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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether the sentiment is new or just new to me, more and more nonprofit leaders are looking at ways to eventually become “completely self-sustaining.” By this, they mean that they would like to build enough of an endowment or revenue generation programs that they no longer need to rely on donors.

I believe this is a mistake for most nonprofits. It is true that businesses can do much good without reliance on donations, and there may be some social enterprises which would be better with a non-donor driven business model. However, for the typical nonprofit, the desire for donor independence misunderstands the foundational nature of the relationship. The proper relationship is one of interdependence. Much like the relationship between bees and flowers, where bees pollinate the flowers and the flowers feed the bees, both donors and nonprofits benefit from their connection. 

The pressure to sever this tie often stems from a faulty view of fundraising that sees it as a necessary evil to be eradicated as soon as possible. I see fundraising as part of the five essential ministries listed in Ephesians 4:11-13: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Biblical fundraising can rightly be viewed as a teaching ministry opportunity to be honored, not eliminated.

To be clear, efforts to become partially self-sustaining should be encouraged. If a nonprofit is already diligently building healthy relationships with donors, it may be able to generate additional revenue through income-generating social enterprises. By growing the pie, they create financial resilience and make donors more confident. They also create opportunities to empower clients to “pay it forward” and develop useful skills, especially those dealing with mental or physical challenges and who are unable to perform duties in a manner that adds to the revenue base of a self-sustaining social enterprise.

But should a charitable organization become completely self-sufficient? I don’t think so. Here are three reasons why nonprofits should maintain at least partial dependence on support from a donor base:

1) It helps a donor do good deeds

Doing good deeds is what donors want to do, understanding the principle that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” By maintaining at least a partial reliance on donors provides them with opportunities to partner in the work when volunteering their time may not be an option. Often the time invested by a donor in generating resources to steward for charitable purposes precludes their own ability to volunteer time and energy onsite themselves. Their finances are how they partner. To eliminate the need for their investment is to rob them of opportunities to partner with the nonprofit in doing good work.

2) It helps an organization stay on mission

The matching of a donor’s passion with a nonprofit’s mission is a beautiful thing. When it’s not “your money,” you’re more likely to be conscientious about the results you report to the one who gave it. A mission that measures outcomes and is able to report those to a donor who truly wants to see a return on his or her investment in the work is likely to have some exciting donor meetings every year. And sharing outcomes doesn’t have to be all about “wins.” Sharing the failures and discussing lessons learned gives an opportunity for the donor to know the nonprofit better and speak wisdom into it, too. Maintaining at least partial dependency on donors heightens a nonprofit’s fiscal responsibility which helps the non-profit stay on mission.

3) It helps both parties dream bigger

If a nonprofit’s current budget can be met by their own social enterprising efforts, and donors are no longer needed but want to be part of the work, somebody isn’t dreaming big enough. The vision of an organization can be unleashed by a mutually dependent relationship between the ministry and its donors.

By maintaining a mutually dependent relationship donors get to do good deeds, the organization is more likely to stay on mission, and both parties get to dream bigger. There’s a lot to like about that dynamic, so why work to eliminate it?

“Dependency is merely slavery with a smiling mask.” Years ago, I read this line in The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. I’ve never forgotten it. More than its shocking tenor, I have remembered it because I’ve experienced it. For more than twenty years, I’ve been fighting poverty and have come to realize that the fight in America is less about filling a gap in basic needs and more so to help people find freedom from a government that promises to perpetually meet them. It is a noble cause to help people find their freedom from dependency, even from a benefactor who wears a “smiling mask.” And now, more than ever, we should be those liberators. According to the Urban Institute, 1 in 5 Americans are dependent on some government welfare program. And, the risk for even greater government dependency is on the rise with the recent 25% increase in the Food Stamp program (SNAP) and an expanded school lunch program, free child care, and an extension to the already expanded child tax credit—all in the Build Back Better Act now threatening to become law by the end of the year.

What can we do? It is a daunting task to consider how to influence policy and policy makers. Although I think a focus on policy-driven welfare reform is vitally important, some easier wins may come through a lighter lift by turning our attention to our local community; more specifically, the people we help who are struggling in dependent poverty. Here are four keys we’ve found effective in helping them to get free.

1. Relate

“You don’t know what it’s like!” I’ve heard it, and it’s true. I’ve never been dependent on welfare. I can’t personally relate to the fear of leaving a government program—a fear that has been conveyed to me many times by others. However, I do know people who can relate and who have broken free from the fear that once tethered them to the state. Bring them in. Ask them to participate in case management meetings or to share their inspiring story with a group. Another option might be to share a video of someone’s success story, like this one of April.

Don’t forget that the ability to relate doesn’t just occur through experience; it can occur by building real relationships, too. Through long-term relationship, we were able to help April and many others find their freedom from government dependency. In that relationship, we both encouraged and educated. I recall one man who received a government-paid cell phone in the mail at our mission. I shared with him a copy of a cell phone bill that had a typical “universal service fee.” After learning that this is the fee passed on to consumers from a government tax on cell phone companies to pay for his “free” phone, he lost interest in the state’s program. On other occasions, I’ve shared with groups at our mission the truth that the government doesn’t have any money of its own. It all comes from other people. Many have turned away from government programs when they realize this truth. Why did they listen? Because we build relationships with people, and they know we really care.

2. Replace

In part, the benefit of building relationships is that it expands the person’s social capital. The greater one’s social capital, the less the demand to remain dependent on some far-removed support. Building confidence that the state’s support can be replaced is important. By no means should we think to compete by handing out goods and services like the government. However, when it comes to meeting basic needs of people, it’s important to build trust that those can be replaced by a compassionate supportive community.

There are two things that we’ve done that have been helpful here. First, we have intentionally built greater capacity to meet those basic needs. For example, we expanded our food pantry to become a client-shopping market with the basic food groups and evening hours. It was a lot of work, but if we want to help people break free from food stamps, we must provide some alternative. Consider how you might do the same. Second, develop a resource listing of private charities in your area, be supportive of them, develop relationships with them and refer people to them. We host a fundraiser event every year that raises thousands of dollars for other private charities in our city. These like-minded missions are much less likely to sign people up for welfare, and by linking arms, you increase your capacity and your clients’ confidence to break free!

3. Resist

Hopefully, as you work to build both a culture of relationship as well as capacity to replace some of what welfare offers, you’ll couple those changes with resistance to do what is so common in organizations like ours: sign people up for welfare programs. It may be what you’ve always done, but unless you feel that being dependent on government help is better than being free from it, you should resist pointing your clients toward it as a solution for them. At our mission, every staff member and volunteer signs an agreement to always refer people in need to the closest source of private help before referring them to any state-funded program. Sure, there are times when we’ll have to point people toward government help, but we certainly resist doing so. You can, too. This could be built into some of your program policies. For example, one of the admission criteria for our long-term residential recovery program is “no welfare.” Food stamp cards are turned in, government subsidized phones are turned over, disability pursuits are abandoned. Implicit in your resistance to sign people up for government help is your belief in your clients’ ability to succeed without it. What a great thing to communicate— “You can do it!” 

4. Recognize

In a day when dependency on a government program is not only rarely discouraged, but often promoted, breaking free is a brave and noteworthy act deserving of recognition. One person suggested the “Finer Diners Club,” an exclusive group of those who’ve voluntarily given up their food stamp (EBT) cards to then enjoy a nice dinner with other club members where they’re recognized for their achievement. At our mission, we do something even simpler. We have a “Wall of Heroes” made of EBT cards that were voluntarily given up. The names of each person are there for everyone to see.

Like me, you may also believe that government dependency in America today is a national epidemic. Although it’s policy driven from the top, I hope you’re encouraged to consider how relating with your clients through testimony and relationship, replacing what the government is doing with more compassionate and wiser means, and recognizing people who make the bold step to break free are some practical ways you can begin helping people find freedom from that master with a smiling mask.

Want to influence government policy? True Charity Network members have regular opportunities to share their perspectives and stories with policymakers.

The value a good volunteer brings to a non-profit can be hard to measure. But a recent study by the Independent Sector tried. They concluded the value of a volunteer’s time would equate to $28.54 an hour. Wow! Based on that figure, the time, talent, and effort given over the course of one year by volunteers across all non-profit efforts in the United States becomes an equivalent monetary contribution that reaches into the billions. That’s a value that doesn’t show up in a ministry’s profit and loss reports, but it should convey just how important a strong volunteer program can be for a non-profit’s bottom line.

So, how strong is your volunteer program? 

As the advancement director not only for True Charity but for Watered Gardens Ministries as a whole, I oversee ours. I work with a team that values the contributions of our volunteers, and we have one guiding principle that informs three key areas of recruitment, training and retention:

Our Guiding Principle: We Serve the Volunteers. They Don’t Serve Us (They Serve the Clients). 

Watered Gardens is in year twenty two of ministry and, for the first ten years, it was completely volunteer-driven. Even as paid staff members have come on board, the bulk of the shifts filled are from volunteer seats. This is not by accident. In fact, the mission and vision statements of our organization explicitly state that we serve those who volunteer. The mission: Watered Gardens exists to serve the local church in its mission to help the poor. The vision: We want to see the local church boldly engaged with the poor relationally, responsibly, and compassionately.

It can throw people for a loop to hear that a ministry offering services to the poor like a thrift store, a grocery store, beds for overnight shelter, and long-term programs for men, women, and moms with children does not exist to serve the poor. But the DNA of Watered Gardens is intentionally structured this way. Everything we offer is part of an overall program designed to help volunteers from the local church serve the most vulnerable among us in a way that builds new relationships and resolves issues of poverty. Without volunteers serving, our mission can’t be fulfilled and our vision will never be realized. Assuming there is no mission drift, here are three implications for a volunteer program that result from having the guiding principle stated above:

Key Area #1: For Volunteer Recruitment, Is Your Ministry Structured to be Reliant on Them?

When your guiding principle is to serve the volunteers, your success should be measured in part by how many you have. Examine all of the services you offer and see how many are led and filled by volunteers. If you say volunteers are essential but your program can go on with or without them, that’s a problem. And the volunteers will know it. So if there’s a vacancy in one of the volunteer seats but there’s no change in services provided, are you really reliant on that volunteer? For example, if you can’t secure a volunteer to serve as the overnight resident assistant, are you willing to not offer shelter that night? If you can’t secure a volunteer meal crew to serve dinner that evening, are you willing to close the kitchen for that meal?

Tying your outputs and outcomes to the strength of your volunteer program will ensure that volunteer recruitment remains a top priority. In addition to volunteer-oriented mission and vision statements, this prioritization should be reflected in the prominence and ease by which people can explore volunteering on your website. At Watered Gardens, the “volunteer” button is as prominent as the “give” button on the home page. This priority should also be reflected anytime your ministry is given a platform from which to present. At Watered Gardens, we ask for volunteers from any church stage, at any table in the lobby, before any social organizations that invite us, and from every social media platform we utilize.

Key Area #2: For Volunteer Training, Does Your Ministry Empower Them to Own and Excel at their Jobs?

When your guiding principle is to serve the volunteers, your success should be measured in part by how reliable they are. Examine your on-boarding process for volunteers and see if you are setting the right expectations and equipping them with the tools essential for success. Is there a volunteer orientation that helps new volunteers get acclimated to your ministry’s mission, vision, and processes as well as afford them opportunities to meet key staff members? Is there an up-to-date volunteer handbook they can reference as they get started and run into unanticipated hiccups in the day-to-day outworking of ministry? When a volunteer can’t make it in, do they know whom to contact? If they don’t make contact and simply don’t show up for their scheduled time, do you have a process in place to follow up with them?

Viewing volunteers as empowered co-laborers of the ministry and essential, albeit unpaid, workers will require a comprehensive volunteer training program. In addition to an initial orientation and a volunteer handbook, this empowerment could also be achieved with clear job descriptions for every volunteer seat, clear expectations for timeliness and conduct, as well as a way for the volunteers to confidently offer feedback. At Watered Gardens, we encourage new volunteers to shadow those with more experience, to ask questions and offer ideas for improvement, and we provide intentional means for securing such feedback through regular surveys of current volunteers.

Key Area #3: For Volunteer Retention, Do You Show Appreciation for Them?

When your guiding principle is to serve the volunteers, your success should be measured in part by how long they stay. Though not mentioned in the previous section, an effective training program is vital to retention. A deliberate on-boarding process communicates the value your organization places on its volunteers. Conversely, the easier it is for them to hop on board, the easier it will be for them to hop back off. And when those volunteers do show up, faithfully and repeatedly, are you letting them know how thankful you are? And are you able to thank them by name?

Showing appreciation to your volunteers can be as simple as knowing their names. At Watered Gardens, we gather pictures of our volunteers and send an email to staff every morning with names, faces and the work areas for that day’s volunteers, so staff can build friendships along the way. Watered Gardens also puts a spotlight on a key volunteer every year, featuring them on our social media and in our letters to donors. In addition, we hold quarterly volunteer appreciation events which are designed to provide food, fun and fellowship away from the ministry campus, purely as a way to say “Thank You” for all the work our volunteers do. Finally, we also conduct exit interviews with those we haven’t retained, asking the kinds of questions that will help us do a better job in the future.

Your non-profit organization may not always know the motivation that brings a volunteer to your doors. But the more clearly you convey the essential nature of their involvement, the more thoroughly you equip them to succeed, and the more demonstratively you appreciate their efforts, the more likely you are to have a strong, thriving volunteer team that takes ownership of the mission and their role in it, becoming the backbone for an increasingly effective and cost-efficient ministry.