By ‘evidence-based fundraising’ I means imply this: using actual data – about our donors and potential donors, and about ourselves – in order to maximize relationships between donors (and potential donors), organizations and the people who our organizations serve. This includes studies on donor behavior, metrics on organization performance, surveys of our own donors, modelling off of our databases, even the existence of databases.

Of course, there are still plenty of development shops that run on a general intuition of what has worked or what will work, but evidence and data are taking larger roles in a lot of places, and it is increasingly crucial that development professionals know how to gather, interpret and apply data to their day-to-day work.

I was going to quote a favorite bit, but it’s all so very, very good.

(Hat Tip: Slacktivist)

We in the philanthropic community cannot let this moment pass. We have for so long wanted this kind of mass mobilization for justice. We have held conferences, gatherings, phone meetings, and spent countless sums in an effort to support the creation of a movement that is broad based in scope and calling for systemic change. Occupy presents a unique opportunity for the philanthropic community to creatively respond to these efforts and to the long standing and prior work of community organizations and leaders to promote economic equality for the 99%.

The image is courtesy of Occupy Design (view the license).

(Hat Tip: White Courtesy Telephone)

When we say we want greater commitment from people, we mean commitment in the way people have purportedly “always” been committed in church. This tends to look like official positions with long-term time-intensive commitments of time. We reward longevity (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but we less frequently celebrate shorter term commitments… When we ask for “commitment” it sounds to me like we are saying we want people to commit these dated congregational systems and structures. And I’m quite sure we aren’t even close to talking about commitment to faith or God.

There are lots of reasons that church structures – especially in mainline churches – are the way they are. I strongly recommend reading Bowling Alone and Recreating the Church and tracking the generational differences that are discussed there. The basic outline is this: a lot of our structures were shaped and reshaped by the generation that came of age during World War II, and those structures simply aren’t attractive to the generations that followed (and become less attractive to each new generation). We simply don’t organize communities the same way that people did before.

So Keith’s diagnosis is right: we want people to commit to – or, perhaps better, via – outdated structures. If we really want young people to commit – and I’m including myself in the category of young people here – we need to develop structures that allow them to do so. These need to be structures that are both practically appropriate (they can work with busy schedules, etc.) and culturally appropriate (they ‘make sense’ to young people).

I can only speak for myself, but here are some quick, off the top of my head suggestions for how new structures might look:

Meetings as act of worship: Meeting after church on a Sunday would make things a lot easier for me (not to mention reducing the number of week day evenings pastors need to be at committee meetings) as I work on weekdays and have a long commute. I imagine this is true for a lot of people in my age group. I would add, though, that such meetings could be made liturgical (the work of the people, after all). Yes, the stewardship committee meeting really is an act of worship.

Short and asynchronous meetings: This follows on the heels of the above. I’ve almost never been in a meeting that actually had more than an hour’s worth of agenda items. While meeting face to face is valuable, moving things out of the meeting and into spaces where people can work and communicate as it suits them is also valuable. So, set the meeting to an hour and continue the discussion or work on Facebook or Google or over email.

Short-term and long-term working groups: I seem to end up on committees for a long time, which is fine by me. Others, though, might want to try several different things or have schedules that change every now and then. Having groups that are long-term to work on things that require long-term thought is great. They can set direction and tone and vision for the church. Project based groups that might only last for a few months, though, would also be great. They can come together, get a piece of work done, and then disband, moving on to the next thing.

What are your thoughts?

(Hat Tip: Pomomusings)

Over the course of the book, Bass diagnoses two problems. The first is corporate, and is one that has been made again and again in recent years: many mainline churches last reorganized in the mid-twentieth century and have become stuck in time, while the world around them has changed. The second is personal: the world in which we now find ourselves is a nomadic one characterized by radical individualism, aimlessness, consumption, fragmentation and forgetfulness. The church seems to be left with a choice: adapt to this world or die.

Many, of course, have adapted to this world. They have taken on an individualistic soteriology based on personal belief, a view of life so focused on a post-apocalyptic paradise that it robs today of meaning, a fetish for Christian kitsch that demonstrates through possession how truly Christian one is, a granular division of the world into us and them, and a dubious ability to remember – let alone understand and learn from – the past.

These are not the churches that Bass focuses on.

Rather, she shows us mainline churches that have adopted certain key ancient Christian practices: hospitality, discernment, healing, contemplation, testimony, diversity, justice, worship, reflection and beauty. Through these practices, these churches are transforming lives, turning their congregants toward vocation, community and memory. Moreover, these churches are enjoying success: not simply the secular success of numerical growth – though they are generally enjoying that – but more distinctly Christian successes like viability, spiritual depth and renewed identity and mission. These are, in a variety of ways, the churches that many mainline churches desire to be.

What Bass does not offer, however, is a blueprint for how to enact these practices in your own church, and that’s entirely appropriate. These practices are not one size fits all, and indeed none of the churches at which she looks have adopted the same practices. Rather, Bass walks us through each practice and shows us concrete examples of how different churches have adopted them; and, when it comes to the individuals, shows us how actual living people have been transformed through the work of these congregations. And this is what makes the book powerful: it is not theory, but example.

In the introduction, Bass says: “By taking you on this journey, I hope you might change your perspectives, understanding, practices, and passions about Christianity, too.” (p. 8) I certainly hope that many churches accompany her on this journey and have their perspectives transformed.

We end up dividing gifts between the small and the large. We call the small gifts the ‘annual fund’, regardless of whether a particular person really gives annually.What we really mean by this is usually something like: gifts that we’re not going to act too thankful about.

We call the large gifts ‘major gifts’. Sometimes, these gifts really are major: the let us do something new. Sometimes, they’re just larger than average; and arbitrary number that means nothing in particular to the donor or the organization or the people it serves. What we really mean by ‘major gift’ is something like: a gift we’re going to gush over.

(An aside: how often do we get resentful about the gushing? How often to we look at what we’re doing over an arbitrarily large gift that didn’t really make a difference and ask: ‘Why do I still need to be doing this instead of finding new donors or improving the relationships we have with other donors? Why does this donor care more about their recognition than what their gift has done? Etc.’? That might be a sign that we’re doing something wrong.)

I think we should look at these differently: sustaining gifts and transformative gifts.

Sustaining gifts keep relationships where they are. In the triangle between the donor, the organization and the people who are served, nothing changes.

Transformative gifts do something new: they start a relationship or they take one to the next level. A transformative gift might be a first gift, or a significant increase in giving, or a decision to make a gifts from assets instead of income. It might be a gift that starts a new program, or takes a program to a new level.

Two things are important here:

First, this has nothing to do with the size of the gift. If it changes a relationship, it’s transformative; if it doesn’t, it’s sustaining. It’s not about an arbitrary number, it’s about impact. And everything should be about impact.

Second, both sustaining and transformative giving are important. We need sustaining gifts just to keep going. Transformative gifts help us do new things. We can’t operate without both; and while the transformative gifts are wonderful, sustaining donors are also strong and faithful friends.

So let’s change our thinking: no more annual fund vs. major gifts; instead, sustaining gifts and transformative gifts working together.

The Susan G. Komen foundation announced that it will reverse its decision to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, apologizing for ‘recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.’

Here’s the full statement from Komen:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Now, that sounds like backing down, but there are two things to watch for.

First, as Wonkblog reported yesterday, the Komen Foundation had changed its rationale for denying Planned Parenthood funding:

So why did Planned Parenthood lose funding? Brinker says it has to do with the fact that they do not provide mammograms to women, but only provide mammogram referrals. “It was nothing they were doing wrong,” she explained. “We have decided not to fund, whereever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

If the investigation wasn’t the reason for cutting off funding, then obviously removing that rule won’t affect whether Planned Parenthood received funding; they can still be denied funding on the basis that Komen no longer provides grants to organizations that merely provide referrals for mammograms (as though initial screening, education and referrals weren’t incredibly important tools in the fight against breast cancer).

Second, this sentence: “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

I think it’s great that Komen will honor existing grants (wait… were they not planning on doing that? I assumed they weren’t going to fund new grants, not that they were going to pull existing grants), that Planned Parenthood will still be eligible to apply for grants (wait… they’re always eligible to apply for grants from anywhere they like, the question is why the grant request would be refused and point one makes it clear that Komen is retaining a reason to deny the grant application) and that affiliates will be able to make decisions that meet the needs of their communities (wait… that’s exactly what Komen was preventing from happening in the first place).

Look, I’ll tell you what: I’ll believe that Komen is engaging in something more than the rhetoric of backing down when they approve a new grant from Planned Parenthood. Of course, they could just approve the grant request that they recently denied.

How many feel the need to have a large traditional service, an intimate traditional service and a contemporary service? How many feel the need to have an incredibly robust youth group, various men’s groups and women’s groups, a young families’ group, and a dozen Bible studies and book groups? How many have quilting groups and gourmet clubs? How many have homeless shelters and soup kitchens and food pantries and clothing drives?

How many, in short, are trying to fulfill all of their congregants’ spiritual needs and social needs, as well as various community needs?

How many towns have a dozen churches trying to do all of these things – and not doing any of them particularly well?

Part of the problem is the sense of competition that exists between churches: if our youth program isn’t as good – read: big – as their youth program, we’re failing! What this leads to is many churches each trying to be the best at everything. Many end up being good at a few things, and mediocre at most of them. And that means that resources get spread too thinly: those few good programs at a church could be great, if they were given the resources that are really available.

One of the keys to being great – to being revolutionary – is finding out where you can have the greatest impact. Find the ministry, or set of closely related ministries, and put the energy there, then you can be revolutionary.

Along with that, work with other churches to fill the other needs of collaboration. There’s really no problem with one church having the best contemporary worship in town on Sunday morning, while another runs the best youth program on Sunday night, and another ‘owns’ the homeless programs with all of the churches providing volunteers. We can all do a lot more if we all act as a team.

So be revolutionary: when everyone works together, everyone can be great!

Look, I understand that some organizations cannot support others – especially when their missions or ideals are in conflict, or when there’s a clear potential conflict – and I’ve even advised non-profits to not seek grant funding from certain organizations when there was the possibility of an appearance of conflict. I get it. But Planned Parenthood is not in conflict with Komen: it is a key player in screening for breast cancer, especially among women who might not otherwise receive such screenings. By defunding Planned Parenthood – even if it’s under a general policy of not funding organizations that are under investigation – Komen is making its stated goals of saving lives, empowering people and ensuring quality care for all more difficult to achieve.

Does Komen have the choice of where it funds? Yes.

Is this the right move when it comes to achieving Komen’s stated goals? I don’t see how.

Read more from Raw Story.

Read more from Wonkblog.

Read more from AmericaBlog: Here and here.

Read more from slacktivist.

Oh, and remember:

My colleague was flummoxed: the donor had done no estate planning? Didn’t he know that he might have to pay estate tax? Didn’t he want to keep his money out of the hands of… the government (gasp, oh no!)?

Now, I don’t know how the donor felt about the estate tax. I do know that my colleague was focusing on the wrong thing.

Let’s say ‘but the government will get it’ was enough to get this donor to see an estate planner. Would that guarantee that the donor would leave any of estate to my colleague’s organization? No, of course not.

Trying to convince a donor not to give money somewhere – the government, another charity, whatever – is not the same thing as convincing them to invest in your mission. If you think they are the same thing, then you’re just caught in establishment culture.

So, when it comes to estate planning, forget about the role of government or the protection of money. Focus on the real message: an investment in this mission is a legacy worth leaving.

Of course, ‘invest in our mission’ is always the message, isn’t it?