The Church and Poverty: Mission Accomplished?
April 23, 2008 by markhsmith
The Church and Poverty: Mission Accomplished?
From Family Research Council e-newsletter
Is the church doing enough to help the poor? Sixty-seven percent of Americans think so. According to a recent national survey the majority of those polled said their “church already does enough to help the poor in [their] community.” But is there more to do? Steve Haas, the vice president for church relations at World Vision, is using the research as a call to conscience for believers. According to Haas, Christians are just “scratching the surface” when it comes to helping the less fortunate. As Christians, we have a personal and corporate responsibility to engage in the war against poverty. It is, and has always been, primary to the Gospel message. As Harry Jackson and I write in Personal Faith, Public Policy, Scripture makes it clear that our responsibility to address the plight of the poor is fundamental to living out our faith. Arthur Brooks points out in his book Who Really Cares? that liberals equate this responsibility with the call for more government programs. This effort to shift the responsibility to the government deprives the giver and the recipient of tangible and intangible benefits and studies also show it is very ineffective. For decades, this reliance on big government to care for the poor has done more to perpetuate American poverty than alleviate it. Instead of breaking the cycle of poverty by addressing the root causes–like the breakdown of the family–government programs are actually prolonging the problem with short-term fixes. This liberal approach to welfare is devastating to the poor and to the entire nation. The more the church does, the less our government will have to do. Local faith-based charities are not only more effective, but they have also proven more efficient. If your church doesn’t have outreaches to the poor, I encourage you to consider partnering with another ministry or starting one of your own. The more energy we put into meeting our neighbors’ needs, the greater our opportunity for sharing the rich message of Jesus Christ.
MegaCommunities
April 23, 2008 by markhsmith
Megacommunities, by Mark Gerencser, et al. (a book review with key points posted by Mark Smith)
The problems facing the world are so large that no one sector–business, government or non-profit–can solve the problems by themselves. According to the authors, what is needed is a megacommunity.
A megacommunity is a public sphere in which organizations from three sectors–business, government and non-profits–deliberately join together around compelling issues of mutual importance, following a set of practices and principles that make it easier for them to achieve results without sacrificing their individual goals. The megacommunity is an alliance of organizations, not individuals. In a healthy megacommunity, the three sectors maintain balance by “pushing” and “pulling” at each other according to their respective forms of influence. Order comes out of balancing this dynamic tension. In contrast to public-private partnerships, megacommunities bring civil society (NGO, church, non-profit, etc.) into the equation.
The megacommunity recognizes the kind of legitimacy that civil society represents. The civil sector brings accountability, insight into how to get things done locally, sensitivity to how the issues at play might affect individuals and the environment, and credibility in arenas in which business and government fall short.
Megacommunities do not thrive on chaos with no clear leadership. They thrive on alignment and optimization. In the initial stages in particular, the network needs some person, group or sector to precipitate alignment and catalyze latent energies. This will generally take the form of some “initiator” (or group of initiators) doing something explicit to put the elements in place. But the initiator must be prepared to cede this central/initial leadership role as the megacommunity coalesces and grows, or they may be seen as co-opting local and other interests. No one possesses the title of “CEO of the megacommunity.” The initiators need to believe that the alliance of organizations is the best way to solve the problem. Initiators should come from organizations that value innovation.
To achieve a successful megacommunity, on of the most fundamental habits to change is the habit of “maximizing” benefits. Megacommunity members must learn to “optimize” instead. Maximizing refers to a primary focus on the immediate benefits to your own local domain–either your own organization, our own geographic region, or your own function–whether or not that leads to benefits for the whole. Optimizing refers to the recognition and actualization of benefits to the larger system as a whole.
Those involved in the megacommunity must appreciate the importance of building network capital (that is, the value of investment in relationships and connections). An overlapping vital interest makes the features of convergence all the more real. Convergence is the commitment to mutual action that all members must work toward.
The purpose of megacommunity meetings is two-fold. First, to move toward a common goal (action). The megacommunity will have to demonstrate quick wins for its stakeholders. The second purpose of meetings is to educate the participants, to demonstrate continued and increasing competence and skills. The core group’s task at hand is design; the the design of a solution per se, but the design of forums, practices, prototypes, and experiments through which a solution will emerge. In every one of the participating organizations, there will be many sub-teams with multiple professional background; teams working on marketing, logistics, production, training, communication, legal, medical, engineering, financial, IT, etc.
Megacommunities don’t exist to admire a problem. They are there to take action.
Roles in a megacommunity include:
- Initiator. As a navigator, you keep the group on track, moving forward on an emerging path.
- Program managers who oversee particular projects;
- Media directors, who design, write, and manage the web site through which the megacommunity communicates with others;
- Media liasons, who maintain connection with journalists, editors, broadcasters, and other media professionals
- Subject matter experts, responsible for keeping the other participants informed about technical, scientific, or other specialized areas of interest.
- Megacommunity leadership. The big shift is from “command and control” to “coaching and persuading.” In a megacommunity, the touch is lighter. It is a guiding touch, on that lets constituents self-discover. Along with communication skills–and not unconnected to them–megacommunity leadership requires a certain amount of technological competence.
- Enablers. Some call them coaches, counselors, advisors. they are exceptionally unusual characters that are often invisible. You never read about them. You never see them in th organization chart. They’re very crucial facilitators of leadership effectiveness in new complex, cohesive communities.
In no way should involvement in the megacommunity be perceived as pro bono work, since megacommunity actions directly affect the success of each member organization. In fact, given the importance of any megacommunity’s central issue, it is likely that a participating organization has already committed time and resources to solving that issue. Megacommunity involvement may simply represent a reorienting of this effort, to better effect.
Four approaches that the authors have found highly effective:
- Develop a Meeting schedule. Frequent contact is key to the operation of the megacommunity.
- Employ Strategic Simulations. Strategic simulations can be spectacularly effective in uncovering complementing capabilities.
- Develop targeted forums. Large, cross-sector meetings and conferences can also be an effective means of relationship-building in the early stages.
- Prototype teams. A megacommunity may involve dozens, even hundreds of people working toward a mutual goal. It may be easier to divide them into cross-sector, cross-organization teams where they can identify and focus on nested projects and subtasks. Regard each of these subtasks as an experiment, or if you prefer, a prototype.
Utilize IT systems to foster communication. Consider using a social networking utility to post all sorts of information relevant to the megacommunity’s purpose. Contents could include contact information, dashboard tools, regularly updated progress reports, and strategic plans. Reporting, in fact, is a key element of monitoring in the megacommunity. The systems could also include shared databases, shared workspaces, and media plans. A good networking tool can provide an accurate picture of how a specific hub is functioning in a megacommunity. New media tools such as websites, wikis, blogs, video blogs, texting, etc. should be utilized.
Some megacommunities have even launched their own magazine.
The bywords of a megacommunity are: communicate, negotiate, act, and learn (then begin the learning cycle again).
Leadership. Each member organization must offer someone who has the authority to commit resources. Leaders can involve the megacommunity in an effort to co-create solutions. To be sure, it takes more skill and time to develop a solution this way; it involves genuine interest in the ideas and approaches that other people have to suggest. It probably involves synthesizing or combining those solutions in novel ways, making the final result more valuable than the sum of the parts. Megacommunity leaders know that pre-set answers are not going to cut it. They are accustomed to thoughtful trial-and-error. And they embrace the pragmatic and new solutions that few others can see.
Bottom line: The authors believe that the concept of megacommunity will have a profound effect on the way we see, and function in, the new world. As part of a megacommunity, all three sectors–government, business and the civil society–are in excellent position to have a real and lasting effect on large and complex problems.
My personal PEACE Plan
April 6, 2008 by markhsmith
At first glance, The PEACE Plan appears to be focused exclusively on global problems. The global GIANTS (poverty, disease, illiteracy, etc.) are so big, that the average person will assume they cannot make an impact and that somebody else will figure out how to deal the GIANTS. However, Rick Warren says PEACE projects can be implemented at various levels: personal, regional, national and global. Given this scope, I thought I would personalize PEACE by looking at the projects I’m working on (via Kinnovation or otherwise) and place them into the P.E.A.C.E categories.
I’ve decided not to elaborate on the project details at this point. The point is to put a public stake in the ground on this blog (with a date stamp). As the Kinnovation projects unfold, I will update the items on this page and link them to the details for each project. If you buy into the PEACE plan at all, then personalize it. Otherwise, PEACE is just another lovely idea, not a framework for action.
Promote reconciliation
- Between the local church and the parachurch
- Between large church networks
- Between the Orthodox church and Evangelicals
- Between Church and business
Equip servant leaders
- Train the trainers program.
- T3 Institute
- Halftime through Brown & Streza
- One-on-one philanthropic coaching
- Spark training
Assist the poor
- Health Access Now
- Microcredit technology systems
- Aslan’s Army, my own 501c3 that assists the poor in India, Africa, Mexico and Cuba
Care for the sick
- Rwanda Aids program (PEACE)
- Health Access Now
- Telemedicine technology through World Health Ed and American Telemedicine Association
- Spark
Educate the next generation
- Social network training
- V3 Studios
- Aslan’s Army bible schools
The PEACE Plan
April 6, 2008 by markhsmith
On October 29, 2007 I heard Pastor Rick Warren speak about the P.E.A.C.E. plan. Pastor Rick states that the church is the world’s largest organization with over 2.8 billion members, the only organization large enough and growing fast enough to combat the effects spiritual emptiness, poverty, disease, illiteracy, and corrupt leadership.
However the church can’t do it alone. Rick believes it will take a partnership of the Church, business and government to make a dent on the problem. Rick feels called to release the pent-up, latent energy in the church–to turn spectators into participators. To make a lasting difference in the world.
The P.E.A.C.E. acronym stands for Promoting reconciliation, Equipping servant-leaders, Assisting the poor, Caring for the sick, and Educating the next generation. Rick believes it’s the same plan Jesus used, so it’s time tested. I believe it’s a good framework and the kind of vision that will spark the imagination of Christian leaders worldwide. It’s the kind of idea that can get people out of their comfortable pew and look outward to see how they might make a real difference in the lives of others outside of their comfort zone.
I’m working with another organization, Halftime, founded by Bob Buford. Like Rick Warren, Bob is called to awaken the latent energy in Christianity, especially those that have had a measure of success in corporate America. If Rick represents a catalyst in the Church, Bob represents the catalyst in the business community. I have personally seen many people experience a Halftime and are actively pursuing Life 2.0 with a renewed and passionate vision to change the world in some way. Lloyd Reeb, one of the leaders of Halftime says, “One of my jobs is to rescue people from the golf course.” There’s a truth to that statement.
The PEACE plan is a logical next step from his popular book, Purpose Driven Life. First, you need to realize you have a unique purpose. Once you figure out your unique purpose, you need to go do it. If your purpose involves solving one of the BIG problems in the world, it would be nice to not have to go it alone. If your church is doing PEACE, you can surround yourself with some expertise and experience, multiplying your efforts. If this happens on a global scale, we might make a dent in the world’s problems.
I believe the major purpose of PEACE is to equip the church to become the efficient distribution network for the world’s philanthropy. If even a fraction of the 2+ billion Christians got involved in this effort, it would be the largest distribution network in the world.
Microcredit and the Results Giver
April 6, 2008 by markhsmith
By Phil Smith, author of A Billion Bootstraps
When Andre Aggasi first started playing tennis, it was relatively easy and inexpensive to improve. He probably bought his first racket for a few bucks, played at public courts for free, and improved his skills rather quickly. As time went by, he found that better equipment costs more and more, having a private court and lessons cost a small fortune, and to improve he would have to spend increasing amounts of time, energy and money. At his current excellent level, he can spend immense amounts of resources and barely see any improvement at all. However, if he doesn’t spend the time to practice, his level of play will diminish.
Andre’s tennis history is an excellent illustration of the ladder of well-being. There are three curious aspects of this ladder that you find as you climb higher and higher: it gets more and more expensive to go the next rung; the rungs get closer together, so at the top it is hard to tell you are climbing higher even after a major expenditure of your resources; the rungs get more slippery at the top, so if you don’t continually spend some of your resources, you will likely fall back a few rungs. This is true for individuals, and true for society.
The developed countries (i.e. US, Canada, Japan and Western Europe) comprise approximately one-quarter of the world’s population. Through the social programs provided by their taxes, the people living in the developed world have virtually eliminated deep poverty from their countries. Virtually everybody in these countries has access to sufficient food, shelter, education, and health care. Because of broad social safety nets, on a scale relative to the world, everybody in these countries is at least three-quarters up the ladder of well-being.
In America, we have chosen to use much of our taxes to eliminate dire poverty, but there are many other worthwhile and important things that are not funded by the government through our taxes. So, the role of individual givers in America is to improve our excellent living conditions even more by funding such things as the arts, medical research, churches, and helping the poor even more. Yet, America is so far up the scale of well-being that the costs are incredibly high and it is often hard to determine if improvement is being made even after the expenditure of a significant amount of resources. Yet, if we givers don’t make these expenditures, our communities certainly won’t advance, and we may even go backward.
Renata J. Raferty is an expert on charitable giving. She believes givers in America can be described in four ways:
- Social Donors: These givers place a high value on personal visibility and prestige brought by a gift, and they highly value the importance of interacting with others in the high-profile community.
- Quid Pro Quo Donors: These givers donate to organizations in which a close friend or colleague is involved. The contribution is based on a respect or trust in the person making the request. There is often an unspoken agreement that a return request will be made by the donor.
- Social Conscience Supporters: these people give to organizations or individuals because they believe in the importance of a mission or react to an impassioned request. These people are often genuinely altruistic in their motives and selflessly dedicated to their causes.
- Results Givers: These contributors carefully invest in the nonprofit sector specifically to effect substantial, measurable change in their communities and the world. These givers require levels of improvement big enough to change people’s lives on a long-term basis.The vast majority of Americans exhibit characteristics of the first three types of givers. Working together, we both support and perpetuate a system that allows many important organizations to exist and worthwhile actions to be taken. The results of these organizations are usually measured against their missions rather than against a particular standard of cost effectiveness. For instance, results might be measured by finding out if a hospital wing got built for the budgeted amount, how many people attend the ballet each season, or how many school buses show up in front of a museum.
The cost of improving well-being in America is so expensive and so hard to recognize, that it is virtually impossible to be a Results Giver except for very small projects. This is not because we want it that way, but it is an inherent result of our system of life. For one thing, the recognition of benefits for non-profit programs is very personal. Who of us would like to compare how much good the Boy Scouts do versus Gilcrease Museum versus John 3:16? Also, since America is so high on the economic scale, improvements in life caused by any one program are small on a relative basis and are difficult to measure. Consequently, most of us inherently believe it is highly unlikely that any one non-profit activity adds social benefit an order of magnitude better than any other.
Now, let’s go back to the rest of the world. Remember, one-quarter of the world’s population lives in developed countries where there is no abject poverty. Approximately one-six of the world’s population lives in developing countries but is not impoverished. That is a total of about 2.6 billion people who live in relative economic prosperity at least three-quarters up the ladder of well-being.
Here is how the other 4 billion, or about 60% of the world’s population, lives. One billion live on $2-$4 per day – they are maybe half way up the ladder of well-being. Two billion live on $1-$2 per day – they are maybe a quarter of the way up the ladder. One billion live on less than $1 per day – they are still trying to get on the first few rungs of the ladder. Many of these men, women, and children will not survive until tomorrow.
In terms that may hit closer to home: about 3 billion people have no access to sanitation, 2 billion have no access to electricity, 1 billion cannot read or sign their names.
Until recently, individual Americans did not have many good options to help these four billion impoverished people. But an option exists now that not only helps these people, but is incredibly cost effective since they live so far down the ladder of well-being. That option is microcredit. As I have gotten involved with microcredit, it has changed my entire perspective about what my money can accomplish.
Microcredit means making very small loans to poor people to help them start or improve their businesses. These loans are very effective because there are absolutely no other sources of capital available to these people. With a loan in size of $50 to $500 a poor person can often significantly improve their income on a permanent basis. Over 80% of microloans are made to women, so they are also a very important tool to help women’s and children’s economic situations.
Loans are usually made through organizations which form small community banks. Loans are individual signature loans, but are cross-guaranteed by other borrowers, so the default rates are often less than 1%, which is lower than in America. People are focused on repaying these loans because they don’t want to lose social status and want access to future loans. They know this may be their one and only chance for them and their children to rise from poverty. Loan terms are usually six months, and interest rates are 10-15% plus the rate of inflation. So, a typical interest rate is 35% per year.
Because loans are cross-guaranteed, payments are usually made weekly in mandatory meetings of all borrowers. Anyone missing a payment has a lot of explaining to do. At these meetings, it is very easy for organizations to cost-effectively provide other services such as health and nutrition information, business training, or other financial services. As you can imagine, in many cases the borrowers value this training and information as highly as the loans.
Microloans and these related services are usually made through well-established and credible organizations. Without going into detail, I believe I help change people’s lives for a total cost of $1 to $5 per person. On a relative basis, this is thousands of times cheaper than in America. As a famous Tulsa giver said, “In America I help bring people from here to here and it costs this much. With microcredit I help bring people from here to here and it costs this much. If I value human life equally, the conclusion is obvious.”
Without trying to sound like Sally Struthers, I would like to introduce you to Crucita, a lady that my daughter recently met on a trip to the Dominican Republic. Crucita lives in a tiny village near the sugar cane fields in a remote part of the island. With her first microloan, she purchased more inventory of food and drinks for her little stand. She has since taken and repaid 5 more loans, and has purchased an oven, freezer, washing machine, and a small motorcycle for her son to transport goods and people. She makes money by baking, laundering, and selling frozen and fresh foods. She is a perfect example of someone who needed a hand-up, not a hand-out.
Through microcredit, I believe ordinary individuals, like you and me, can change the lives of billions of people. My family still gives to many organizations which benefit my communities, but I feel compelled to give increasing amounts to microcredit projects where I can do so much more good for so much less money. And as a side benefit, now that I am able to become a Results Giver, I am becoming more enthusiastic about giving.