Jim Speaks Out Against Arizona Anti-Immigration Law SB 1070

I have never attended a City Council Meeting, let alone spoke at one. But I was deeply affected by the pain I believe the new Arizona immigration law will cause.

First, I attended a rally in front of City Hall. Yes, I was the only "white guy" in tie. Next, I decided to go into the City Council Meeting and listen to some of the speakers. I didn't decide to speak until after I heard many other concerned citizens expressing their positions. I tear up now thinking about how so many people are potentially affected directly by this law.

Here are my comments. I am proud to have included references to both Stephen Hawking and Donald Sutherland in my comments. I've indicated in the video where editing took place. The entire evening ran nearly 4 hours. In the end, the Flagstaff City Council listened to our citizens and refused to enforce Arizona's law. They unanimously voted to file an injunction refusing to enforce this bill.

If you'd like to see more of the citizen comments you can watch the entire evening at http://bit.ly/JimCityCouncil

#####

Connect with GoalBusters: LinkedIn - Alice Ferris / LinkedIn - Jim Anderson / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / Myspace

YouTube Tags: Jim Anderson Flagstaff Arizona City Council Immigration Law SB1070 Racial Profiling Immigrant Mexican Hispanic Latino Donald Sutherland Stephen Hawking Church Discussion Commentary Interview Injunction Public Comments AZ Jan Brewer Arizona Governor Legislature Sharecropper Farm Racist

Rural Fundraising and Respect of Place

We've been working with a long time friend and colleague on a project to build a new clinic in Sanders, Arizona, a remote community near the eastern border of Arizona. If you're driving at speeds like most trucks on the Interstate, you won't even notice Sanders, but there is a growing community of Navajo and others in this rural place.

As we've spent more time in Sanders and in the Navajo Nation, we've been reflecting on how to communicate the stories and needs of this unique place. While there are volumes of stories to tell, it boils down to this:

1. Cover basic needs first. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been around for a while because it makes sense. In a rural community, very often people are trying to meet basic needs, like food, shelter and clothing. It becomes totally irrelevant to the community if you're trying to pursue lofty ideals if you don't have the fundamentals covered.

2. It takes time to build trust and respect. Rural communities can be a bit of a paradox, in that they are very hospitable, yet it can take a long time for you to be considered a trusted part of the community. They will show you around, but not let you in until they think you're serious about sticking around. When we were conducting our initial interviews of the board and other community members, they were polite. Now, after several visits, they're starting to reveal the real stories.

3. Best practice doesn't always apply. The challenge with "best practice" is that it has very often been vetted by organizations in metropolitan areas. True best practices, in many respects, are the simplest strategies that will work regardless of community size. Just because a strategy worked in a similar size organization doesn't mean it will work in a rural area.

4. Take time to learn how you "fit in." This doesn't mean abandoning your personality, changing your style, or trying to be someone you're not. This means observing community interactions first hand and finding the good in what you see before you immediately suggest change. Think about it--how would you like it if a complete stranger walked up to you on the street and told you everything that they thought was wrong with you?

5. You learn the most over food. This one can be true about a lot of communities, not just rural ones, but is accentuated in small towns. Most of the time, there's one, maybe two places where people hang out. For Sanders, people go to the Apple Dumplin in Chambers, about 5 miles away on the frontage road. In St. Michaels, everyone congregates at the Denny's (which is probably the best run Denny's we've ever experienced)! We've learned much more about a community by eating its food, talking to restaurant staff, and watching the locals than by formal meetings in offices.

With all these points in mind, we look forward to more opportunities to get to know these communities and hopefully bring new resources to improve their way of life. And we hope we'll best communicate not only the people's needs, but their sense of pride and respect for the place they call home.

This entry is a preview of a book in process co-authored by Alice Ferris, MBA, CFRE, ACFRE and James Anderson. Originally posted January 2009.

Connect with GoalBusters: LinkedIn - Alice Ferris / LinkedIn - Jim Anderson / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / Myspace

Fundraising Tips: A Snapshot of Rural Donors - Press - AFP

From the Association of Fundraising Professionals

Fundraising Tips: A Snapshot of Rural Donors - Press - AFP

(April 6, 2010) Although people from rural communities are less likely to donate to charity, those that do give donate a higher percentage of their income than urban donors, according to a recent study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The research, funded by a grant from AFP, found that all else held constant, rural respondents were almost 5.2 percentage points less likely to be a charitable donor, and donated less, on average, than urban donors, after controlling for human and social capital variables, such as education level, income level, health status, religious affiliation, family composition, and others.

Rural respondents were significantly less likely to be donors to secular charities, and gave less on average to secular causes overall.

However, rural donors donated a statistically significantly higher percentage of their income to charity than did urban donors. Also, rural donors are more likely to donate to religious causes than secular causes. Frequent religious attendance is associated with a higher probability of giving for rural residents, as is itemization of deductions on income tax returns.

Researchers found that rural donors give $122 less, on average, after controls. However, for both urban and rural residents, the amount contributed is closely related to some of the same factors that are associated with the probability of giving: being a college graduate, being married, frequency of religious attendance, level of wealth, level of income and itemizing charitable deductions.

Note: The researchers defined "rural" as those living in small towns with a population of less than 20,000. In this study, approximately 18 percent to 21 percent of respondents lived in rural areas.

College Educated Give More

The researchers offered several suggestions for fundraising in rural areas. Because college education is a factor associated with giving, engage college educated people in your work, researchers recommend. Rural residents who have gone to college give more than those who had not had that opportunity, even after taking income differences into account. Especially for secular causes, it is important to cultivate the interest of people with a college education, and people likely to be itemizing deductions (people who have recently purchased a home, for example).

Segment potential donors by income in order to structure appeal amounts matched to different areas. Values expressed most frequently by rural donors include:

• Those with more should help those with less (equity of responsibility);
• Giving is a form of reciprocity for benefits received;
• Giving is a way to express religious beliefs; and
• Nonprofit organizations are perceived to be more effective in delivering services than government agencies.

Even with attention to fundraising in rural areas, the total amount of charitable giving from rural areas will naturally be smaller than the total gifts from urban areas, because fewer people live in rural areas.

Urban Communities

Urban residents donate almost 85.4 percent of total charitable giving, according to the study. Average and median giving amounts, whether for overall giving, religious or secular causes, from urban donors were always higher than the averages from rural donors.

Suggestions for fundraising in urban communities based on the findings of this study include:

• Ask couples to give to charity, not simply the men in the household. Men report lower giving and lower probability of giving to secular causes, compared with women. Married people report giving more than unmarried people of either gender.

• Segment on income but expect lower rates of return in lower income areas. Structure appeal amounts matched to different income levels. Income is associated with the probability of giving (higher income means higher probability of making a charitable gift) and with higher gift amounts.

• Structure requests to highlight connections to the prospective donor's friends and family, in addition to the appealing to broader concerns for equity and reciprocity. Urban donors were more likely than rural donors to say they gave to support the efforts of their friends and family.

To visit the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University's website, go to www.philanthropy.iupui.edu.

#####

Connect with GoalBusters: LinkedIn - Alice Ferris / LinkedIn - Jim Anderson / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube / Myspace