Donation Acquisition Processes at Projects for Assistance in Transition from
Homelessness:
A Utilization-Focused Evaluation
By Katherine Mallon
An Internship Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirement for the Degree of
Master of Arts
In Applied Sociology
Northern Arizona University
May 2010
Approved:
________________________________
Yvonne Luna, Ph.D., Chair
________________________________
Kooros Mahmoudi, Ph.D.
________________________________
Anne Medill, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Donation Acquisition Processes at Projects for Assistance in Transition from
Homelessness:
A Utilization-Focused Evaluation
Katherine Mallon
This paper fulfills a partial requirement for the completion of the Internship Option of
the Masters in Applied Sociology degree at Northern Arizona University. The
culmination of the internship is a program evaluation that analyzes donation acquisition
processes for Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) at
Catholic Charities Community Services in Flagstaff, Arizona. The socio-historical
foundation is based upon a Conflict theoretical perspective that describes the evolution of
the American welfare system. A Utilization-Focused Evaluation model is used for the
program evaluation. The completion of the project entails a donation acquisition plan
collaboratively designed by the author and PATH program staff.
2
Table of Contents
Abstract
I.
Preface
4
II.
Introduction
7
III.
Socio-Historical Foundation
9
IV.
Agency Mission and Goals
18
V.
Methods
23
VI.
Program Evaluation
26
VII.
Conclusion
48
VIII.
References
52
IX.
Appendix
56
3
PREFACE
The Dream
The bearded old man coughed. The pain in his stomach had progressed beyond the
point of desperation. He blinked and then his eyelids stayed shut. He felt a sharp pain in
his head – certainly nothing new – then a sensation of warmth and dizziness. His head
sagged and dropped to his chest. He slumped forward in his chair and released a sigh, his
last breath.
Suddenly he jerked upright, his eyes flew open and bright sunlight blinded him. He
fell to his knees in deep grass – he was outdoors! As his vision adjusted, he saw hills of
red dirt and black shrubbery. The sky above was brilliant blue. “I have died,” he thought.
He pondered this experience for a moment. He had always professed that it was fruitless
to waste one’s material existence longing for the afterlife; however, he was certain that he
was now experiencing at least some version of life after death.
He scrambled to his feet and turned. Standing before him was a wizened brownskinned woman. She was near a grove of pines, holding a tall staff in one hand and a
leather bag in the other. Another woman stood nearby. She also had dark skin and
brilliant white hair, long and pulled back in braids. The two women smiled and spoke to
one another, but he could not hear their words. They beckoned for him to follow. A
short distance away, he could see some houses with rotten siding and peeling paint. He
smelled wood smoke and charred meat. Derelict machines seemed to grow from the
ground in mounds and piles of rusted metal. The poverty of the place was like a stench.
And yes, there was a real stench. Refuse tumbled down a ravine near the houses. Small
4
brown children, accompanied by several scruffy dogs, were picking their way through the
dump.
He tried to ask what manner of place this was and why he was there. The women
either ignored him or did not hear him. The two old souls climbed a gentle slope and
stood beckoning. He followed and then gazed across the valley. There was a river
winding its way to the north. Deciduous trees mixed with cedars and pines along its
banks. He reveled in the lush beauty of it; however, he had also observed the poverty and
was aware that there was oppression at work here. He wondered why these people were
destitute, and knew in his heart that it was the inevitable result of class conflict and
colonial capitalism. As they approached a faded pink house with a sagging roof, he
noticed a third woman, thinner than the others, sitting on a stool near the doorway. She
was crushing small pungent red berries in a large colander. The scent of the berries was
both bitter and mouthwatering. She smiled a toothless smile as they walked past her and
pushed open the sagging door.
Inside was a room that he deduced to be the kitchen. It was clean, though the floors
were clearly worn and in need of repair. An old metal-legged table stood in the center of
the room with several wooden chairs scattered around it. The toothless woman had
joined the other two indoors and they motioned for him to sit. He acquiesced, and being
a man of the world – a man who studied the world – he methodically continued to
observe his surroundings. As he absorbed the details of his unusual experience, he
realized that it was not an accident that he had appeared in this community. His aged
mind began to grasp the purpose of his visit to this place. The old women nodded their
approval as if they could read his thoughts.
5
He had once envisioned a society where contributions to the community were made by
people according to their ability, and everyone received the benefit of those contributions
according to their need. Here, in this strange afterlife, a community was in need. Praxis
must be applied and a sustainable society must be rebuilt. He realized that his utopia
might begin here. The inspiration of his thoughts gathered and flew out across the
universe, searching for a kindred spirit in which to ignite the fire of social change.
The Awakening
Far away across the Western mountains, a woman awakened from a dream that
seemed inspired by a powerful consciousness. She felt serene and confident; her life’s
purpose had become clear. After many years of restless sleep, while the words of Marx
bled out of her head and covered her pillow, the dream had now revealed the path she
must take. There were people in need – people who could benefit from her particular
expertise. She had lived with these people as a child. She loved them. Their names were
a song, a hymn of grace. As children, they played together in the red-dirt hills and swam
in the deep clear pools of the river. Their language had once been her language, though it
was long-since forgotten.
Armed with the theories of great sociologists and educated in the practical aspects of
promoting social change, she would embrace her own history, her own material
existence. She would use conflict theory to understand poverty. She would understand
the importance of the self-awareness of a community. By working closely with existing
organizations that could help propel her ideas, she would attempt to affect change for the
people of her heart. As water flows downhill, she would follow the path that the old
communist had laid out for her.
6
INTRODUCTION
C. Wright Mills (1963 [2010]) implored us to view society through the lens of a
sociological imagination. It is often in the darkest corners of society that we find the
richest sources of social wonder. Theory becomes reality before our eyes and the
consciousness shifts to embrace humanity in its often disagreeable condition. As
sociologists, we are compelled by the writings of Marx (1888) to go beyond explanation
and strive to deliver humanity to a more equitable place.
I spent my childhood on the Apsáalooke Nation in south-central Montana. My
neighbors, the Bad Horse family, lived in a government-built house across the gravel
road from my father’s small ranch. Our family and theirs worked and played together on
the banks of the Little Big Horn River. In Apsáalooke tradition, no one should ever be
homeless. The Bad Horse’s faded-pink clapboard house was always overflowing with
friends and relatives who had no place else to go. I learned about the importance of
community and the value of all human beings from Grandmother Emma, who could
make enough food for a small army from the wild ingredients that grew in the rocky river
bottom. Poverty was the normal state of life.
The root causes of poverty are rarely addressed by the American welfare system. The
welfare state in America evolved from its historical foundation in Elizabethan Poor Laws
to the twenty-first century concept of Charitable Choice without ever shifting focus from
treating the poor as if they were complicit in their own condition. Time and again, the
burden of caring for the needy has been relegated to religious organizations. In 2010,
federal and state governments failed to uphold their partnership in funding, leaving
charitable organizations scrambling to meet the needs of the communities they served.
7
Economically repressed neighborhoods struggled to support the needy amongst them and
charitable donations were hard-won.
In the spring of 2010, through an internship with Projects for Assistance in Transition
from Homelessness (PATH), I gained experience working with one of the neediest
populations in this nation – chronically homeless, mentally ill persons. PATH is a federal
program, established in accordance with the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Act (1987).
It is subcontracted in Northern Arizona to Catholic Charities Community Services under
the auspices of the Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Authority (NARBHA).
Catholic Charity’s core philosophy is to treat the least among us with dignity and
autonomy. The material goods and services needed to administer those ideals, however,
always come at substantial financial cost.
As part of my service to PATH, I performed an evaluation of their donation
acquisition processes. A Utilization-Focused Evaluation (UFE) model was used in order
to create a functional plan that would help their process evolve in a way that met the
specific needs of the PATH program. The UFE allows participation by the evaluator in
formative processes of an organization. The outcome of the final evaluation is not
expected to be an impartial assessment, but a collaboration. The PATH team’s processes
were examined using qualitative research methods. As a participant-observer, I acquired
experience with the daily routine of the program. Working with the PATH team, I
participated in the development of a donation acquisition plan by researching best
practices, then testing them in immediate and practical application. At the completion of
my internship, it was my hope to have left the PATH program with an insightful
evaluation that would serve as a gateway to a consciousness of possibility.
8
SOCIO-HISTORICAL FOUNDATION
In 1996, President Clinton signed welfare reform laws that limited the amount of free
federal assistance impoverished people could receive. This created a gap between the
needs of poor families and the amount of money they could expect to receive from the
government. As part of the reform, the Clinton administration included provisions that
would allow faith-based charitable organizations to fill that gap. This was the Charitable
Choice provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) (Gilman 2007). PRWORA and Charitable Choice are the most recent
incarnation of American social action toward poverty that has developed consistent with
the functionalist perspective that the poor exist due to their own social, economic and/or
religious failures and that their existence serves a purpose in society. It is easy to
describe the evolution of the American welfare state in terms of a functionalist
perspective; however, the flaws that lie at its bedrock are grounded firmly in conflict
theory. As the epitaph on Marx’s grave attests, “The philosophers have only interpreted
the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (Marx 1888: 15).
According to Durkheim (1912), society’s moral code or authority is exhibited through
totems and rituals that carry meaning for the participants; often as expressed through
religious practice. This serves to build respect for authority itself and respect for each
other among the participants. The ideas that are important to the lives of the participants
become sacred. The struggle of daily life then becomes the profane, in contrast with the
elevated spirit of the sacred life. The sacred life provides direction and discipline to bind
society together. This creates a collective consciousness that elevates people to think
beyond themselves in terms of the welfare of society (Durkheim, 1912). Watson (1971)
9
argued that the expression of societal welfare is usually exhibited primarily in terms of
the remediation of poverty. However, from the functionalist point of view, poverty is not
something that can or should actually be remedied.
Gans (1972) took a conflict perspective in describing the functionalist idea that there
are functions of poverty that are perceived as preventing its eradication. These include
ideas that the poor are necessary to perform tasks that no one else wants to do, at low
wages that allow the upper classes to afford their labor; and that their existence provides
for a range of specialized jobs that cater to their own needs. This serves to maintain class
hierarchy which in turn supports the American ideal of social mobility – i.e. there has to
be a bottom level from which to arise. From the functional viewpoint, poverty is only
dysfunctional to those who experience it (Gans 1972). Gans concluded that the
eradication of poverty would be costly to the affluent (and therefore dominant) classes
and that hence, the only reason to eradicate poverty would be “…when they [the poor]
become sufficiently dysfunctional for the affluent, or when the poor can obtain enough
power to change the system of stratification” (Gans 1972: 288). In the meantime, the
guiding ideology for both faith-based and American government social aid echoes the
sense of resignation found in the Christian New Testament when Jesus replied to his
disciples, “For ye have the poor always with you…” (Matthew 26:11, King James
Translation).
American social welfare has its roots in 17th century Elizabethan English Poor Laws.
These laws were codified by Parliament and established a hierarchy of control that
originated in individual localities. With the advent of the age of industrialization, a
transformation occurred which separated the economy from the fabric of society. Free
10
trade evolved into an economic system that caused class disparity between the rich and
the poor. A new kind of socio-economic structure was put in place that revolved around
individual consumerism rather than reciprocity and redistribution of resources (Polanyi
1944). Residents of local parishes were selected to oversee the welfare of the poor.
Taxation for social services also occurred primarily at the local level (Watson 1971). Aid
was given based upon a punitive view of need, and only in amounts necessary to keep the
poor alive and out of sight. In essence, there was nothing remedial about the Poor Laws.
The Poor Laws relied upon miniscule taxes of local economies. They were designed as a
stop-gap to keep poverty from becoming problematic for the rest of society.
The Poor Laws were challenged by economist Thomas Malthus and later Adam Smith
as being generally harmful to the natural state of the economy. They viewed the laws as
wasteful acts of charity that served to perpetuate poverty, when the poor could instead be
serving the function of cheap labor for industry. Proponents of Utilitarianism, primarily
influenced by Jeremy Bentham, propelled changes to the Poor Laws that required the
able-bodied to work and set a lower standard of poverty at which people could receive
aid, with the idea that this would encourage people to move away from poverty (Barry
1999). The Utilitarian viewpoint failed to address root causes of poverty and actually
stratified poverty according to the level of deservedness. The undeserving poor (ablebodied) were visibly punished. They were often relocated to poorhouses or workhouses,
known as “indoor” relief, in an “enforcement of the work ethic” (Luna 2010 in
Mahmoudi and Parlin: 64). The deserving poor (widows, elderly, disabled etc.) were
often given opportunities to serve in homes with family or community members. This
system was dubbed “outdoor” relief, because it took place outside of institutions such as
11
workhouses (Luna 2010). Outdoor relief was criticized because it did not provide any
financial reward for caregivers or promote people to get outside their homes to try to seek
a better life (Watson 1971). The Utilitarian perspective can be viewed today as a
precursor to the 1996 PRWORA legislation and the idea of welfare-to-work. Instead of
solving economic and social problems that contribute to a state of poverty, the poor are
pressured to raise themselves out of poverty by their own ambition.
Puritans who settled early America brought English ideas to the New World
concerning the public response to poverty. They structured social aid around their ideas
of predestination in a hierarchical universe. Poverty was viewed as an insurmountable
state that was to be suffered under the charity of the wealthy. Wealth was considered a
sign of God’s favor (Watson 1971). The Protestant ethic (Weber 1904) propelled
communities to view social aid through the lens of economic structure; not in terms of
how the economic structure could serve the poor, but rather how the poor could serve the
economic structure. This tied poverty, a socio-economic issue, to a morality that viewed
poverty as irreversible. The charitable response to poverty in America continued to be
predominantly faith-based throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Because of the
variation in religious compunction, there was no standard quality of care for the needy
and indigent.
In the early 20th century, Jane Addams had a profound effect on the way Americans
viewed social responsibility. Addams saw the plight of the urban poor through the eyes of
a social imagination firmly grounded in pragmatism. For Addams, morality did not exist
as an abstraction, but as a reality (Elshtain 2002). She wrote extensively about society
and social reform. She situated the idea of poverty within a cultural and political critique
12
that demanded social change within the American democracy. She propelled the creation
of Hull House in Chicago. In her vision, Hull House would serve as a meeting place of
diverse populations, where the poor could access libraries and attend classes on homekeeping. In this venue of interaction and inspiration, people would ultimately be able to
rise above poverty. Although she desired to eliminate the root causes of poverty by
providing a center of housing, education and social improvement, her project inevitably
served to reinforce the perspective that social integration of the poor was the ultimate
solution to poverty. Her model preceded the bureaucracy-oriented social welfare system
of the later twentieth century.
In the 1930s, the widespread economic failure of the Great Depression proved
insurmountable for local and state governments. Local charity was stretched beyond its
capability to provide. The federal government, under the auspices of President Roosevelt,
created programs such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and later
the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to bring a renewed commitment to providing
work as a means for the needy to elevate themselves out of poverty (Barry 1999). Faithbased organizations continued to work separately to support their own spiritual
communities (Watson 1971). As a reaction against Protestant social reform groups,
Catholic congregations began to form social institutions of their own. Catholics felt
proprietary toward the poor. In 1936, at a convention in New York City, Bishop Meunch
exclaimed, “The poor belong to us. We will not let them be taken from us!” (Brown and
McKeown 1997: 193). In order to ensure continued pre-eminence over the realm of the
poor, individual Catholics worked to become politically prominent in American
13
government. This allowed for eventual participation in the development of the American
welfare system (Bane, Coffin & Thiemann 2000).
In a historical exposition of American welfare, Stanley Carlson-Thies (2001)
demonstrated that the inclusion of faith-based social services in the welfare system was
not new. He discussed the historical foundation of social services in the U.S. since the
beginning of the 20th century. Carlson-Thies’ investigation revealed that it was only after
the New Deal legislation of the 1930s that private and religious social services were
officially segregated. Prior to this, the government had devolved concern for poverty to
local communities that in turn relied upon faith-based services to care for the poor. He
concluded that the problem with Charitable Choice was not that it opened conversation
about how to improve social service programs, but that it opened conflict over who
would be receiving and controlling money (Carlson-Thies 2001).
During the last half of the twentieth century, Catholics were instrumental in shaping
American social policy. Catholic charities were required to act on the principle of
“subsidiarity” as set forth by Pope Pius XI in 1931. This essentially emphasized the
solidarity of individual communities as the first line of defense against poverty. In other
words, it reproduced the pluralist concept of social welfare in which local communities,
supported by faith-based charitable organizations, were primarily responsible for the
identification and solution of poverty in their own locales. “The principal use of the
concept is to set proper limits on the state’s role in society” (Bane et al 2000). At the
same time, it also allowed for participation and debate by private charities in the larger
government forum on an individual level. The outcome of political pressure applied by a
Catholic power-base was the recognition that both public and private agencies needed to
14
adopt policies and strategies to ensure standardized resources and outcomes (Brown and
McKeown 1997). The Catholic Church entrenched itself in a position to reap possible
federal benefits, even though it would not be until the 1990s that the division between
state and faith-based welfare that had been created in the 1930s was eased (Amenta
1998). “The longstanding relationship between Catholic Charities and the government is
likely to be a tremendous asset to the Catholic Church as charitable choice opportunities
are expanded” (Bartowski and Regis 2003: 184). Government funding would allow for
expansion of Catholic Charities’ sphere of social services.
The Charitable Choice initiative was added to PRWORA legislation in 1996, but
President Clinton did not actively pursue its implementation. Faith-based social service
initiatives had already been implemented in Texas by then-Governor George W. Bush.
When he took office as president in 2000, he declared Charitable Choice the cornerstone
of his regime of “compassionate conservatism” (Gilman 2007). Through a series of
Executive Orders, he bypassed Congress and expanded Charitable Choice to be included
in a broad range of human service programs. He created the White House Office of Faith
Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI), removed regulatory barriers and
stipulated that faith-based social programs must receive the same access to funding as
secular programs. His actions pushed the limits of First Amendment concerns over
church-state separation (Gilman 2007).
Cnaan and Boddie (2002) analyzed the impact that PRWORA welfare legislation
would have upon traditional avenues of social work. The authors provided a review of
public opinion and research regarding Charitable Choice and how it could be effectively
implemented by the U.S. welfare system. They contended that PRWORA created an
15
opportunity for the combination of religious and publicly supported social services.
Along with the possibility that religious charitable organizations and nongovernmental
organizations could fill the needs gap exposed by PRWORA, the authors presented two
associated risks. The obvious risk was that religious oppression could occur where needy
populations were forced into unwanted situations of proselytization. The second risk was
that the government could use promised financial support as leverage to control the
agenda of religious institutions. Cnaan and Boddie concluded that more research was
needed in determining the effectiveness of how the redistribution of funding would affect
both publicly funded and charitable social services (2002).
Isaac (2003) shared the same concern in regard to the risk of ideological oppression
under a faith-based welfare initiative. Isaac generalized that faith-based initiatives have
potential; however, he warned that faith-based organizations must not be conflated with
secular community organizations and they must not serve to reduce public funding for
social services (2003). According to Gilman (2007), Isaac’s concerns in 2003 were well
justified. After President Bush’s Executive Orders went into effect, the rights of religious
organizations were expanded to include freedom from previous regulations about the
placement of religious iconography at social service sites, equal protection in the
awarding of grants and contracts; and a guarantee that the practice of their religious
beliefs, even as they affect aid recipients, cannot be interfered with except in cases of
civil litigation brought by clients. Since the implementation of Bush’s policies, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has increased funding to faith-based
organizations by 88% (Gilman 2007). The only stipulations on the receipt of federal
grant money are that the money not be used for direct proselytization (difficult to define
16
and prove), and that the state provides alternative secular sources of aid (though the
amount and quality are not specified). Faith-based organizations are also responsible for
accounting for the use of funds, although there are loopholes that prevent outside audits
(Gilman 2007).
Part of the Charitable Choice initiative was that it would provide federal funding for
certain programs as long as states matched a percentage of the funding amount. During
the recent economic crisis, states have made deep cuts into their social service programs
and more cuts are anticipated. An unanticipated result of this is that some valuable
programs that have been managed by charitable agencies might lose their funding; and
those charitable agencies no longer have sufficient alternative financial sources at their
disposal. The welfare state has essentially removed itself from fiscal responsibility for
the poor, and at this point there is no guarantee that there will be any agency, faith-based
or otherwise, to meet the needs of a growing impoverished population in America.
Welfare reform may have reduced the number of people on welfare, but it has not begun
to address the underlying causes or possible solutions to poverty (Gilman 2007).
17
AGENCY MISSION AND GOALS
Homelessness is an outgrowth of poverty, but it is also a barometer of the physical and
emotional health of a society. Homelessness is difficult to define. It is a socially
constructed concept that means something different to everyone who is affected by it.
Many people who live in automobiles do not consider themselves homeless. People who
are sheltered in hotels or registered at shelters may or may not be considered homeless,
dependent on definitions by government agencies, medical institutions, or insurance
companies. Community members construct homelessness around the appearance of
poverty or vagrancy (Marcus 2006). The United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) defines a homeless person as "an unaccompanied homeless
individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a
year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years"
(Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 2010).
In 1987, largely due to pressure from constituents in cities where homelessness was
especially visible, Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
It is a conditional funding act that depends upon matching funding contributions from
participating states. Because receipt of funding relies upon states’ commitment to match
a percentage of the federal funds, some states opt out of participation (Dept. of Housing
and Urban Development 2010). The state of Arizona has, up until now, chosen to accept
federal funds and participate in Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
homeless programs. This allows the Department of Economic Security (DES) in Arizona
to provide funding for Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH)
in Flagstaff.
18
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness
The PATH program was authorized in 1990 by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Amendments Act. It is administered nationally under the auspices of the
Center for Mental Health services, which is a branch of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). PATH funding comes from a federal
government grant that is matched by state funding. In Arizona, PATH operates under the
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA). For every three
dollars in federal money, each state must provide one dollar in matching funds or in-kind
services (payment for goods and services with other goods and services of equal value).
A change in federal regulations in 1969 allowed states to purchase certain social services
(beginning with Aid to Dependent Children [ADC]), from private nonprofit providers.
This was expanded through Charitable Choice legislation in the 1990s (Coleman 2001).
The Flagstaff PATH program is one of the social service programs housed at Catholic
Charities and reports to Catholic Charities as well as to the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
PATH provides services for people who are homeless or about to be homeless and
who have documented mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders. There are several
levels of PATH services, ranging from basic outreach to a transition into permanent
housing. Outreach administration includes locating homeless people, assessing their
immediate needs and providing goods and services such as sleeping bags, tents, socks,
coats, food and beverages and temporary housing if possible. Once client contact has
been established, the program team encourages client intake procedures that enable the
team to move a homeless person toward concrete goals such as employment and housing.
19
If PATH is unable to help a client due to ineligibility, referrals are made to other agencies
that might more appropriately provide aid. PATH partners with other agencies in a
coordinated effort to achieve the best result for each client. By working with program
consumers at whatever stage of recovery they might be in, PATH is able to provide a
well-planned process of achievement for each client in the form of housing and treatment
track charts.
The PATH program in Flagstaff performs outreach services across the entirety of
Coconino County. Direct contact is maintained with homeless people both through
distributing supplies and transporting clients to required social service venues.
Throughout this contact, respect for and autonomy of the homeless in establishing their
own goals is emphasized. Because PATH directly supplies clients with materials and
goods necessary for survival, a large part of the program’s activities focuses on the
acquisition of both material and financial donations.
Twice a year, PATH also participates in a point-in-time count of homeless families
and individuals in cooperation with Coconino County Continuum of Care. Point-in-time
refers to a specific date on which individuals disclose where they slept that night. The
Continuum of Care (CoC) is a set of three federal competitively-awarded programs
created to address the problems of homelessness in a comprehensive manner with other
federal agencies (Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 2010). During the point-intime count period, survey instruments are distributed and other relief agencies are
recruited to the effort. The collected data is a rich source of information, not only for
PATH and its supervising agencies, but for other agencies like the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs.
20
While PATH is affiliated with Catholic Charities USA, Charitable Choice legislation
requires that its services are distributed on an equal basis, regardless of religious
affiliation. This is an important component of faith-based social services the boundaries
of which are sometimes challenged or disregarded by some faith-based providers.
Catholic Charities Community Services
Catholic Charities USA is the largest private social service provider in America
(Brown and McKeown 1997). It is incorporated as a public charitable trust with
autonomy from the United States Catholic Church and local dioceses. Two-thirds of the
budget comes from government funds for outsourcing welfare (Coleman 2001); because
of this, the agency is bound to nondiscriminatory practices. The foci of their charitable
work are reducing poverty, supporting families and empowering communities. Catholic
Charities USA has its philanthropical roots in the teachings of Jesus Christ and is the
parent organization of Catholic Charities Community Services-Arizona (Catholic
Charities). Catholic Charities was established in Arizona in 1933 in an effort to alleviate
human suffering during the Great Depression. It is a 501(C)3 nonprofit agency that
receives a portion of its funding from government resources (IRS 557 2008: 65-66). The
organization is also funded by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix.
While Catholic Charities is a religious charitable social service provider, it does not
discriminate based upon religion. The mission statement is as follows: “Affirming
human dignity and developing just and caring communities for vulnerable children,
families at risk, and people in crisis” (Catholic Charities Community Services 2009).
Additionally:
We reach out to thousands of people, regardless of their race, ethnicity,
economic status, or religious affiliation, to:
21
* build just and caring communities
* strengthen families
* reduce poverty
* ease suffering
* advocate for justice
* enhance human dignity and ensure the social and economic participation of
all. (Catholic Charities Community Services 2009)
Because of its nondiscrimination policy, Catholic Charities’ social thought has
translated easily to government policy (Coleman 2001). The Director of Housing
and Homeless Services in Flagstaff said that in his experience there has not been
any significant conflict between Catholic ethics and government mandates
(Hudenko 2010).
In 2001, the annual operating budget of Catholic Charities USA was 2.5 billion
dollars and it served upwards of ten million clients through 1400 different
agencies. Seventy percent of Catholic Charities clients were non-Catholic poor
(Coleman 2001). In the 1980s, Catholic Charities’ lobbyists took a strong stand
against proposed Arizona legislation that would have turned some welfare services
over to private corporations, citing that “The end result [of reform] must not harm
the vulnerable” (Coleman 2001:98). Catholic Charities’ lobbyists also opposed
portions of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) that endorsed rigid work requirements and an employment
strategy that did not guarantee maintenance of a living wage (Coleman 2001).
In practice, the Catholic Charities mission statement is visible in every office at
the Flagstaff headquarters. Staff and volunteers are specifically instructed that they
must not question clients regarding their religious affiliation or personal beliefs.
22
METHODS
In the creation of a program evaluation, program donation acquisition processes of
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) were examined. The
evaluation objective was threefold: 1) to situate the usefulness of private donations in the
overall funding scheme of PATH, 2) to analyze current processes of acquisition and
suggest means for improvement, and 3) to generate a standardized plan for donation
acquisition that has a high degree of efficacy and requires the minimum amount of
employee effort and training.
The model for the evaluation was based upon Patton’s (1997) Utilization-Focused
Evaluation (UFE). This is a formative process evaluation. The overall goal of this type
of evaluation is to provide research results that are relevant to the evolution of agency
processes (Royse, Thyer, Padgett and Logan 2001). Decision makers (Catholic Charities
supervisors) and information users (PATH team members) will be able to translate the
data into decisions and action. Their participation in the evolution of the evaluation
completes the cycle of utility that ensures program improvement that is practical and
functional.
A Utilization-Focused Evaluation works particularly well as part of a participatory
process. The act of participating in the daily activities of an organization ensures a
beneficial outcome for evaluation stakeholders including data that can be used to propel
and improve formative processes. As an intern with the PATH program at Catholic
Charities, the data-gathering process was integrated with the daily functions of the PATH
program. This allowed development of an evaluation that took PATH team members’
needs and concerns into account. It also provided an in-depth look at the existing
23
donation acquisition processes (or lack thereof) and a concrete vision of how the donation
acquisition process might best move forward.
Components of the UFE include several consecutive areas of analysis. The first is
built on a set of assumptions about the existing donation acquisition process. The second
component analyzes real inputs that must occur and the interaction that takes place in
order to acquire those inputs; such as conversations, interviews and agency work. Lastly,
immediate and subsequent expectations are examined in terms of stated process goals
(Patton 1997). Over the course of arriving at recommendations for improvement, current
practices are analyzed. Research of similar donation acquisition practices of other
successful social service providers forms a basis for comparison and improvement. In the
final analysis, an action plan is presented. This plan details specific processes, based
upon best practices for donation acquisition.
During the course of a fifteen week internship with the PATH program, information
on the donation acquisition process was collected through documentation review of
PATH quarterly reports, interviews with PATH team personnel and supervisors, and
participant action research. Interviews were conducted with Victor Hudenko and Rose
Hernandez. Hudenko is the Director of Housing and Homeless Services for Catholic
Charities-Arizona. Hernandez is a United Way Representative and also serves as Intake
and Referral Specialist for the Catholic Charities office in Flagstaff. Informal interviews
and conversations also served as sources of information. PATH Homeless Outreach
Specialists Nicholas Wood and Scott Miller provided answers to questions on a daily
basis. Housing Coordinator Sandi Flores served as an expert on Flagstaff donation
acquisition processes, as did PATH team member Richard Brust.
24
Documentation review provided an efficient means to ascertain data on previously
donated goods and their fiscal value, as well as the quantity of goods distributed to
clients. The first several weeks of the internship were spent researching the Client
Services Listing (Appendix) and PATH quarterly reports. These documents presented an
unobtrusive view of program operations with little bias of information.
Participation in the daily activities of PATH homeless outreach enabled application of
agency processes as a component of my internship with the agency. As an active
participant, I became invested in the success of the program. The UFE model allowed for
this level of personal involvement as part of the formative process. Field notes in the
form of a daily journal were meticulously maintained in a timely manner. These notes
were utilized as part of the final donation acquisition evaluation.
Research of best practices for donation acquisition processes formed the framework
for an analysis of existing PATH processes. Recommendations for process improvement
were based upon the research of best practices. Donation acquisition process
development included examining and refining donor records, contacting past and
potential donors and creating a standardized process that allowed for more efficient and
successful completion of future acquisitions. Cumulative data from interviews,
documentation, participation and research was then used as part of the UFE to propel the
formation of an improved plan for PATH donation acquisition. The final program
evaluation will be presented to PATH program supervisor Michael Van Ness, Catholic
Charities Director of Housing and Homeless Services Victor Hudenko and my graduate
committee at Northern Arizona University.
25
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) is a charitable
agency that provides assistance to homeless and potentially homeless people. Its scope of
goods and services includes, but is not limited to, eviction prevention, apartment move-in
assistance (funding for deposits and rental assistance), access to transitional housing, aid
with identification acquisition, travel assistance, bus passes, food, water, clothing and
outdoor survival gear for those who live in unsheltered conditions (Client Services
Listing, Appendix). PATH is funded through conditional federal grants and supported by
Catholic Charities in Arizona. In order to use the majority of funding to assist homeless
persons in transitioning out of homelessness, it is beneficial to acquire smaller goods and
services through charitable donations. As the focus of my internship project, Michael
Van Ness, PATH supervisor in Flagstaff, suggested that my efforts might best be applied
in assisting to develop a donation acquisition plan for the program. A program evaluation
was completed as part of a collaborative course of action.
The model used for this evaluation is a Utilization-Focused Evaluation (UFE) (Patton
1997). It is a formative evaluation that can be used to inform donation acquisition
process development. The UFE rests on a cycle of research activity that begins with the
evaluator’s active participation in the program’s processes, continues with participant
dialogue with program administrators and finally implements best practices as they are
shaped to work most efficiently within the program structure. Research of best practices
for donation acquisition, as part of the UFE, provides the foundation for a plan that can
be carried forth by the program. The end result is an evaluation that provides more than a
26
critique of program processes. It enables a collaboratively constructed product that
facilitates program operations.
Analysis of Existing Practices
PATH is one of the most prominent social service programs offered by Catholic
Charities in Arizona, according to Coconino County PATH supervisor, Michael Van
Ness (February 2010). He asserted that the reasons for this are twofold. First, the
dramatic nature of PATH outreach is unsurpassed. The PATH team saves lives. Living
in unsheltered situations, especially in northern Arizona, can be extremely dangerous.
PATH serves as a first line of defense for the homeless population. The range of weather
conditions and the rough terrain make outdoor survival difficult, even for those who are
prepared. No matter the time of day or weather conditions, the PATH team travels the
length and breadth of the county and sometimes beyond, transporting people to
temporary housing or medical facilities as their needs require. The team tries to provide
good quality camping equipment for those who choose to remain outdoors. Bus passes,
warm apparel, food and hygiene products are also distributed on a daily basis. Nicholas
Wood (March 2010), Homeless Outreach Specialist, estimated that nearly one thousand
pairs of socks were distributed over the course of last year. The PATH quarterly reports
for 2009 supported this estimate. The financial requirement for even that simple act of
charity is staggering.
The second reason for the preeminence of the PATH program rests on its long term
impact on the life chances of seriously mentally ill and homeless people. This is a
population that is most challenging to work with. According to the Coconino Continuum
of Care survey (August 2009), most mentally ill and homeless people would like to take
27
advantage of existing social services. They are, however, often unable to access services
due to many reasons; for instance, they are not aware of services, they are unwilling to
use services for fear of unwanted consequences or they have transportation issues. For
these reasons, they often fall between the cracks of other social service institutions, yet
they exhibit some of the most visible need in our communities. They live under bridges,
in tunnels, drifting from place to place. They sleep in the woods, behind dumpsters and
in the architectural nooks of downtown Flagstaff. It requires special finesse to make
contact, coax them into visualizing their lives in a different way, and coordinate a plan to
move them from chronic homelessness toward a stable home life. PATH provides the
connection between clients and potential helping resources. According to the Coconino
County Continuum of Care survey that PATH administers biannually on behalf of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), many people who live in cars or camp
in the woods do not self-define as homeless. Society, however, views their situation as
inappropriate and untenable. Bridging the gap between these perspectives requires a
uniquely trained staff and sufficient funding.
The PATH program is predominantly financed through conditional funding as a result
of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. The condition of funding
is that each state must match a percentage of the federal funds. Catholic Charities, as an
independent private social services contractor, houses the program as well as provides
funds for staff and program expenses. The major thrust of monetary acquisition rests
upon the goal of reporting to parent agencies. PATH supervisor, Michael Van Ness, is
adept at collecting and collating data for these reports, as well as successfully writing for
numerous grants. He has developed a coding system for case records that translates into
28
extremely detailed quarterly reports. Presenting these reports to the appropriate agencies
in a timely manner is of the utmost importance in maintaining funding. This requires a
substantial amount of time on the part of case workers and management. Since the
emphasis of the PATH program focuses on using the most funding possible to directly
benefit clients, the small and often overburdened staff shares responsibility for
accumulating and coding data. This effort, combined with daily case management and
homeless outreach, leaves little time for the pursuit of other avenues of financial
acquisition.
Along with the larger mission of seeking financial aid for housing, PATH also
provides a number of small goods and services, the expense of which can become
significant over time. Among the myriad items provided to clients are bus passes, food
and beverage, winter apparel, shoes, sleeping bags, tents and flashlights. Even though
they are not expensive items, the cost can accumulate quickly, especially in winter. An
efficient donation acquisition program would help defray the cost of these goods and
enable major funding to be used for its intended purpose of providing access to
permanent housing for the chronically homeless. Another advantage to a successful
donation acquisition program would be in the creation of a foundation of community
charitable giving that can be tapped in times of serious economic need.
When I began my internship with the PATH program in January, I was disconcerted
by the fluid management style that Van Ness practices. It became apparent, however,
that the task of providing 24 hour care to the homeless required concern for the emotional
and physical health of the PATH team members as well. Van Ness described the care
with which he managed the team as part of his duty as team supervisor. The current
29
members of the PATH team work exceptionally well as a unit and manage to hand off
tasks to each other almost seamlessly. On mornings when one or more of them has been
on-call for overnight outreach, other team members are usually available to arrive on
schedule for office hours. The sad fact is, though, that their tremendous commitment to
the well-being of Coconino County’s most needy citizens has left little time for the dayto-day clerical work that must accompany case management.
The donation acquisition program has suffered from the consequences of too little
staff and not enough time. Attempts had been made by previous volunteers to remedy the
lack of any formal donation acquisition process; but when I arrived to begin my duties, I
had to wait several days for Van Ness to retrieve the partially completed donor list from a
former volunteer. In the interim, there was not a lack of tasks to accomplish. Van Ness
was in the throes of completing his program quarterly report and I was asked to assist in
coding qualitative case file data into quantitative data for the report. This provided me
with an excellent opportunity to study and understand processes and procedures of the
PATH program. By spending time coding case management data, I was able to
familiarize myself with the material goods that would need to be acquired from donors.
For the next few weeks, I immersed myself in the daily operations of the PATH
program. An in-depth level of participant action is an important component of a UFE.
The role of evaluator must go beyond analysis of program data in order to be effective in
working with program personnel in the formation of useful processes. It was an
exhilarating and informative experience to spend time in the field with Homeless
Outreach Specialist, Scott Miller. Miller traveled to Flagstaff Shelter Services’ day
center and invited me to ride along with him as he visited clients and assessed their
30
needs. He distributed socks and daily bus passes, all as part of an outreach process that
facilitated compassionate contact with the homeless population. Miller (January 2010)
told me that the most important part of the initial process is to learn to be a patient and
caring listener. On other occasions, I participated as the female component of the team
during client transport. It is required by law that no female client should be transported
unless a female team member is present.
After several weeks of waiting for corporate approval and technological assistance, I
finally acquired internet and telephone service in my office. I had completed research of
best practices and was anxious to begin assessing and constructing the donation
acquisition process. Van Ness and housing coordinator Sandi Flores approached me to
obtain donations for the Catholic Charities’ fundraising golf tournament which was to
take place in June. I was not sure how to accomplish acquisitions for PATH and at the
same time for the golf tournament. The processes for acquiring these donations were not
clear. Several weeks after the original request for my assistance, Flores shared a partial
plan that included some advice on where and how to solicit donations as well as a brief
idea of which donations could be directly applied to PATH and which would be used for
the golf tournament. I had already sent letters and made phone calls to potential donors
on behalf of PATH, and found myself trying to follow up by applying Flores’
suggestions. It was a confusing process that could have been alleviated by better
communication and planning. Flores turned out to be a valuable resource of whose
expertise I had not previously been aware. It finally occurred to me to simply ask for a
list of previous years’ donors for the golf tournament. It took Flores mere seconds to
31
print out the information that, if things had been properly planned, I would have received
at the onset of my efforts.
As part of an effort to solidify donation acquisition processes, I developed a donorinformation spreadsheet that would allow future employees to see exactly who to contact
and what the requirements are for different donors. Secondary only to setting goals,
identifying and researching contact information must be an early priority in the donation
acquisition process. A spreadsheet based upon information accrued by staff members
formerly involved in the donation acquisition process forms a solid basis upon which to
expand a network of charitable donors.
Best practices for donation acquisition, as discussed in relevant literature, formed a
basis for my suggestions on program development and improvement. Van Ness and I
had discussions at length about how the rigidity of common fundraising practice might
not translate well into the flexible nature of the PATH program. He was not convinced
that the same processes for charitable fundraising used by large organizations such as
United Way could really serve as a model for a small understaffed organization like
PATH. It was my contention, however, that those practices could be applied as a starting
point from which to formulate a streamlined donation acquisition plan that worked
efficiently for the PATH program.
Best Practices
“The iron law of fundraising is asking” (Yörük 2009). Of course, this is a very simple
way of framing a complex task. Within the context of asking, questions arise: Why are
we asking? What are we asking for? Who does the asking? Who do we ask? When do
we ask? How do we ask? It is imperative to tailor a donation acquisition program to the
32
answers to those questions. Before “the ask” takes place, an organization must decide
what is needed. “A nonprofit organization begins by identifying the values that
characterize it and by studying its ‘vision’ of itself – what it has done and is doing now,
and what its plans are for the future” (Greenfield 1994:1). By being able to clearly define
an organization’s mission and its benefit to community and society, concrete needs and
goals can be established. The agency is then able to present an informed rationale for
donation solicitation.
There is a subconscious taboo against asking for money in the American free-market
culture (Phillips 2009). Asking is, however, often the only efficient way to receive.
Ironically, there is also a strong cultural ethic of giving, often rooted in religious tradition
(Phillips 2009). Charitable acts can be viewed as a social exchange. Exchange implies
benefit to both parties. Donors must have confidence in the organization’s ability to
procure a beneficial result. According to Rose-Ackerman (1982), donors prefer charities
with the best combination of solicitation practices and philanthropic services. People
have a social conscience, but it is often uninformed and undirected. A sense of social
duty compels them to donate based upon two things: their income and an estimate of the
benefits produced by their gifts (Rose-Ackerman 1982). A request for a donation is like
an invitation to participate in an act of group social-consciousness. The phrasing of the
invitation must be done carefully by the charitable organization (Greenfield 1994). The
appeal for donations should set a high goal that is enthusiastically promoted, involves the
donor in a sense of continuity, provides evidence of organizational relevance and conveys
the urgency and importance of the donation (Greenfield 1994). A donation then provides
emotional benefits to the donor. The donor has a sense of having bought into the range of
33
services provided by the charity, and a sense that their gift will allow a higher level of
quality for those services (Rose-Ackerman 1982).
Personal solicitation results in more donations. Flagstaff United Way representative,
Rose Hernandez (April 2010), emphasized the importance of using known contacts to
establish a network base that would provide strong public relationships as the foundation
of a structure for donation acquisition. Even if this network does not have an immediate
bearing on the amount of donations, it can be utilized as a foundational resource from
which to base an effective solicitation campaign. If this network is maintained with
longevity in mind, it can be “associated with years of support, happiness to continue
donating, and happiness to recommend others to donate” (O’Neil 2007:102). There is a
correlation between likelihood to donate and the amount of trust generated between donor
and agency. Social networks augment the trust coefficient (List and Price 2009).
Greenfield corroborated this idea by citing what he felt were the two most important
axioms of fundraising: “1) Friend-raising precedes fund-raising; and 2) Money follows
people” (1994:26).
Once a potential network of donors is established, there are a variety of methods that
can be used to ask for donations. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Greenfield
(1994) advocated using a three-step approach that begins with a letter of information and
solicitation. The advantage to a letter is that it is the least obtrusive of the methods. Its
reader can read it at leisure. A letter can provide a wealth of information that explains the
charitable organization’s mission and benefits (exchange) to the donor. The disadvantage
to a letter campaign is that it is less personal and easier for a potential donor to ignore.
Letter solicitations alone rarely produce a donation. Greenfield recommended a follow-
34
up telephone call, during which potential donors are allowed to ask questions. The
obvious disadvantage of a phone call is in actually connecting with the person you wish
to contact and doing so in a time-sensitive, unobtrusive manner. During the course of the
telephone conversation, appointments may be made for the third stage in donation
solicitation – an in-person visit from an organization representative (Greenfield 1994).
All of this effort, of course, must be preceded by pin-pointing potential donors. Much
in the same way that businesses target potential consumers, a donor-base should be
constructed of people who have the potential to donate what is required and who might
be successfully convinced of the benefit gained from the services of the organization
(Pracejus, Olsen and Brown 2004). Small nonprofits have the added disadvantage of
competing for community resources with larger established nonprofit agencies.
Greenfield recommended beginning with people and businesses who those in the
charitable organization already know. From this foundation, ask for recommendations of
others who might be potential candidates. This idea of a circle of influence is a good
starting point, but has the disadvantage of taking a great deal of time to establish
(Greenfield 1994).
Modern communications methods provide a fast way to provide the maximum amount
of visibility for charitable organizations. Storytelling through radio, television and
Internet venues can help connect potential donors with their feelings of social duty. It
also provides exchange benefit. Donors are able to see the results that charitable agencies
produce. This provides “…a positive emotional outcome for the consumer by allowing
the individual to ‘live’ the archetypal myth of providing assistance” (Merchant, Ford and
Sargeant 2009).
35
Ingenhoff and Koelling (2009) investigated the effectiveness of web site fundraising
procedures. For a relatively limited cost, web sites can provide enormous benefit. Their
ease and frequency of use, ability to provide vast amounts of information, and potential
for building social networks make them a valuable possible tool. Web sites can be
constructed in order to facilitate communication and dialogue between agencies and
donors. The individual needs or interests of potential donors are easy to address through
the interactive model of an internet web site. The technical design of the web site must,
of course, be structured to enable a useful flow of communication; but this is a relatively
easily accomplished task (Ingenhoff and Koelling 2009).
While it is important to develop a fundamental plan for donation acquisition,
Greenfield (1994) stressed the need for flexibility. Solicitation activities must be
sensitive to timing, to economic events that affect the community of donors, and to the
changing needs and abilities of the organization. Using a wide range of solicitation
tactics that are tailored to these concerns is often the most profitable. For instance, a
specific-needs drive could be held at an appropriate season for that item. Long term
financial commitments are often most successfully acquired prior to the winter holidays,
when a charitable spirit is culturally pervasive. Solicitation of seasonal trades should take
place when those businesses have experienced the bulk of their own financial acquisition.
Certain donors might benefit from a tax year-end contribution. The important thing is to
ask intelligently and make the charitable agency available to receive potential donations
(Greenfield 1994).
Donor renewal should be a prominent part of any donation acquisition process. After
a donation occurs, a written thank you letter and the appropriate tax-deduction receipts
36
must be presented. In the interest of maintaining each donor as a new “friend” in the
organization’s network, donors should also be apprised of how their gift was used, the
social benefit it provided, and any ongoing effect that their donation might have on the
success of the agency. Maintaining ongoing contact with major donors in the form of at
least quarterly contact in a merely informative way perpetuates the donor’s feeling of
personal investment in the agency’s goals. At some point in the relationship with
potential long-term donors, they might be asked if they would like to participate in
agency events as a means of further personally engaging them in the agency’s success
(Greenfield 1994). Greenfield’s research revealed six benefits of lasting donor
relationships:
1. Prior donors are the best prospects for other gifts as well as renewal gifts;
2. At least 50 percent of prior donors will repeat their gifts in the same amount;
3. As many as 13 percent of prior donors will increase (upgrade) their gifts;
4. After the second renewal (third gift), a donor is likely to remain faithful;
5. Renewal donors give from five to eight times more money than new donors;
6. After five years, renewal donors will provide 80 percent of annual funds raised.
(Greenfield 1994:101)
Relationships with existing donors also provide the added benefit of increasing the circle
of agency recognition and thereby increasing the pool of potential new donors as well.
Finally, careful records of donation activity must be maintained in order to avoid overasking and to make sure proper procedures were followed during the donation acquisition
process. Written records of donors, their contact information, their frequency of giving,
their preferred time of giving, last donation and confirmation of tax documents and thank
you letters are a mandatory part of a successful donation acquisition program.
Mutz and Murray (2000) detailed several common pitfalls of donation solicitation.
“Fundraising is about relationships. And relationships can be broken when the wrong
37
words leave your lips before your brain is engaged” (Mutz and Murray 2000:331). The
authors warn that shaming donors into giving by name-dropping is never a successful
way to build long-term donor relationships. Donors must give because they believe in
what the agency does and are invested its success. It is also important to research the
facts about a donor before a personal visit in order to avoid accidentally insulting or
alienating the donor. Never solicit donations under false pretenses. To do so can destroy
the potential for future fundraising in any given community. Always be clear and honest
about goals and program processes. Finally, they warn against over-solicitation,
especially if a request is continuously presented as the result of some crisis. This gives
the impression that an original donation was ineffective in abating whatever condition the
agency strives to alleviate. Appropriately timed donation requests that rely upon positive
success stories are more efficacious in building a network of long-term donors (Mutz and
Murray 2000).
In summary, the best practices for donation acquisition begin with an analysis of the
agency’s mission and needs. Once an agency knows what to ask for, a pool of potential
donors must be carefully selected. This selection should begin with donors who already
have some connection to the agency and branch out in a network from that base. After
the research is finalized on potential donors, a plan for the actual solicitation is formed.
This plan should include attention to the timing of the invitation to donate, the form of
contact, and the staff members who might have the greatest potential for success with the
request. Contact should follow an approach that is most suited to the potential donor, and
most often succeeds as a series of processes that includes 1) an introductory letter that
explains the agency’s mission and needs; 2) a follow-up phone call to answer questions
38
and establish an appointment for personal contact; and 3) a personal visit from the
agency’s representative. The goal of this contact is not merely to acquire donations, but
also to engage the community of donors in the agency’s mission and establish a
foundation of friendly supporters. Because the donation process is a form of exchange, it
is important to follow through post-donation with a letter of thanks, appropriate taxdeduction receipts, potential public acknowledgment of the donation and possible
ongoing contact with the donor including updates on agency success and invitations to
participate in agency events.
PATH – Building a Donation Acquisition Program
The PATH team members are quite clear about their mission. Admirably, their top
priority is providing services for the homeless members of the Flagstaff community.
During this process, all people are to be treated with dignity and respect. Homeless
people are seen as autonomous human beings who should have the opportunity to help
guide their own progress out of homelessness. Practically speaking, this mission usually
unfolds as team members identify homeless individuals, reach out to them through the
provision of small goods and services, invite them to participate fully as PATH clients
and finally move them through the processes necessary to improve their health,
employment and living conditions. The mission is unmistakable and the team works
diligently to maintain it. Goals, however, are a more nebulous concept.
In a recent conversation about goal-setting, supervisor Michael Van Ness shared his
concerns about goals. He felt that concrete goals regarding donation acquisition would
place his already overburdened and underpaid team under additional stress. Along with
the daily effort of meeting needs of a difficult population and the resulting paperwork,
39
additional goals might seem unattainable and discouraging. According to Van Ness, if
goals were not attained, the team would experience dissatisfaction with their own
performance and their cordial relationship with one another and with clients could be
strained. One of the most exemplary aspects of working with the PATH team has been
the pleasant atmosphere and general kindness and respect that the team has for one
another. This has undoubtedly trickled down from Van Ness’ generous and flexible
management practices. Not all goal-setting, however, needs to be a difficult process or
reflect a stressful outcome. Perhaps a flexible goal-setting process might be established
that would compliment rather than strain the excellent processes that already exist at
PATH.
Goals stem from needs. It is not difficult to identify the material needs of the PATH
program. From the client services listing and quarterly reports, a list of most-distributed
and requested items becomes immediately apparent. New socks top the list; along with
bus passes, sleeping bags, tents, flashlights, hats, gloves, hygiene items, snacks and
water. These items are most often purchased by PATH team members through grant
funding. The expense over the period of a year can become significant; for instance, a
thousand pair of socks at a dollar a pair is obviously a thousand dollars spent annually for
a seemingly small item. Sleeping bags, tents and flashlights are significantly more
expensive. As an example of goal-setting, it might be practical to begin with socks.
New, clean socks are the staple of a homeless person’s existence. The homeless walk;
often their feet are their only transportation. Feet are the foundation of personal health.
If feet become damaged or diseased, it can quickly become a life-threatening situation for
40
a homeless person. Socks seem like an afterthought to most of us, but their importance
cannot be overstated in regard to the needs of PATH clients.
There are different ways to acquire socks through donations. Donated gift cards can
be used to purchase them, but those cards might also be used to purchase other more
difficult to acquire items. So, part of the first goal would be to decide how to get socks.
Socks are sold in many locations. Every day in Flagstaff, thousands of people shop in
stores that sell socks. Would it be possible to simply set a goal to acquire enough socks
to be distributed in one year over the course of one charity drive? Why not? Some of
the most successful drives have involved merely asking the public for simple items.
Blanket drives for the homeless have been enormously successful in other cities. All we
need are a thousand pair of socks. To achieve this goal, the PATH team already has its
most valuable tool: committed team members who are enthusiastic about improving their
ability to help the homeless. A plea in public media would have the potential to produce
a years’ worth of socks. If not, as Van Ness always assured, “What we get is more than
we had before” (March 23, 2010). The effort required for this would be the groundwork
in establishing contact with media, meeting appointments for speaking engagements and
writing brief statements to submit to print media. Most of that effort could be spread
between team members or tasked to volunteers. Once accomplished, these tools could be
used year after year with only small adjustments. The advantage to an annual drive
would be that the community would become invested in it as a community event. Goals
set and met would include a years’ supply of socks, established media contacts, and
enhanced visibility in the community.
41
One of the hazards in any PATH program fundraising drive is that Catholic Charities
conducts its own charitable events from which PATH receives money. It would be
imperative not to conflict with those efforts, which currently take the form of an annual
charity golf tournament. It would be a simple matter to schedule the PATH sock drive at
a different time of year; and since socks are a specifically requested item, it should not
conflict with any other Catholic Charities donation request.
Goals could also be set to identify and build a network of donors to tap for both
specific needs and general funding. To this end, a document with donor information
including contact information, location, frequency of donation, and type of donations
would be created. This has previously been unsuccessfully attempted at PATH, partially
because there was no established responsibility for the accomplishment of the task or the
maintenance of the list. The team could set a collaborative goal to assign this task
specifically to someone. Once the original document is created, an intern or volunteer
might be able to manage it thereafter. This type of goal, one that sets the groundwork for
future success, is different than a mere challenge to acquire something. It has the built-in
effect of organizing an effort and actually alleviating future anxiety.
Creating a network of potential donors begins with people, businesses and
organizations that are already familiar to personnel in a charitable agency. United Way
Representative Hernandez recently reminded me that both Van Ness and I possessed a
network of connections at Northern Arizona University (NAU) that was not sufficiently
tapped. Van Ness, Victor Hudenko, Director of Housing and Homeless Services, and I
all presented information about the PATH program to various sociology and social work
classes at the university during the spring semester of 2010. Several students expressed
42
interest in arranging a sock-drive through their student organizations. I also recruited
volunteers from two classes for which I am the graduate assistant. These basic efforts
resulted in the potential completion of a sock-drive and in the acquisition of so many
volunteers that it was a challenge to put their offers of service to efficient use. In the end,
the PATH team worked collaboratively to create space for them and use their time
efficiently. The volunteers aided in the administration of the 2010 Winter Homeless
Count and finalized the quantification of the Summer Homeless Count data (which was a
task that had theretofore eluded completion by the busy PATH staff). The concerted
effort that it took to arrange the volunteers’ work spaces and schedules raised several
other potential objections that Van Ness posed to a too-aggressive donation acquisition
campaign.
First, it takes time, space and management to receive, store, utilize and account for
donations of funds and material goods. Second, the grants that provide the majority of
funding for the PATH program are often specific in the requirements of their use. A
certain portion of those funds must be used to purchase material goods and services for
the homeless. Meanwhile, the amount of funding for staff and office space remains so
marginal that creating space, both physical and in labor management, is difficult to
achieve. Hence, prior donation acquisition processes have been haphazard and geared
toward making an occasional request of certain businesses for small and irregular
donations. As an intern in charge of evaluating and propelling the development of a
donation acquisition process, it was often difficult to ascertain just what had been done
before, what was truly needed and where to ask for it. Flores and Hernandez were
43
invaluable in their assistance, once I realized that they possessed the prior experience and
connections to steer my process in a useful direction.
Lack of communication and a lack of any immediately observable goals created an
unnecessary barrier to success. When I mentioned this to Van Ness in a conversation
about setting goals and developing processes that were perceived by me and other team
members as valuable, Van Ness reminded me that the processes for donation acquisition
that I was developing were my construction, using my goals. This emphasized the lack
of unity or even basic communication between team members (including myself) about
what was needed and how we were going to get it. This will be an ongoing challenge for
the PATH team, if they wish to pursue a more concerted effort at donation acquisition.
Understanding the need for flexibility and a simple plan that could be taken up and
moved forward by interns or volunteers, I began by updating and augmenting a list of
previous potential donors. As per recommendations in my research of best practices, I
composed a letter that 1) introduced the PATH program, 2) stated its mission and
success, 3) made clear the program’s material needs, and 4) assured potential donors of a
return on their investment (i.e. the benefit of moving our homeless population toward a
more productive life in the community as we enable them to transition off the streets).
The mere process of writing this letter was complicated by my lack of experience in
doing so and unfamiliarity with office personnel who might be of use in the creation of
such a document. After several drafts and final approval by Van Ness, I mailed the
letters. There had been some discussion early on about the efficacy of a letter writing
campaign. Flagstaff businesses tend to operate under more casual terms for which
personal visits might be more effective. As my process evolved, I discovered that not
44
only is a letter writing campaign useful, it is mandatory when requesting funds from most
of the chain retail stores. The letter-writing process and the ensuing campaign might
have been even more successful if the team, including Flores who has had experience
with the process, had collaborated to ensure the best possible conveyance of information
to potential donors.
The next recommended step in the process was to follow up the letters with a
telephone call. I gave my letters ten days to reach their destinations. I had advised letter
recipients to expect a phone call. Often I had difficulty reaching the appropriate
personnel in order to discuss an invitation to donate. During the conversations that
ensued, potential donors were encouraged to ask questions about the PATH program and
I made appointments for further contact with store managers. This was, perhaps, the
most time-consuming and frustrating part of the process. Phone calls were unanswered,
misdirected, poorly received and generally not very effective in either establishing a
pleasing rapport or gaining a donor’s commitment.
Subsequent visits to potential donors met with some of the same frustrations as phone
calls. In retrospect, the flaw lay in not using an established network of contacts that
might personalize a request for charitable donation combined with a lack of familiarity
with the breadth and importance of the PATH program’s mission. This is something that
must be addressed in forthcoming campaigns. Instead of beginning by soliciting
businesses that are over-burdened in a bad economy by using letter and phone call
techniques, it might be more advantageous to focus more effort on building a network of
supporters who will propel the process of engaging and encouraging reluctant potential
donors. Network building is one of the ways United Way is consistently successful in
45
achieving their goals. “Even though there might be no apparent personal incentive for an
individual to contribute to a United Way campaign there is likely a group incentive to
make such a contribution” (Keating, Pitts and Appel 1981, 816.). The group incentive is
often based on perceived prestige, individual group status or a feeling of investment in
the success of something beyond oneself. It is difficult for anyone to feel personally
invested in the success of a charitable organization with very little knowledge of or
contact with that organization. The importance of a regular and persistent invitation for
contributions, even if it only amounts to an annual letter-writing campaign, would help
establish community recognition for the relevance and longevity of the PATH program.
Despite the pitfalls of our mutual learning process, the PATH team and I did succeed
in acquiring some donations. As of the end of March, 2010, we had received a large
donation of sleeping bags, tents and rain-gear from a local outfitter. We also received a
Wal-Mart gift card that can be replenished on a monthly basis. An associate and fellow
graduate student who works in the Gateway Student Success Center at NAU donated 30
sport water bottles. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a process that will grow and
net more benefits over time.
PATH Homeless Outreach Specialist Richard Brust and I have collaborated to expand
my original donor list. He is a relatively new employee at PATH and has a great deal of
prior experience with business management in Flagstaff. He was the enthusiastic
recipient of the donor research, the letters of request and a plan for writing appropriate
thank you letters. We have also made plans to invite donors to participate in PATH
events and visit the PATH team to witness the program in operation. Brust has provided
valuable suggestions for charitable campaigns such as drop boxes for donations in
46
strategic locations. When my internship is completed, he will be in position to continue
the donation acquisition process as Catholic Charities moves toward the autumn golf
tournament date. While the current budget does not allow for a dedicated employee to
pursue fundraising and team members share responsibilities on a loosely-guided basis, it
is my recommendation at this time that Brust continue to manage the donation acquisition
process.
There is a demonstrated need for donations of material goods for the PATH program
at Catholic Charities in Flagstaff. Clients’ immediate needs are a priority, and even
though those needs might be filled by donated goods, it has been simpler to rely on grant
funding to purchase the items. The demanding and irregular hours of homeless outreach
take a toll on the team and have made it difficult to subscribe to any formal plan of
acquisition. The flexibility of office hours required by the 24 hour on-call nature of the
job has precluded the pursuit of donations with any sort of regularity or specific goals.
Major funding has taken the form of grants that are intrinsically time-consuming; as is
managing case data and preparing it for the many reports that are required by funding
agencies. Goal-setting, as far as donations are concerned, was seen as an unnecessary
burden when compared to the significance of daily program activities. In view of these
concerns, it stands to reason that no one as yet has constructed a standardized process for
donation acquisition at PATH. This does not mean that such a process would not be
useful. Even acquiring the small daily needs of homeless citizens would relieve funds
that could be better used to help those citizens make progress toward life-goals.
47
CONCLUSION
My experiences over the course of a 15 week internship with Projects for Assistance
in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) have been more extensive than the program
evaluation described. By becoming deeply involved in program activities, I was able to
meet the requirements of a utilization-focused evaluation (UFE). It was an adventure that
exposed me to myriad social service processes. I learned about homelessness and felt
humbled to be allowed to share kindness and material support with such a needy
population. I also became familiar with various social service policies and providers. An
added benefit was insight into my own needs and values. My daily field notes are filled
with both painful lessons and happy memories. During the entire project, the importance
of charitable agencies and the services they provide was an overarching factor.
Charitable social service agencies face upcoming economic challenges in today’s
shifting economy. Efficient office processes would allow for greater success in meeting
increasing competition for funding. In June of 2010, the Arizona legislature will meet in
order to determine new ways to balance the state deficit. The Department of Economic
Security (DES) is slated to undergo budget scrutiny at that time. DES is the provider of
matching funds for the state of Arizona that fulfills the federal block grant conditions of
funding for PATH. If DES cuts PATH funding, the operation of the program in Arizona
will be threatened. According to Victor Hudenko, Director of Housing and Homeless
Services for Catholic Charities USA in Arizona, the Eviction Prevention/Emergency
Housing (EPEH) program that supported many of the emergency shelters in Arizona has
already come to an end and will no longer be available as of June. Hudenko is hopeful
that Catholic Charities can find alternative resources in order to keep the shelters open.
48
When Charitable Choice was enacted in 1996, a pledge was made that the federal
government would financially support private charities in their conveyance of social
services to America’s marginalized populations. Provision of services has devolved to
subcontracted private agencies; if those private agencies fail, the federal government will
manage to avoid culpability in the eyes of the public. At that point, it is likely that
pressure will be brought to bear on already economically stressed communities to provide
for their own citizens’ welfare.
The burden placed upon local communities to provide their own social services is
symptomatic of the larger economic philosophy in America. Poverty exists as part of the
structure of the American economic system. By addressing only the symptoms that arise
around poverty, the American welfare state has avoided progress toward any concrete
solution. As funding becomes more limited, even the most well-intentioned charitable
agencies will struggle to provide lasting and meaningful options for aid to the growing
number of people living in poverty. Agencies with strong ties to their communities and a
broad network of supporters will have the best foundation for achieving communitybased social service provision.
Just as a unifying consciousness is required for any social movement (Gramsci 1971),
a consciousness of community will be required to maintain services to the community’s
most needy citizens. Engaging the community in the agency’s charitable work through
best practices for donation acquisition serves as a vital step in that process. Contacting
community members, sharing agency mission and goals, promoting success stories and
maintaining contact with a network of donors and volunteers provides benefits beyond
the mere acquisition of material and financial donations.
49
References
Amenta, Edwin. 1998. Bold Relief: Institutional Policies and the Origins of Modern
American Social Policy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bane, M.J., B. Coffin and R. Thiemann. 2000. Who Will Provide? The Changing Role of
Religion in American Social Welfare. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Barry, Norman P. 1999. Welfare. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bartkowski, J. P. and H.A. Regis. 2003. Charitable Choices: Religion, Race, and Poverty
in the Post-welfare Era. NY: NYU Press.
Brown, Dorothy M. and Elizabeth McKeown (2000). The Poor Belong to Us: Catholic
Charities and American Welfare. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Carlson-Thies, S. 2001. “Charitable Choice: Bringing Religion Back into American
Welfare.” Journal of Policy History. 13 (2): 109-132.
Catholic Charities Community Services. 2009.
[http://www.catholiccharitiesaz.org/catholiccharities/index.aspx] Accessed
10/05/2009.
Coleman, John A. 2001. “American Catholicism, Catholic Charities USA, and Welfare
Reform.” Journal of Policy History. 13 (1): 73-108.
Cnaan, R.A. and S.C. Boddie 2002. “Charitable Choice and Faith Based Welfare: A Call
for Social Work.” Social Work. 47 (3): 224-235.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2010.
[http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD] Accessed 2/17/2010.
50
Durkheim, Emile. 1912. “Elementary Forms of Religion,” excerpted in Classical and
Contemporary Sociological Theory, eds. Appelrouth, S. and Edles, L.D. (2008).
CA: Pine Forge Press.
Elshtain, J.B. 2002. The Jane Addams Reader. NY: Basic Books.
Gans, Herbert. 1972. “The Positive Functions of Poverty.” The American Journal of
Sociology. 78 (2): 275-289
Gilman, M.E. 2007. “Fighting Poverty with Faith: Reflections on 10 Years of Charitable
Choice.” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. 10 (3): 395-439.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Auintin Hoare and
Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Greenfield, James M. 1994. Fund-Raising Fundamentals: A Guide to Annual Giving for
Professionals and Volunteers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ingenhoff, Diane and A. Martina Koelling. 2009. “The Potential of Websites as a
Relationship Building Tool for Charitable Fundraising NPOs.” Public Relations
Review. 35: 66-73.
IRS, Publication 557 "Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization", Pp. 65-66, (Rev. June
2008),
Cat. No 46573C. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557. Retrieved 10/27/2009
Isaac, J.C. 2003. “Faith-based Initiatives: A Civil Society Approach.” The Good Society,
12 (1): 3-10.
Keating, Barry, Robert Pitts and David Appel. 1981. “United Way Contributions:
Coercion, Charity or Economic Self-interest?” Southern Economic Journal. 47(3):
816-823.
51
List, John A. and Michael K. Price. 2009. “The Role of Social Connections in Economic
Fundraising: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment.” Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization. 69: 160-169.
Luna, Yvonne. 2010. “Guiding Perceptions of Single Mothers on Welfare,” in
Sociological Inquiry. Tenth Edition. Mahmoudi, Kooros M. and Bradley W.
Parlin, eds. (2010). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Marcus, Anthony. 2006. Where Have All the Homeless Gone? The Making and
Unmaking of a
Crisis. NY: Berghahn Books
Marx, Karl. 1888 [1969]. “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol.
1. Translation from German, W. Lough. Moscow, USSR: Progress Publishers.
[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm] accessed
2/18/2010
Merchant, Altaf, John B. Ford and Adrian Sargeant. 2009. “Charitable Organizations’
Storytelling Influence on Donors’ Emotions and Intentions.” Journal of Business
Research. Online journal access: doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013
Mills, C. Wright. 1963 [2010]. “The Promise” excerpted from The Sociological
Imagination, in Sociological Inquiry. Tenth Edition. Mahmoudi, Kooros M. and
Bradley W. Parlin, eds. (2010). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Mutz, John and Katherine Murray. 2000. Fundraising for Dummies. New York: Hungry
Minds.
O’Neil, Julie. 2007. “The Link Between Strong Public Relationships and Donor
Support.” Public Relations Review. 33: 99-102.
52
Patton, Michael Quinn. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text,
third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Phillips, Maxine. 2009. “The Ask.” Dissent. 56 (3): 116.
Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
Pracejus, John W., G. Douglas Olsen and Norman R. Brown. 2004. “On the Prevalence
and Impact of Vague Quantifiers in the Advertising of Cause-related Marketing.”
Journal of Advertising. 32 (4): 19-28.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1982. “Charitable Giving and Excessive Fundraising.” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics. 97 (2): 193-212.
Royse, David, Bruce A. Thyer, Deborah K. Padgett and T.K.Logan. 2001. Program
Evaluation: An Introduction, 3rd Edition. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole & Thompson
Learning.
Watson, F.D. 1971. The Charity Organization Movement in the United States. NY: Arno
Press & The New York Times.
Weber, M. 1904 [2008]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Thousand
Oaks CA: BN Publishing.
Yörük, Bariş. 2009. “How Responsive are Charitable Donors to Requests to Give?”
Journal of Public Economics. 93: 1111-1117.
53
APPENDIX: PATH Client Services Listing Key
Courtesy of Michael Van Ness
Material Goods Type Entries (M[x])
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
Bus Ticket – local [now day pass]
Pairs of Socks
Sleeping Bag
Blanket
Tent
Hat: beanie
Gloves or Mittens
Scarf
Hygiene Kit
Hand Warmers
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
M18
M19
M20
Flashlights
Emergency Ponchos
Bottled Water
Bottled Gatorade or other non-water
Food Assistance: minor
Food Assistance: food box
Coats/Jackets/Windbreaker/etc.
Items of Underwear
Items of Outerwear
Face Hat (A.K.A. “rob-a-bank”)
M21
M22
M23
M24
M25
M26
M27
M28
M29
M30
Backpack
Small Bags (hygiene bag, etc).
Large Bags (luggage, etc.)
Phone Card
Clothing Voucher
Food Bank Voucher
Goodwill (or non-cloths) Voucher
Hip bag (with water bottles, etc.)
Shoes/Boots (from donations): used
Shoes/Boots (from donations): new
M31
M32
M33
M34
M35
Calendar Book/Notebook/Day Timer
Photocopies made+given [resume]
Bicycle – new or used
Cell Phone
Miscellaneous Item Open Ended
Referrals and Information Type Entries (R[x])
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
Referral - general
Resource List
Google Map to X
Detailed other-agency information (like an explanation of SVDP TAC policies)
PATH Program Tutorial
Printed other-area resources (like to Albuquerque social services)
Bus Schedule
Brochure or flier for other agency
AZ Tenant Landlord Act
DES application
Referral to Mental Health Treatment [PATH eligible]
Referral to PATH Program [PATH eligible]
Identification requirements [AZ DMV, vital records, etc.]
Catholic Charities Emergency Services Application
Catholic Charities Family Shelter Application
Apartment Listing
General Agency Contact Information [phone number, etc.]
54
R18
R19
R20
PATH Business Card [or similar]
PATH intake Paperwork.
Miscellaneous Information or Referral Open Ended
Service Type Entries
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
Use of Day Center
Case Management
Identification Assistance
Phone Call: local
Phone Call: long distance
Computer Assistance: [tutorials, set up E-mail, etc.]
Storage of Belongings
Resume Assistance [see M32 if copies are made and given]
DES Application Assistance [helped them fill out or got appointment at DES]
Rental Application Assistance [helped them fill out: or “technical assistance in
applying for housing”]
Take clients to TGC or CBHS and assist with crisis or paperwork
Take clients to Detox [ITU or Page Detox]
Title 36 event.
Coordinated with SVDP TAC to get client assistance
Coordinated with [Other Agency] to get client assistance [S33 is different]
Wrote a letter for the client on official letterhead
Employment Assistance [call employers, etc]
Listen to Client Problems, offer interaction and compassion
We give rides from X to Y
Family Search
Housing Search (looked for a place they could rent, etc.)
PATH Program Intake
Wait with client @ Hospital or medical setting (usually for a long time)
Life Saved! [More than likely]
Plan of Housing [housing trackchart]
Gave, or helped client fill out a Lion’s Club Application. [May pair with S32]
Non-Detox Drug or Alcohol Treatment received in some part due to PATH
“Community Mental Health” part 1: got an appointment at TGC/CBHS/SWB
“Community Mental Health” part 2: received treatment at TGC/CBHS/SWB
Posted their needs to C2HC
Mail Services [gave them mail, gave client the CC mailing address to use, etc.]
Negotiating or Advocating for clients [to get their stuff back, to get help, etc.]
Gave or helped clients fill out a Catholic Charities Housing Application
Service Type Open Ended
55
Financial – Client Assistance Type Entries (F[x])
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
Motel/Hotel Time
Eviction Prevention
Move-In Assistance
Monthly Bus Pass
Bus Ticket Purchase
Greyhound Ticket (SVDP TAC)
Gas voucher (SVDP TAC)
Rental Application Fee
Car Repairs
Utility Assistance
F11
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
F19
F20
Birth Certificate
Identification Purchase
Prescription Assistance
Laundry Assistance
Supplies for Outreach (socks, etc.)
Lion’s Club Co-Pay
Miscellaneous Client Assistance
PATH Financial Type Entries (P[x])
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
Gas for PATH-Mobile [PATH Mobile is client]
Cleaning of PATH-Mobile [PATH Mobile is client]
PATH-Mobile Maintenance [PATH Mobile is client]
Employee Meals [PATH Program is client]
Outreach Augmentation (Flashlights, Radios, Optics, etc.) [PATH Prog. is client]
Entry Fee (like PHC)
Office Supplies
Hotel For PATH Team
PATH Open Ended Program Purchase
Quarterly Reporting Type Entries (Q[x])
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
PATH Eligible, not necessarily referred to treatment or enrolled?
Jail Past 12 months?
Psych Hospital Past 12 months?
MR/DD (Mental Retardation or Developmentally Delayed)?
HIV+?
Hepatitis C?
Deaf?
Psych Hospital Past 12 Months?
On CC Housing Waiting List?
Got into CC Housing due in part to PATH efforts?
Got into other housing due to PATH efforts, but didn’t pay move-in?
Eviction Prevention due in part to PATH efforts, but didn’t pay for it!
Not PATH Eligible
Referred to Detox [replaces R1, but not taken to Detox]
Substance Use Cited
Client got employed with PATH assistance
Connected Client With Family
56
.
57