(Note: Spoiler Alert. This post is writing commentary on the book Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It). This book is being discussed on April 11 by the Avondale United Methodist Book Club. Those who want to read the book before forming opinions are advised to read this column after reading the book. For the rest of you, consider this a long-winded review and commentary on the book, and please comment your thoughts.)
In this chapter Lupton starts by looking at “Oath for Compassionate Service” point by point:
Never do for the poor what they have (or could have) the capacity to do for themselves.
Personal responsibility is the core of this one. We don’t want to disempower people. We must let people struggle for self-sufficiency to build up themselves to become what they are meant to be.
Limit one-way giving to emergency situations
Crisis or chronic need? Triage only works in a crisis. Avoid the below trend:
- Give once and you elicit appreciation
- Give twice and you create anticipation
- Give three times and you create expectation
- Give four times and it becomes entitlement
- Give five times and you establish dependency
Strive to empower the poor through employment, lending, and investing, using grants sparingly to reinforce achievements.
Investing and lending with the poor is a legitimate exchange, a sharing of resources. It strengthens the poor. An investor has a stake in the results, and should require sound plans, control and accountability. Grants are best for R&D and gap funding to help reach sustainability.
Subordinate self-interests to the needs of those being served
Don’t let the sponsoring organization’s goals creep in and take priority.
Listen closely to those you seek to help, especially to what is not being said – unspoken feelings may contain essential clues to effective service
The poor have a lot of reasons not to share everything. Fear of judgment, fear of losing support, intimidation, fear of being seen as unappreciative. So we need to listen closely. They may not share things like the hours of our operations are more for our benefit than theirs, for example.
Above all, do no harm.
All change has consequences. Try to predict them as much as possible, and recognize them when they do occur.
Community Transformation
Days of service are good, but they don’t create lasting change. What is needed is geographically focused vision, with measurable goals, over extended time.
What makes a good community? Safety is number one. Good schools is number two. Economic viability (not abandoned by flight of wealth) is number three. There are many other factors, but these form the core. So how do we start? Don’t assume there is no community leadership. Find it and listen.
Community Development Fundamentals
We need an empowering philosophy that begins with strengths, not problems and builds upon them. Resist anything that undermines indigenous capacity. We should see a pattern of relief, to rehabilitation, to development, following the below principles:
- Focus on community
- Focus on assets
- Focus on “front-burner” issues
- Focus on investing
- Focus on leadership development
- Focus on pace – don’t get ahead of the people.
When Collaboration is Not Enough
Collaboration can be a human services paradigm, getting economy of scales in providing services, without developing the local community people and resources. This is a “prime example of the erroneous belief that better-coordinate services make healthier communities.”
John McKnight, founder of Asset-Based Community Development, noted: “I’ve been around neighborhoods, neighborhood organizations, and communities in big cities for thirty-six years. I have never seen service systems that brought people to well-being, delivered them to citizenship, or made them free.”
What is the problem with services? They:
- Divert money away from poor people to service providers
- Programs are based on deficiencies rather than capacities
- Services displace the ability of people’s organizations to solve problems.
These are the questions to ask:
- Does the proposed activity strengthen the capacity of the neighborhood residents to prioritize and address their own issues?
- Will the proposed activity be wealth-generating or at least self-sustaining for the community?
- Do the monies generated for and/or by local residents remain at work in their community?
- Does the proposed activity have a timetable for training and transferring ownership to indigenous leadership?
The point: We need to get away from needs surveys but rather look to develop unused potentials.
At The Rainbow 