t a new observation. In 1999, Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson wrote Blinded by Might. They make this piercing statement in the epilogue: “Our primary problems are not economic and political. They are moral and spiritual and cannot be resolved solely through politics.” Perhaps the source of Kuo’s disillusion is not so much failure to honor the faith while doing the politics but the failure to realistically understand the people who work in both fields.

People who work in the West Wing, in Congress, in the media, in churches, anywhere -- down to our own families and neighbors -- ALL will eventually be the SOURCE of another’s disillusionment. Some just get more press than the rest of us.

Some work against it more than others; many make no pretense of caring. Even those who strive for the honorable still fall. Ted Haggard’s friends and flock are no more disappointed than King David’s subjects were when his immoral choices were revealed (2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 12).

The issue is not IF we will disappoint and suffer the same, but rather how and when -- great men and women included. The issue is what will we do subsequent to such failings. David Kuo recommended a “two year fast from politics.” The impact of that recommendation in times of national and worldwide upheaval is at the least irresponsible. As Marvin Olasky noted, “... the irony of Kuo’s critique of political idolatry is that, if followed fully, it would increase the power of those who are the most idolatrous. If the saints go marching out, others will march in unimpeded.”

Political idolatry and the risk that people of faith have of being used by politicians is a non-partisan phenomenon; since the so-called values vote was underscored in the 2004 election, both parties have been scrambling to attract followers of the Faith-Based Initiatives. But there just isn’t enough righteous rhetoric to avoid disillusion.

Mark Early, president of Prison Fellowship, provided a realistic alternative to the political fast. His “Purists and Politics” commentary encouraged all voters to look for the best candidate among the field. Do your homework to make that choice responsibly. Look for the honorable leader, not the perfect one.

Dr. Evan Offstein’s new book, Stand Your Ground argues that honorable leaders don’t search for excuses. Instead, they search for more responsibility. They want to be held accountable for their decisions and actions.

November 7, 2006, presents us with a good opportunity for a fast -- but not the reclusive one that Kuo and now others have latched on to for yet another round of political one-upsmanship. Instead of taking time for food today, take that time to do what you can to elect honorable leaders, those who have worked to make themselves accountable in their actions before they asked for your vote.

This is a blog, so I can say “goofy.” There are some other erudite and tremendously complex terms, but “goofy” pretty much sums up political norms at the moment. What are we thinking. Or, rather, are we thinking?

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life just released a report titled, “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics.” Not to slight Pew’s substantive work and fully defensible conclusions, but do respondents not see that it’s just plain goofy to object to religious values in politics and then wish for a stronger religious witness in the culture? Does some high school debater need to come along and point out internal inconsistencies on this topic? Do people honestly think that such a bifurcation of life is desirable -- or even possible?

Our political parties, increasingly trying to figure out how to burnish their image as “God friendly,” must be experiencing a good deal of angst over this report. What will they do?

Perhaps the man or woman on the street is simply saying that values should only be imposed selectively. Could that be? How about the basics: truth, honesty, transparency. Surely the man on the street doesn’t mean that those religious values (generated broadly from every faith tradition) shouldn’t be imposed on politics. Don’t we occasionally indict politicians for the lack thereof? And given the rampant disclosure of all types of “truth morphs” that were reported amidst the anniversary Katrina replays this weekend, isn’t that truth and transparency value good for all media?

Oh, maybe this is it: Values are only important when they are created as “mine” as opposed to those pesky absolutes. And if government policy is going to be influenced by Christian truths and that becomes something I don’t care for -- then the Christians have gone too far.

The Pew study is extremely insightful. It should make us seriously think (for a change) about the amorphous nature of the “religious values” label that many Americans so quickly attach to the things they don’t like. Perhaps we could be really counter-cultural and actually consider the impact of a particular value on others besides ourselves. When we abandon values that truly undergird a civil society then, well, it’s goofy. And the consequences catastrophic.

The fable “The Blind Men and the Elephant” offers great insight about how Americans seem to perceive how charity and public welfare is done. Remember that depending on his placement around the elephant, each blind man had a different perspective, i.e., the guy on the tail had a much different perspective than the one grabbing the elephant’s trunk.

We get a lot of contradictory messages in the media. People are giving more to charity than ever before or charities can’t get the resources they need. Hurricane victims can’t begin to get necessary help or a virtual underground network of charities and individuals literally all over the country is moving hurricane victims to health, wholeness, and community connectness.

I prefer the latter version about health and wholeness because that is what I hear about constantly. I spend every day learning about these Good Samaritans, recruiting them for our annual Samaritan Award, and touting both the evaluation and teaching value of the resulting charity reports in our online Samaritan Guide The 2006 Award competition has just been completed. WORLD Magazine partnerd with us this year, and the result of their visits to all fifteen finalist sites is featured in their Sept. 2/9 double issue on Effective Compassion.

Here’s our announcement of the Samaritan Award winner and honorees.

These great Samaritan Award charities, privately funded and serving people in the United States, are just a few among that army of Samaritans that are most often recruited from volunteers in local communities. Acton’s online Samaritan Guide includes five-page reports about charities doing work well. There are a number of substance abuse treatment programs in the Guide, but these are the residential ones that house and help residents for 12-30 months. The Guide includes a local charity that works in a prison, providing workshops where inmates refurbish wheelchairs that are then given to disabled people in this county and others who can’t afford them. The same charity makes sure that these inmates see pictures and hear testimonies of grateful recipients.

True change only comes within the context of relationships. They even expect those whom they have helped to become Good Samaritans, encouraging graduates to volunteer, to teach new people in the programs the things they’ve learned to return productively to society.

The Beltway Boys will always argue about welfare reform -- and argue louder in an election year. But it’s those local charities, primarily motivated by their faith, that help move people toward self-sufficiency. Those local charities are the ones passionate about each individual person, every one of them created in God’s image. And doesn’t that make all the difference?

Update: Check out the discussion at World Magazine Blog here and here.

We’re working through the meaning of the tenth anniversary of welfare reform, debating important ‘next phase’ issues like marriage and fatherhood and what those mean to helping people leave poverty...permanently. That debate about government’s appropriate role in addressing social need is important. At least equally important is the work or private citizens at the local level, ‘on the street’--figuratively and literally.

In February, a blog post featured A Way Out Victim Assistance program in Memphis, one of Acton’s Samaritan Award winners, which was also profiled in WORLD Magazine.

A Way Out Victim Assistance, a program of Citizens for Community Values of Memphis run by George Kuykendall and Carol Wiley, is designed “to assist any woman, regardless of race or religious preference, who desires to leave her profession in the sex for sale industry, namely topless dancers and prostitutes, to permanently escape the industry and re-enter society and the work force with a value system that promotes a healthy lifestyle physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.”

NPR’s program Marketplace posted an interview on Tuesday about this same great program (audio here): “Citizens for Community Values started as an anti-pornography organization in 1992 and began ministering to strippers three years later. Now it helps all sex workers leave the business. Carol and George get referrals. Sometimes the girls call them directly. And sometimes they drive right up to a hooker on the street and hand her a business card, which is dangerous. Both for them and for her.”

Local help on the street truly can make a life-changing difference for another human being.

In January, I wrote about the Central Plains wildfires as a very personal crisis in my Oklahoma hometown.

I underscored the importance of subsidiarity, which is the idea that a central authority should perform only those tasks which cannot be handled effectively at a more immediate or local level. I’ve now had opportunity to practice subsidiarity in Oklahoma. And I can tell you, it’s harder to do than to talk or write about in the abstract.

The preceding months of drought had created a tinderbox that fueled fires that burned out thousands of Oklahoma and Texas families, including hundreds in my home town and surrounding counties. As the wildfires burned, an upscale West Michigan children’s clothing resale shop was seeking a donation location for 2,000 pieces of clothing. The need was obvious. The Effective Compassion staff at Acton now had opportunity to support local helpers in the wildfire areas, to literally equip an exercise in subsidiarity.

In politics and in society, the principle of subsidiarity represents one of the bulwarks of limited government and personal freedom. My humble, small-town Oklahoma mother can understand that. But in the wake of unprecedented national disasters, such obvious common sense can be overrun with the lure of government relief money. The bureaucratic morass of FEMA hurricane response should warn us off such temptations.

The “let the government do it” attitude springs eternal with this culture, despite obvious and continued failure. However, the “let the locals do it” approach requires more of the locals -- and in this case of clothing to needy Oklahoma neighbors, that meant me.

Continue reading "Subsidiarity in Action"

The February 11 issue of WORLD Magazine includes a culture feature, “Giving their names back.” Profiled in the article is Citizens for Community Values (CCV), a nonprofit in Memphis that does a victim assistance program called “A Way Out.” It’s a reclamation program of sorts, literally reclaiming women ensnarled in the sex trade industry, and giving them back their lives, reclamation evidenced by names.

The very nature of the sex industry, be it topless dancing, stripping or prostitution, requires anonymity--no names. And having no name reflects the ultimate devaluation of the human person. One of the women in this program said, “I felt like I was just a joke that God had accidentally made.”

Imago Dei may seem an odd term in this context, but in fact, it is the very core value of “A Way Out”: The reality of the imago Dei, being created in the image of God, having inherent worth, value and dignity. And the excellent way in which just two staff people, George Kuykendall and Carol Wiley empower women with so many problems and issues, oftentimes beaten, drug addicted, dumped naked on a busy street is the reason that the program was selected as a 2005 Acton Institute Samaritan Award Winnner.

While well-meaning Christian leaders protest public funding cuts for poverty and social programs, getting themselves arrested for blocking the entrance to the House office building, other effective compassion workers like George and Carol aren’t focused on whether the ultimate issue is fraud in government programs or tax cuts. Since “A Way Out” doesn’t depend on public funds, George and Carol just keep patiently returning again and again to help the hookers and strippers near the Memphis airport. They just keep connecting them to mentors who help them leave the sex trade, find good work, save money, learn how to live.

Each person has dignity, has value expressed in a name, and effective compassion programs, even very tiny ones in Memphis, are reclaiming those names, one woman at a time. This is the translation of imago Dei that matters.

To find nonprofits that embody the principles of effective compassion near you, visit the Samaritan Guide.

A friend forwarded a Website link for The Nonprofit Congress recently that was downright scary. It appears to be the epitome of good intentions fraught with unintended consequences. Or perhaps the consequences are not unintended. The Congress is an apparent call to advocacy (i.e., political pressuring) within the National Council of Nonprofit Associations.

To the group’s credit, the “why” is a forthright statement of their view and values: The time has come for nonprofits of all sizes and scope to come together. The nonprofit charitable sector has long served our nation with distinction – from helping individuals survive (through health care, domestic violence centers, meals, and other human services) to helping local communities thrive (through artistic, cultural, educational, environmental, and other enriching services). Every American has been touched at one time or another by the work of a nonprofit. Good intentions.

Unintended consequences: Rather than championing the nonprofits’ unique abilities to provide individualized solutions, the Nonprofit Congress labels such efforts “fragmented and isolated” and frankly seems to be advocating that onerous “one size fits all” strategy for which government programs are so famous.

With that perspective, however, what this Nonprofit Congress wants to DO is not surprising: forge a collective identity based on shared values; develop a unified vision and message; and exercise a collective voice.

I would argue that a primary value of nonprofits is their lack of a collective identity or message and the freedom to contribute or help based on divergent values. That reality has been revealed within the Nonprofit Panel of Independent Sector -- literally battling government agencies and federal policy makers for the continued independent existence of the nonprofit sector.

But with a Revere-like ‘call to arms,’ the council invites nonprofits to join the movement, forge a “stronger, bolder, more prominent role for nonprofits.” Hmmm ... sounds like burgeoning political power to me, fashioned under the banner of “but we help people and communities. We do good things.”

Peter Drucker, arguably the most visionary management guru of this century, said that it is more important to do the right thing, than to do things right. Doing the right thing -- helping individuals and communities--does not include sacrificing nonprofit uniqueness to leverage potential political muscle. And those who think so need to recalibrate their compassion quotient. The nonprofit sector may be “like herding cats,” but “unionizing” isn’t the strategy to help individuals or communities.