Yes! magazine’s Winter 2010 issue had an excellent article titled “Why We Find it so Hard to Act Against Climate Change.”  The portion I believe is applicable to many nonprofits outlines the conditions under which an individual’s response to a threat is strongest.  Or said differently, what gets our attention in a world with so many people claiming the sky is falling.  A study from George Marshall title, “The Psychology of Denial” outlined the following criteria as being most influential in getting people’s attention:

• Visible
• With historical precedent
• Immediate
• With simple causality
• Caused by another “tribe”
• Direct personal impacts

When you take these conditions into account and measure them against past events there is an opportunity to see the criteria in action.  Hurricane Katrina with 2,000 fatalities in the Gulf Coast region of the United States vs. Cyclone Nargis causing 138,000 deaths in Burma.  In response the public gave $4.25 billion for relief efforts versus $47 million pledged from the US government for supplies to aid Burma.  There are many factors involved in any response to a threat but clearly an event being visible, historically significant, immediate and having direct impact alone elevated the American public’s response.

When you consider framing a case for support around an impending threat, consider the aforementioned criteria.  When climate change experts started talking about the threat of ice sheets melting from the perspective of Polar Bears it captured the imaginations and attention of school children.  How can you position your case so it sticks.