Commentary, resources & discussion re: nonprofits/ngos, communications, community engagement, volunteerism, effective humanitarian aid & development, ethics, women's empowerment & management ethics. Posts at least twice a month, usually on Tuesdays.
Some organizations want to evaluate ROI (return on investment) regarding volunteer engagement by comparing the cost to the organization for a particular volunteer activity (staff time to support the activity, materials, etc.) versus how much that volunteer activity brings in in terms of financial donations or revenue generation.
I don’t think that’s a good evaluation method, in part because you do NOT know, for sure, which volunteer activities have resulted in donations. For instance, there may be no way to prove that, as a result of a group of employees from the local Amazon warehouse volunteering at an event, the nonprofit that was supported received a donation from Amazon two months later. There may be no way to prove that, as a result of regularly seeing social media posts featuring photos of volunteers engaged in activities to support a nonprofit that a person decided to donate financially to that nonprofit.
If you use this matrix at your organization, let me know in the comments or contact me! Let me know how it worked out and what you had to change to make it work for your organization. And if you think there’s anything I should add, or clarify, also let me know!
If you have benefited from this blog or other parts of my web site and would like to support the time that went into researching information, developing material, preparing articles, updating pages, etc. (I receive no funding for this work), here is how you can help.
I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are refugees. They have fled dire situations in their home countries (countries that most of them did NOT want to leave) and they are now in a different country, either trying to figure out how to stay there or trying to get to somewhere else, often to join family or good friends. I can’t help them with much: I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training. But I can help with tracking down information they are looking for and debunking things they have heard (usually something about how easy it is to get into some South American country).
I have been pleasantly surprised and grateful regarding the web sites of a variety of countries for their clear information, in English, about exactly how someone can legally migrate to their country. Even tiny countries that aren’t at all wealthy often have very clear, up-to-date information on their web sites for anyone thinking of coming there under any circumstances. These web sites have been incredibly helpful in my efforts to help friends and acquaintances to get accurate information and to avoid scams.
The same CANNOT be said of the web sites of UNHCR , the United Nations agency that is supposed to be the leader in protecting refugees – people forced to flee conflict and persecution, as well as those denied a nationality. UNHCR web sites based in various countries all over the world are NOT focused on providing critically-needed, up-to-date information for refugees. And that is inexcusable.
UNHCR country web sites are often focused primarily on enticing donors rather than helping refugees access the critical information they need:
the information refugees would be looking for is either hard to find or not there at all,
many pages that are supposed to have information for refugees are horribly out-of-date,
the information for refugees that is there is usually is NOT the info refugees want most,
and the sites are so full of jargon I can’t understand the information and English is my first language!
An example of what I’m talking about: UNHCR Pakistan: this web site is NOT focused on refugees. I wish it was an exception, but it’s not. I have an Afghan colleague now in Pakistan trying to register as a refugee, but the UNHCR office is closed! There’s NOTHING on the web site saying it’s closed.
Each and every UNHCR web site in ANY country should have a link called “Help for Refugees” on the home page as prominent as any link to donate. That link should be on EVERY page and be as prominent as any link to donate.
And when someone clicks on that “help for refugees” link, they should be taken to a page that has this information (or links to such):
How and when to register with UNHCR in that country.
Notices about office closures.
UNHCR office hours.
Statement regarding who is considered a refugee.
Rights and obligations of asylum seekers in dealing with UNHCR.
A list of the first things someone should do upon arriving in that country as a refugee.
How to apply for refugee status in that country.
How to contact the UNHCR office in that country.
Where UNHCR offices are located in that country.
Where or how to find shelter in that country (if this information changes frequently, then tell refugees how to find the most up-to-date information themselves).
What NGOs are in the country that help refugees, or how to find them (NGOs that can help with education, legal matters, shelter, dealing with the police, etc.).
Information regarding working in that country.
How to avoid scams that target refugees.
Tips for staying safe (including for children, for women, how to avoid traffickers, etc.).
How to research rumors (and why it’s so important to do so).
Why requests for asylum take so long to process.
The dangers of lying or misrepresenting information to UNHCR or any immigration authorities.
A list of reliable news outlets.
UNHCR, you would reduce the amount of phone calls and visits to your offices if you made the aforementioned information available and kept it up to date on your individual country web sites. You would prevent at least some of the harm that refugees experience because they are targeted for crime and otherwise exploited. You would help stop harmful rumors before they get too widespread. And you would be fulfilling your mission!
Have you ever asked refugees themselves what information they need most?
Do better, UNHCR.
And for those who wonder why I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are refugees, or who desperately want to be such: it’s because I have worked for the UN and talk about that work, as well as other humanitarian-focused work, online in various online communities and via my own social media channels, and because I frequently write about refugee-related efforts:
The hype regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) is out of control, including regarding mission-based organizations. There are blogs, webinars, YouTube videos and more, all singing the praises of AI for nonprofits and NGOs. Various companies, nonprofits and consultants are falling over themselves to say that AI can do ANYTHING a nonprofit or NGO needs done: raise funds, manage volunteers, talk with clients, administer programs, manage all incoming calls, all with little or no human involvement.
Yet, these promoters are rarely specific. “You can use AI to research grants!” Okay, how? Tell me exactly what that looks like and how it’s different than just typing in keywords to an online search engine?
“You can use AI to screen volunteers!” Great. How? Tell me exactly what that looks like and how it’s different than just requiring certain fields in a volunteer application to be filled out or require a certain number of characters in that field? And is the goal to eliminate all human interaction until the volunteer shows up for the scheduled volunteering gig, because it’s that personal, human interaction that often seals the deal for a volunteer to show up at all.
So many of you are breathless about your use of AI, but you aren’t being specific about what that REALLY looks like. Specifics and obvious, real-world benefits are what lead to tech adoption.
Back in the 1990s, when the Internet started going mainstream, I started my own web site as a place to be specific about how the Internet could be used by nonprofit staff, specifically those responsible for outreach and those responsible for recruiting and engaging volunteers. Lots of makers of software and computers were making claims about what these tech tools could do for nonprofits, but they offered no specifics and no detailed guides, probably because they were talking in theory, not actual practice. As a result, a lot of nonprofits were dragging their feet about switching from index cards to track contacts to software that would manage clients and donors – they relished their personal relationships and saw tech eliminating something fundamental to their fundraising, outreach and program management success. A lot of nonprofits balked at the idea of creating a web site when they weren’t using any web site themselves: if a web site wasn’t the primary way they got info, why should they care? Of course, the reluctance of government and corporate donors to fund tech equipment, Internet subscriptions and training for staff also had something to do with many nonprofits not adopting computers and the Internet for so long.
I was one of the first people to start talking online and in workshops, in low-tech PLAIN language, about practical, real-world applications of online and computer tech for nonprofits. I could see the digital divide emerging between nonprofits that were adopting tech, especially online tools, and doing so much more with less, and those that still hoped the Internet was the CB Radio of the 1990s. But those latter nonprofits were providing critical services, and I did not want to see them die due to lack of understanding about emerging tech tools. In my work, I emphasized not only the practical applications and the specifics of tech use, but also that I would never propose the Internet or software as tools to replace humans; I always emphasized the application of tech tools with the goal of increasing meaningful human interactions, to increase support and help for humans, both clients and volunteers, and to free up time for staff so that they could spend more time in real-time work with clients, donors, the press, potential partners, other staff, etc.
In all of this work, I also never stopped emphasizing the human aspect: when I talked about online mentoring, I noted that success was NEVER about the tech tools, but about the HUMANS involved and how well they were trained and supported.
As a result of my approach, via my web site and via workshops, I regularly got comments like, “This is the first time I’ve ever understood why I should care about the Internet at my job” and “I finally know what questions to ask software salespeople.”
To all of you promoting AI for nonprofits: you have to be as specific as I was. For instance, be clear about why using AI would be preferable to just a web search on Google or Duck Duck Go. In fact, in my opnion: it’s not AT ALL preferable, and if you use AI to make suggestions about small-budget fundraising events for an animal shelter, you should still go to the search engine of your choice and look for fundraising events for an animal shelter, because you will find even more ideas. YOU should know the full range out there, and no AI tool provides that.
And also to all of you promoting AI for nonprofits: you need to be clear in warning nonprofits NEVER to take an AI-produced product, whether it’s a graphic, a press release or a social media strategy, and use it as is. AI makes mistakes (link goes to one that was very personal for me and would have been traumatizing). AI hallucinates and FREQUENTLY puts incorrect info into the written text it produces. AI not only claimed Ananda Valenzuela was speaking at an upcoming conference, it doubled-down when she tried to correct it. AI also doesn’t adhere to standards of accessible or even GOOD design: you can use an AI tool like Canva to produce your event flyer, but a HUMAN still has to make sure it adheres to standards of good design (like appropriate color contrast).
One final note to all of you promoting AI to nonprofits: the energy needs of AI are threatening to overwhelm the power grid. They are increasing our need for electricity at a time when we need to be DECREASING that need and RAISING energy prices for regular folks. You had better acknowledge this, full disclosure, when talking to nonprofits, many of whom are trying to adopt greener ways of doing business (and some of whom are focused on addressing global climate change specifically).
Yes, I use AI. One cannot use anything is on a network of any kind, or even a stand alone new computer, without using some form of AI. My spell checker and grammar checker tool is considered an AI tool, because, supposedly, this tool “learns” from me. I use Canva sometimes. I was once charged with writing a poem that might be a part of a fundraising campaign, and after I wrote my poem, I then asked AI to write a poem, giving it the same parameters that I was given, just to see how it compared. The AI poem actually wasn’t horrible. Mine was better, of course, but if all I had had to work with was that AI poem, with some tweaking, it would have been okay. But just okay. But I never trust the AI summary at the top of an online search – I always go looking for the source. WIkipedia remains a far superior resource for explanations and summaries, IMO.
Think of AI-produced material as something that a new employee from the corporate world or volunteer fresh out of high school, someone who might be able to use the latest computer tech to play video games and watch TikTok videos but does not understand that not everyone has the latest tech tools, not everyone has great eyesight, not everyone uses their hands to navigate web pages, not everyone speaks English as a first language, not everyone understands your soon-to-be dated jargon, etc. You are always going to have to correct and refine the material AI produces, just like you would that new employee or volunteer.
Why am I not taking up the challenge myself and researching and compiling real-world, practical examples of specific ways nonprofits and NGOs are using AI?
I do not have the finances to do yet another mostly-unfunded project. I was paid when I managed the Virtual Volunteering Project. I have not been paid for any of the research and resources I’ve produced for my own web site, nor for the Virtual Volunteering Guidebook (when it comes to the book, which I paid to publish, I barely broke even).
I think it should be NOT ME. It’s overdue for someone else to take up this let’s-talk-plain-language-about-tech challenge.
I am much older now and would like to focus on other things.
I really hope someone out there is reading this and will take up the challenge.
If you have benefited from this blog or other parts of my web site and would like to support the time that went into researching information, developing material, preparing articles, updating pages, etc. (I receive no funding for this work), here is how you can help.
Within one week, I saw three different job announcements at three different mid-size or large nonprofits that, altogether, were what I did part-time at a small nonprofit for the last three years. And much of the activities in each of these roles are, altogether, what I have done at nonprofits for the last thirty years.
What each job listed for qualifications was so specific that the organizations are going to end up excluding MANY qualified people – and, probably, the best person for the job. Despite my extensive professional background, despite being expertly qualified for some positions, I don’t even bother applying because so many people don’t see a journalism degree as something desirable now.
When your small or medium-sized nonprofit is looking for someone to be a videographer or photographer, who you are going to pay a salary FAR below the market rate, what you need from job candidates is work portfolios, not a degree in videography or photography. Same for a web designer or a graphic designer or a communications manager and many other positions. And for education, what you may need most is graduation from a recent certificate program, not a full-fledged BA. You need people who can do the job, and since you cannot afford to pay people with the training and experience you are demanding, you need to adjust your expectations.
There’s a better way to attract and screen candidates for roles where the person will produce communications pieces – and will do the job you need done:
(1) Ask applicants to note in their résumés or applications where (in what professional and volunteer positions) they used the tools or produced the projects or demonstrated the skills you are asking for. If your job involves setting up press conferences, or designing web sites, or managing web sites, or designing brochures, or distributing brochures, etc., ask applicants to note in their résumés or applications where they have experience doing that.
(2) Note that you will be asking later for online portfolios from the top 10 candidates, what you will want in those portfolios, and approximately how many weeks you will contact the top 10 candidates to ask for those portfolios. Note how many people you will choose to interview from those top 10 candidates and approximately when those interviews will take place. If someone doesn’t already have the material for a portfolio, they aren’t going to apply – and if they do, they now know they need to make sure their portfolio is full of fantastic examples of their work.
And if you are going to demand that the person use certain specific software – Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Illustrator, InDesign, Final Cut Pro, etc. – then you had better say what YOU are going to provide the selected candidate. What kind of laptop or desk top are you going to provide? Running what software? What kind of camera are you going to provide? Do you have a quiet room for creatives to create and edit? Are you committed to web accessibility and will give your web designer the tools needed to make that happen?
Be flexible in asking for a degree. I know amazing photographers with English degrees. I know very talented videographers with music degrees. I know kick-ass web designers with philosophy degrees.
And, finally: what you see as an entry-level job may be, particularly for seasoned professional in their 50s or 60s, a way to work for a few more years, work at a pace that is better suited to their life now than the senior and executive positions they held in the past, and apply a vast amount of skills and experience that your organization may be in much more need of than you might think. If you are thinking, “Oh, but what about health problems they might have?”, then also consider that it’s likely that candidates in their 50s or 60s aren’t starting families in the next few years, aren’t going to quit to pursue other, better job opportunities, and aren’t going to move across country to get married. And they are no more likely to have home-care obligations than a 30 something.
If you have benefited from this blog, my other blogs, or other parts of my web site and would like to support the time that went into researching information, developing material, preparing articles, updating pages, etc. (I receive no funding for this work), here is how you can help.
