Author Archives: jcravens

About jcravens

Jayne Cravens is an internationally-recognized trainer, researcher and consultant. Her work is focused on communications, volunteer involvement, community engagement, and management for nonprofits, NGOs, and government initiatives. She is a pioneer regarding the research, promotion and practice of virtual volunteering, including virtual teams, microvolunteering and crowdsourcing, and she is a veteran manager of various local and international initiatives. Jayne became active online in 1993, and she created one of the first web sites focused on helping to build the capacity of nonprofits to use the Internet. She has been interviewed for and quoted in articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, as well as for reports by CNN, Deutsche Well, the BBC, and various local radio stations, TV stations and blogs. Resources from her web site, coyotecommunications.com, are frequently cited in reports and articles by a variety of organizations, online and in-print. Women's empowerment and women's full access to employment and education options remains a cross-cutting theme in all of her work. Jayne received her BA in Journalism from Western Kentucky University and her Master's degree in Development Management from Open University in the U.K. A native of Kentucky, she has worked for the United Nations, lived in Germany and Afghanistan, and visited more than 30 countries, many of them by motorcycle. She is currently based near Portland, Oregon in the USA.

Online catalogue of data collection apps, mass SMS tools, more

Leave a reply

itt-logoMany low-cost information communication technology (ICT) -based tools already exist to help nonprofits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government programs and other mission-based initiatives to collect and share data on a large-scale, real-time basis. In fact, handheld computer devices have been used in various humanitarian, environmental and disaster-relief efforts since the late 1990s (when they were called PDAs, or personal digital assistants – you couldn’t use them to make a phone call but you could use them to gather data).

However, there isn’t a central place where organizations can access ICT-based tools and assess information so they can understand the features, the pros and the cons of different tools.

The Kopernik Impact Tracker Technology online catalogue is an effort to fill this gap, providing recommendations that assist users in making decisions about digital data collection apps, SMS communication platforms and more. The online catalogue is designed for small to medium-sized social enterprises or a nonprofit organizations working in international development or humanitarian emergencies with a main office that is located in an urban area with decent infrastructure and has access to slow to medium internet connection.  But any nonprofit or NGO, or any government agency, anywhere, can use these tools. This project is fully supported by the Impact Economy Innovations Fund in East and Southeast Asia, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and Asia Community Ventures.

The catalogue includes information on:

  • Digital data collection apps utiliize mobile phones and tablets to collect, store, and transmit data. These apps allow for paperless and more accurate data collection processes. Organizations can use these apps to collect qualitative and numerical data from the field, as well as capturing multimedia data or pinpointing locations on maps. Users build data forms using a pre-programmed form builder, deploy them onto mobile devices, and aggregate data in a database. Even in areas without mobile or internet networks, data can be collected first and then transmitted to the database once users regain connectivity.
  • SMS communications platforms are tools that manage large-scale communication with clients, volunteers and others through SMS. With these tools, organizations in developing countries can reduce the number of phone calls and physical visits to project sites. These platforms are butt-based and can be accessed using any web browser straight from a computer, as well as via the platform’s dedicated mobile apps where available.
  • Geospatial mapping tools enable users to visually compile information from various sources in the form of a map. These visual maps are useful for tracking information, analyzing data, and presenting updates. These tools operate on web-based applications on which administrators build data forms to be filled out by individual users via their phones or tablets. Information can be sent through web browsers, mobile apps, email, or SMS. Once submitted, information will be automatically aggregated on a map. Organizations can use the produced maps both for internal and external communication purposes.

Also see:

  • Handheld computer technologies in community service/volunteering/advocacy
    This was a pioneering article, published in October 2001. It provides early examples of volunteers/citizens/grass roots advocates using handheld computer/personal digital assistants (PDAs) or phone devices as part of community service/volunteering/advocacy, or examples that could be applied to volunteer settings. It was originally part of the UNITeS online knowledge base.

Which nonprofits serving military veterans are worthwhile?

Leave a reply

logoI get asked this question now and again, and I see this question posted in various places:

I want to donate money to help USA military veterans and their families. Which nonprofits are really worthwhile?

Sadly, I have trouble answering the question, because there are just too many news articles about very shady happenings by organizations claiming to help military veterans, such as this story from CNN’s Anderson Cooper, another one from Cooper, this one from the Daily Beast, this one from Veterans Today, and this from the Tampa Bay Times. I also find the TV commercials of several of these organizations emotionally-manipulative, as though donating to their organization proves your patriotism.

I’m not going to name any of the organizations in question, but it’s worth it to click on those previously-mentioned links and see the organization names yourself – some will be very recognizable.

Here are some questions you can use as you look at a web site to help you evaluate an organization that claims to help military veterans and their families:

  • Does this organization have a prominent link right on the home page for veterans or families of such in need of services – a link as prominent as its links for financial donors? If not, then it’s a red flag: how can an organization say it serves veterans or families of such but not have an obvious way for people to seek services? If it does have a link, click on it. Does the organization have just one page that talks about vague benefits – events, discounts, camaraderie, etc. – rather than concrete service information like mental health services / counseling, rehabilitation resources, accommodation adjustments in housing, debt management, help with government paperwork, job re-training, etc.? In short: pretend you are a veteran or family member in need and look at the web site from that perspective, then ask yourself this question: are you able to find information about services you urgently need?
  • Does the organization list its services as, primarily, directing veterans and their families to other agencies to help with health services, rehabilitation, job placement, etc. – or does the organization actually provide those services directly? If the former, your donation might be better going directly to those organizations that actually provide the services, since the organization is just referring people other organizations.
  • Does the organization say, right on the home page, that it involves volunteers? If no, that’s a red flag – why would a nonprofit not involve volunteers? Are they hiding something? If they do have such a link to volunteering information, do volunteers help in direct service, or do volunteers help just with fundraising? If the former, that’s a good sign that this is a legitimate organization, as they have a commitment to members of the public seeing their work firsthand – they value that kind of investment in their work. If the latter, then that’s a red flag: this organization sees volunteers only as fundraisers, as money-makers. There’s nothing wrong with volunteers being fundraisers, but if that’s the ONLY way the organization involves volunteers, it may mean the organization is concerned only with raising large amounts of money.
  • Does the organization provide an accounting of how it spends money, beyond saying, “80% of money raised goes to services”? For instance, what percentage of the organization’s staff is working in direct support to veterans and their families, versus staff working to raise funds, manage volunteers that raise funds, marketing staff, etc.?

Those are my suggestions of questions to ask before you donate financially to an organization that claims to help veterans and their families.

So, can I recommend any organization myself as one I would donate to (and maybe I have donated to)? Yes. I recommend the USO.

UNDP Technology for Citizen Engagement Challenge

Leave a reply

undp tech challengeA key focus of the the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Strategic plan 2014-17 is inclusive and effective democratic governance. “We are committed to supporting citizen participation and engagement in policymaking and governance, to foster more peaceful and inclusive societies.” That’s why UNDP is launching the “Technology for Citizen Engagement Challenge”.

“UNDP invites you to come up with technology-enabled solutions that can help to better engage citizens in addressing some of the challenges faced in our daily lives. UNDP offers both funding of up to $10,000 and mentoring support to help turn the best ideas into reality.” Winning teams will also be invited to attend the 2nd Annual Build Peace through technology conference in Nicosia, Cyprus on 25th & 26th April 2015.

Examples of the use of networked technologies and tech innovations to help narrow the gap between citizens and decision makers that UNDP has supported:

  • In Georgia,  ELVA uses mobile phones to facilitate rapid responses to incidences has led to a restoration of community safety and security in often volatile circumstances.
  • In Cyprus, Hands on Famagusta brings together Greek and Turkish Cypriot architects who use new technology to create a future vision for the divided city of Famagusta.
  • In conflict-torn East Ukraine, UNDP is using a mobile app to crowdsource reports of structural damage, which will in turn, help UNDP help the government plan how to best rebuild.

So what are we looking for?

Do you have an idea for a technology enabled solution that can help to better engage citizens in addressing the following issues?

Common Vision for the Future – How can we use technology to bring together different groups to imagine a common vision for the future? Submit your ideas for how to embrace differing views to find common ground by sharing a vision for the future.

Inclusion through Diversity – How can technology help to diversify the voices that inform policy by embracing more inclusive decision-making processes? Submit your ideas for how to increase dialogue between citizens and decision makers so that a multitude of voices are represented in public policy, including those of women and youth.

Improve access to public services and data – How can we utilize technology to improve access to public services and/or data? Submit your ideas for how better access to services and data can strengthen trust in institutions and encourage greater public participation in decision-making.

Deadline for the submission of ideas is Thursday 5th March – Apply here

Guidelines for applicants

FOLLOW: @UNDPEurasia, @UNDPArabStates  and @mahallae on Twitter for updates.

 

Marketing staff: either help promote volunteer engagement or GET OUT OF THE WAY

Leave a reply
logoMy blog today is actually for public relations and marketing staff at nonprofits, rather than those managers of volunteer programs. And my message is this: either help promote your organization’s volunteer engagement OR GET OUT OF THE WAY. I talk to people managing their organization’s volunteer engagement activities – recruiting volunteers, supporting those volunteers, creating the majority of opportunities for those volunteers, helping other staff engage with those volunteers in their work, etc. – and among the many complaints I hear about challenges to their success is this one: the public relations and marketing staff won’t support me. Those leading volunteer engagement at your organization need a variety of support from marketing and public relations staff:
  • in using the organization’s Facebook page, blog, web site and other online activities to recruit volunteers and tout the accomplishments of such
  • in reaching out to the media about what volunteers are doing
  • in connecting media to those working with volunteers at the organization when the media says they want to do a story about volunteerism
  • in understanding when volunteers are doing something particularly special or innovative, or staff working with such are, such that it would be worthy of external attention (or internal attention, for that matter)
  • in including information about the organization’s volunteer engagement in all traditional publications, including paper newsletters and annual reports
  • in talking about volunteer engagement as more than just the monetary value of volunteer hours
Yet, I hear from staff again and again that the outreach staff won’t create a link on the home page to information on volunteering (though they will regarding donating money, no problem!), that they won’t include any volunteer-related messages on Facebook, that they won’t use any photos from a recent volunteer engagement event in outreach materials, and that they will include information about volunteerism in the annual report only regarding the monetary value of the volunteer time given. Public relations and marketing staff: if you are not going to create a detailed strategy for supporting your organization’s engagement of volunteers through all of your various outreach methods, then let the manager of that engagement do it him or herself, and stay out of the way as they execute that strategy. If you aren’t going to include information about volunteer recruitment and accomplishment in social media channels as often as you do about fundraising campaigns, then say nothing as staff in charge of managing volunteers at your organization create their own blogs, web sites, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and Instagram or Flickr accounts to share the information they want out. What would be FAR better than forcing managers of volunteers to do marketing and public relations on their own? If you, public relations and marketing staff, sat down with the staff that work with volunteers at your organization and said, “How can I support you? Tell me what you’re doing. Let’s meet once a month and talk about it.” What you might find is that, instead of additional work, you get much-needed information to raise your organization’s profile online and in the media. Maybe volunteers are taking amazing photos of your organization’s work that you could use in a variety of ways. Perhaps there is a really marvelous story waiting for you to discover: maybe your organization is engaging in virtual volunteering in some really innovative ways, or is involving someone as an online volunteer who could never do so onsite. Maybe some hot current trend, like micro volunteering, is happening at your organization but you don’t even know it. Maybe volunteer engagement has helped your organization engage with communities or demographics you never would have reached otherwise. An organization that involves volunteers can be seen as more transparent and open to the community than one that doesn’t – are you leveraging that image properly in your outreach work? No more excuses, public relations and marketing staff: support your staff that recruit and engage with volunteers – or get out of the way and let them do their own publicity themselves. This message brought to you by: Grumpy Jayne.
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.

#HumanitarianStarWars

Leave a reply

In February 2015, #HumanitarianStarWars took off on Twitter – memes that sum up the universe in which humanitarian aid and development professionals work. The Guardian curated their favorite tweets from the somewhat trending topic – and I loved it because it brought together two things I love oh-so-much (I have been known to recite Princess Leia’s hologram speech upon demand).

What a shame I don’t know how to imbed a tweet – because I would love to show you my faves….

 

Learning from a nonprofit’s failure

2 Replies

logoA couple of the nonprofits where I have worked over the last 30 years have closed for good. I don’t count my time at either agency as enjoyable, and I don’t mention either on my résumé. It was many of the things that made these places so unenjoyable for me (and others) that ultimately lead to their demise. But both organizations did teach me quite a bit in terms of how not to run a nonprofit.

As I read an article today by some of the board members that tried to save one of those organizations from closing its doors, I shook my head at the level of denial about what they said the problems were at the organization: they lamented how they were unable to find that one big donor that would have saved the organization with an annual massive donation and connections to friends who would also have made an annual massive donation.

Here are the actual reasons the organization closed:

  • The organization’s leadership never made an effort to connect with and serve the many diverse communities that made up their region. It’s not at all a cohesive community. It’s a community that’s known worldwide for people working in high-tech, but it’s also a community with a massive Hispanic population – both new immigrants and third, fourth, even fifth-generation families. It’s a community with massive wealth, but also massive poverty, with a homeless population that’s one of the largest in the USA. There’s no one style of music listened to by most people, no one type of food eaten by most everyone there, no one set of religious values most people in the region adhere to – it’s not a melting pot but, rather, a tossed salad of diverse thoughts, beliefs and lifestyles. This now-closed organization didn’t initiate meetings with representatives from the many different populations that make up the area, to talk about how to serve them better or better reach different people. There were no special employment or volunteer recruitment efforts to attract staff from those different communities – in fact, there was no volunteer engagement scheme at all outside of having ushers at events (almost always the same people, people just interested in getting community service hours rather than doing something to serve the organization’s mission). Programs were developed in a bubble, and leadership just never understood why people outside that bubble didn’t participate.
  • The organization never successfully marketed its fee-based programs to groups. Group sales are everything when you are trying to sell something for a price, something that people have to pay something for to be a part of. You must have a crackerjack person, or team, that knows how to sell blocks of items or event tickets in order to generate the proper amount of income. Successful ballet companies, art museums, live theaters and other arts-based groups know this. Roller derby leagues in the USA — all nonprofit — know this. For-profit sports leagues know this.
  • The organization didn’t really try to cultivate young people as participants. People that grow up participating in a particular activity often want to continue to participate in that activity as adults. Integrate your nonprofit program offering into schools, and you will have, in a few years, new supporters, new donors, and new participants. It takes more than just having a “youth day” or one “youth event.”
  • Leadership didn’t engage with the leadership of other nonprofits. There were no regular meetings, formal or informal, with others serving the community through nonprofit services, and, therefore, no relationships – instead, other nonprofits were seen as competition for audiences and donors. The long-time head of the organization’s programming was particularly isolationist, and saw no need for building professional friendships with other nonprofit leaders. Without those relationships, the organization wasn’t hearing about what was important in the region it served, wasn’t hearing fresh ideas, wasn’t learning new approaches that could have helped improve their own offerings.
  • Leadership ignored criticism. Certain actions by this organization had ignited hostilities of some rather outspoken folks who claimed to represent a certain population of the area, and such has received a lot of media attention. I’m not sure if those criticisms were legitimate, but they were loud and they created a mindset about many people about the organization that was quite negative. The organization chose to ignore that criticism, rather than sitting down not only with the people claiming to represent that group, but with other representatives from that group to find out if they felt the same way and what might be done to build bridges. Instead, the leadership said, internally, “This isn’t our audience anyway,” and took no action.

During my brief time working there, I was frequently reprimanded for how I approached things regarding public relations and marketing. An example: I marketed one program in particular so well that it became one of the best-attended in the organization’s history, but my boss told me that I had not done a good job, because I’d marketed the program to the large gay community of the region, and he didn’t want people thinking of the organization as “a lesbian” one. I once lined up several media representatives to interview a member of senior management, in order to create a blitz of coverage for our organization in a variety of publications, and she cancelled most of the interviews at the last minute, saying this one wasn’t really worth it, that she wasn’t in the mood to do another one, etc.

It’s strange that so many of the things I did at this organization that were so disliked by senior management have ended up getting me hired elsewhere, and have lead me to be successful at other organizations. Because I was so passionate about the organization’s mission, the experience was even more painful. But as a result of what I witnessed in my brief time at this now-failed agency, ties with the community is one of the first things I evaluate when I take on any communications or management task. I look to answer lots of questions:

  • What do different people from different populations say about this organization?
  • Are the different populations that make up our community represented among our employees and volunteers, and/or among the active participants in our programs? Who are we missing, and why?
  • Does this organization have lots of people making small donations, or is this organization funded primarily by just a few big donors and grants?
  • Are there people that don’t like this organization and, if so, why, and how should we address that?
  • Are media reps seeking our leadership out for stories, even to just comment as experts on a particular issue they are covering – and if not, why not?
  • Do emails, calls and tweets from the media get answered promptly?
  • Do we monitor social media about this organization and what people are saying?
  • What nonprofits are doing similar work, or are also serving this region, and what is our relationship with them?

I’m so sorry for the people that have lost their jobs because of this organization’s closing. I hope they have learned as much as I did as a result of their experience there, and I wish them the very best of luck.

Also see:

Blogs & articles re: virtual volunteering NOT by me

Leave a reply

Why no, I’m *not* the only person who talks about Virtual Volunteering / e-volunteering / digital volunteering, etc.

In addition to research and evaluations of virtual volunteering, that is tracked on the Virtual Volunteering Wiki, which has been put together as a supplement to The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook, there are also various other web sites, blogs, publications and initiatives focused on virtual volunteering, often under different names (digital volunteering, online volunteering, microvolunteering, etc.).

It’s impossible to create a comprehensive list of such – just as it would be impossible to make a list of all web sites, blogs and other non-research related to volunteering, in general. But I have made a list gives an overview of the different ways various people and organizations are talking about virtual volunteering, especially internationally. There are links to information about virtual volunteering in Spanish, Catalan, German, Polish, Ukrainian, and a wee bit in French.

Also see this page tracking news articles, blog posts, and other updates on virtual volunteering and this page lists RSS feeds that automatically link to the latest web pages, blogs, and other online materials that use terms that relate to virtual volunteering.

And, of course, check out The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook.

UNHCR mobile phone usage in refugee situations – pilot project

Leave a reply

SMS as a tool for humanitarian aid is becoming an increasingly common tool, and you can find several examples of this highlighted on the TechSoup Public Computing, ICT4D, and Tech4Good forum branch – most posted by me, because I’m oh-so-interested in this subject.

UNHCR Innovation recently piloted an SMS system in two UNHCR operations: Esmeraldas, Ecuador and San José, Costa Rica. There is an online article highlight its experiences piloting FrontlineButt in San José, Costa Rica and lessons learned. The project, named Ascend, began as a collaboration between Stanford University and UNHCR Innovation.

The goals for this particular pilot were:

  1. How do we best utilize SMS to connect with refugees residing in an urban area?
  2. How do we embed a new tool like SMS in organizations to be sustainable, even after the pilot is over?
  3. What types of utilities does an SMS application need to appropriately handle the requirements of UNHCR and non-governmental organization (NGO) staff?

A few key takeaways were observed: one, the need for message classification to handle a large number of inbound SMS (think Gmail classifying messages as priority or not priority); two, the ability to have a feature rich application to conduct polls and surveys via SMS; three, a focus on visualizing the data received and report generation in order to convey effectiveness to potential donors.

Before the implementation of the project, project organizers sat down with four refugees to get feedback to help with this project. The interviews are available here. In short, some key takeaways were:

  • Phone presence – most of the interviewees had mobile phones and used them, though some only used them for family matters. The majority cited mobile phones as a good means of reaching them. There were also two who said it was better to call rather than send an SMS.
  • SMS uses – by and large, most of the interviewees wanted more information on activities and opportunities that were available to them. In addition, some thought it would be a good way to ask questions to UNHCR, ACAI, or Aprode.
  • Challenges faced – the biggest challenges for the refugees upon arrival was surviving in a context they were not used to. In a similar vein, they also found it very difficult to find jobs.

At the end of the monitoring and evaluation phase, UNHCR again contacted the same refugees to get their opinion on the project. These interviews were conducted over the phone and the interviews can be viewed here. The responses were overwhelmingly positive which is a big success for the pilot as a whole.

My favorite takeaway:

Initially we had started the pilot with a prepared list of contacts to message. Sending the blast welcome message explaining the project elicited many responses saying, “Who is this?” or “Why am I receiving this?” After interviewing refugees we began to see a pattern. People were hesitant to trust a message from an unknown number. We ended up tackling this issue by first advertising the number in UNHCR and the other NGOs so that people would become familiar with the project and expect to receive messages. In addition to that, we set up boxes in which people could drop their contact information and we would then add that phone number to the FrontlineButt database. In this way we increased trust in and awareness for the project.

Here’s the full article from UNHCR.

And for some perspective, here’s an article from October 2001: Handheld computer technologies in community service/volunteering/advocacy .

When Board Members (& other volunteers) Get in the Way of Much-Needed Change

Leave a reply

“While organizations should be grateful to their hardworking board members, too often members overreach and can have a negative impact on decision making. This is especially true when it comes to marketing, design, and communications, disciplines that seem to attract an outsize share of unqualified participation.”

That’s from When Board Members Get in the Way of a Great Redesign by   for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and it’s terrific. It not only shows what this interference can look like, it also talks about how to reduce the chances that a board member will derail a well-thought out, well-researched, much-needed strategy for social media, virtual volunteering, better financial management, adoption of new software, a logo change, and on and on. In fact, the advice is excellent for working with long-term volunteers as well, volunteers who may be resistant to change regarding policies and cherished-but-outdated practices.

The problem with Seth Godin

Leave a reply

logoThis blog was originally posted to my then-blog host on September 16, 2009.

To Seth Godin, in response to his blog about nonprofits using networking tools

Before you chastise nonprofits for their supposed lack of use of new technologies, you might want to do your homework first. If you had, you would have been overwhelmed with examples of nonprofit groups, large and small, using social-media tools. As the Chronicle of Philanthropy pointed out in its rebuttal of your blog, “shows nonprofit groups are actually well ahead of businesses in their use of social-media tools such as Twitter, Facebook, and blogs.”

So what if there are no charities in the top 100 twitter users in terms of followers? The number of followers is NO determination of success that a message is really creating change, any more than number of cars passing a billboard or number of visitors to a web site. Big numbers of viewers does NOT equal big numbers of donors, big numbers of changed behavior, big numbers of event attendees, etc. If there are nonprofits out there who are turning Twitter followers, FaceBook followers, web site visitors, or email newsletter subscribers into volunteers, donors, clients or other supporters, good for them and who cares whether or not they are in the “top 100” group?

But what really infuriates me is your comment “The opportunities online are basically free, and if you don’t have a ton of volunteers happy to help you, then you’re not working on something important enough.” Here’s something you should know: volunteers are NEVER free. Never. Volunteers have to be screened, interviewed, trained and supervised, just like a consultant you hire to do something like manage online activities. That *time* costs *money*. So, yes, resources ARE an issue, particularly when you have corporate donors that balk at the idea of funding a volunteer manager.

Sorry if I sound upset, but I am. Another corporate guy mocking nonprofits, throwing around a lot of ignorant comments. Same old same old. Some paradigms never change. Meanwhile, nonprofits will plug along and keep doing really exciting, worthwhile things, online and off, and they will all be here, doing amazing things, when you’re long gone.

Reminds me of the 1990s, when all sorts of corporate folks did the same chastising regarding nonprofits’ perceived lack of use of the Web and email. Funny: so many of those hot new start ups those people represented are gone, but the nonprofits are still here.

Also see:  Corporations: here’s what nonprofits really need