Category Archives: Community Relations/Outreach

Tearing down women who dare to lead

The next time you see a glowing article about or an interview with a woman who has started her own initiative or nonprofit in the town or neighborhood where she lives, or who is running for office, or who is leading a fight against some polluter or oppressor in her area, no matter what country it’s happening in, consider what this woman is probably dealing with that isn’t talked about in the article: vicious, constant personal attacks and criticisms.

In a blog I wrote a year ago, called Barriers to women’s leadership we don’t talk about, I wrote about women in other countries who pay a hefty price in their attempts to be ambitious at work and exert any kind of leadership, particularly via gossip but also per constant insults and criticisms from other women. And I noted that those barriers happen right here in the USA to women who try to lead in some way, small or large.

Women are continually, regularly discouraged from thinking of themselves as powerful or ambitious or worthy of leading in any efforts, no matter how large or small. When women try to lead – whether on a project or even just regarding a topic during a discussion- the reaction can be discouraging or even ugly. The reactions come from colleagues, from the community, even from those they try to serve. Even from family members.

Women who try to lead are often subjected to insults and attacks designed specifically to prey on personal fears and insecurities. I’ve certainly it experienced myself. Newly-elected congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is experiencing it to a degree that would make most people wither – any Internet search of her name will illustrate it. 

Right here in the small town in Oregon where I live, a few years ago, a young woman decided to create a participatory project that she hoped would build community cohesion, something the population was struggling with. She planned carefully, encouraged and welcomed participation, shared decision-making and made it completely transparent, and personally reached out and guided participants in the project, all while making sure her vision was always at the forefront – it was about that vision, not about her. The project flourished: more and more people participated and her vision was being realized: more and more people became aware of local government meetings and action (and how to participate in such), new resources from the county public health office, road conditions, and even new restaurant openings. Rumors were quickly squashed. Neighbors were helping each other – neighbors who might never have met otherwise. Involvement in her project grew to a number that was more than 25% of the population, and it included me – I was skeptical at first, but quickly bought into her efforts. A newspaper wrote a story about her efforts. At a debate for candidates running for local office, two candidates talked about her project in their remarks and how it was so important to the community and they wanted to better leverage it.

But some people didn’t like her success. A small minority of participants provided constant public and private criticism of how she moderated and facilitated activities and how she reinforced the goals of the project, and rarely was the criticism constructive. People who violated the project’s policies – policies that are in writing and about which regular reminders are sent – were angry when they were gently reprimanded, even if that reprimand happened well behind the scenes, discreetly. They were furious when their actions, in violation of the written policies, lead them to being blocked from further participation. The founder received personal insults via direct message and text, like the one posted next to this paragraph (it’s one of the milder ones, actually). At least one person created a fake account on Facebook and posted outrageous messages, trying to make people think it was the group founder. At least three rival projects were launched by disgruntled former participants  – all failed after just a few weeks or months. But that tiny, vocal, persistent minority and their constant insults and attacks finally did her in: after four years, she resigned her role as project owner and manager, not because she thought the project needed fresh leadership, not because there were people who had demonstrated that they were ready to take over, but because, emotionally, she just couldn’t take the belittling and abusive comments anymore. It will now be up to the remaining volunteers to keep the project going. And maybe the project will continue. But what I’m worried about is that she’s probably going to continue to be targeted for comments by people in any endeavor she undertakes in this small town because she DARED to lead.

For anyone who offers advice for women who want to be leaders that is focused on smoothing out presentation style and being more gentle or diplomatic, I say, quite frankly: bollocks. Being overly concerned by one’s image with everyone or even the most vocal group of critics, however large or small, diminishes that person’s mental and emotional resources needed for leadership. People who are distracted about how everyone else perceives them – or even a vocal minority – are less clear about their goals and less capable of reaching them. And make no mistake: women are targeted by this kind of criticism far, far more than men.

I hate most of the articles I have ever read on women’s leadership. One I did not hate is Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers by Herminia Ibarra, Robin J. Ely and Deborah M. Kolb. A version of the article was published in the September 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review. And I loved this quote from the article in particular:

Integrating leadership into one’s core identity is particularly challenging for women, who must establish credibility in a culture that is deeply conflicted about whether, when, and how they should exercise authority. 

The reality is that effective leaders must have the confidence, and maybe even arrogance, to take initiative and action despite insults and criticisms. They have to know when a criticism is something to be considered, something to be used for improvement, and when it’s meant solely to be spiteful, to undermine and derail efforts and to personally attack someone and undermine their confidence. Effective leaders must be firmly anchored in their purpose. They need to always keep their cause, mission, project, objective, key message, whatever it is, as the first and foremost priority in all they do, and remember that everything they do needs to be true to that cause or message – a cause or message bigger than themselves. Absolutely, leaders need to listen to and consider comments and criticism about their performance – but they also need to know when to ignore insults. They need to know when they are hearing constructive criticism and when something is being said or done solely to tear someone down. And that can be difficult for even the best leaders.

When men are firmly anchored in their purpose, they are admired as confident. When women do this – well, we all know what is said about women who do this. But maybe instead of telling women to alter their behaviors if they want to be leaders, we need to start calling out the double standards in how we describe and respond to women leaders.

Updated April 15, 2021: A comic strip demonstrates the challenges women face online. It’s developed by Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet). In a story of three differently aged, differently shaped and differently employed women, we see what violence can look like online, how the seemingly harmless can actually contribute to it, and what we can all do to prevent it and to create a safer space for women online.

Also see:

Governments cracking down on nonprofits & NGOs

Budapest, Hungary is one of my very favorite cities, and not just because I think it has the BEST FOOD IN THE WORLD. Budapest has what I consider the perfect mix of gorgeous history all around and vibrant new ideas from its young people. It feels unique and ancient while also feeling bold and progressive. It’s an energy that both preserves what’s best about a community or country (history, architecture, environment, the arts, etc.) and helps it prosper and move forward, particularly in times of great economic and cultural change.

It is with great sadness that I read about efforts by the Hungarian government to shut down the Aurora community centre.  “Now, the Aurora, which rents office space to a handful of NGOs — including LGBTQ and Roma support groups — says it has been pushed to the brink of closure by far-right attacks, police raids and municipality moves to buy the building… NGOs are routinely attacked through legal measures, criminal investigations and smear campaigns — something the Aurora told CNN it has experienced first-hand.”

“We wanted to create a safe environment for civil organizations,” said Adam Schonberger, director of Marom Budapest, the Jewish youth group that founded the community center in 2014. “By doing this we became a sort of enemy of the state. We didn’t set out to be a political organisation — but this is how we’ve found ourselves.” Schonberger didn’t think authorities had targeted Aurora because of its Jewish roots. Instead, he put the harassment down to the group’s values of “social inclusion, building civil society and fighting for human rights.”

Here’s Aurora on Facebook. And here is the Aurora’s web site.

I am very partial to these kind of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) – what we call nonprofits in the USA – that help cultivate grassroots efforts, encourage the sharing and exploration of ideas, and help incubate emerging movements and other NGOs. I believe these NGOs can play an important role in helping immigrants assimilate in a country as well and help the country benefit from the talents and ideas these immigrants may bring. I’ve had the pleasure of addressing groups like this in Eastern Europe, and in the USA in Lexington, Kentucky, and I’ve walked away feeling renewed and energized. Add in promotion and celebration of the arts, like Appalshop does in Eastern Kentucky, and I’m ready to pack up and move to a remote town in Eastern, Kentucky.

This NGO’s struggles are part of an ongoing shift all over Europe, and indeed, the world, in local and national governments that are rejecting diversity, changing times, dissent and intellectualism, and governing from a place of fear. I could think that I’m isolated from this trend here in the USA, where I’m living these days, but I am not. I remember back in the 1990s, when similar political groups went after arts organizations, even going so far as trying to defund the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) – I helped arrange for Christopher Reeve, a co-founder the Creative Coalition and then performing at a theater where I was working, to debate Pat Robertson about the NEA on CNN’s Crossfire on July 16, 1990, and the theaters where I worked back in those days all felt pressure regarding their artistic choices because of these movements. Those controversies are still here, as any search on Google and Bing shows.

Nonprofits in the USA need to watch carefully what’s happening in other countries and think about how such could happen here. Remember the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)? It was a collection of community-based nonprofits and programs all over the USA that advocated for low- and moderate-income families. They worked to address neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing and other social issues for low-income people. At its peak, ACORN had more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the USA. But ACORN was targeted by conservative political activists who secretly recorded and released highly-edited videos of interactions with low-level ACORN personnel in several offices, portraying the staff as encouraging criminal behavior. Despite multiple investigations on the federal, state, and county level that found that the released tapes were selectively edited to portray ACORN as negatively as possible and that nothing in the videos warranted criminal charges, the organization was doomed: politicians pounced and the public relations fallout resulted in almost immediate loss of funding from government agencies and from private donors.

There are growing misconceptions about the role of nonprofits in the USA and this could fuel local, state and national movements against nonprofit organizations – not just arts organizations. Nonprofits of every kind need to make sure they are inviting the public and local and state government officials regularly to see their work and WHY their work matters to the entire community, not just their target client/audience. Most nonprofit organizations need to do a much better job using the Web to show accountability. In short: don’t think it can’t happen here.

Also see:

The Impact of In-Person Usability Demos on Web Designers

“During (Knowbility’s John Slatin) AccessU, I had the opportunity to sit in on a series of assistive technology demos and witness firsthand how people with disabilities use the internet. That experience completely changed the way I looked at building a website… There is nothing like seeing the ‘a-ha’ moment from people’s faces the first time they see someone use assistive technology.”

The power of an in-person demo regarding usability of a web site from the point of view of a person with a disability is explained in this Knowbility blog by Christi Barker.

An example of the reaction of one of Barker’s students to a demo she later arranged:

“For example, as a designer, we care a lot about how things like buttons are put on websites. However, for vision-impaired people, the aesthetic or the structure of the layout does not mean the same thing to them. Sometimes, it only decreases the ability for them to stay connected with the world. That was the first time I perceived the many inconveniences in their life. Their stories are inspiring and have made me start thinking about what can I do to make a difference in their lives.”

Knowbility is a nonprofit organization with a mission is to create a more inclusive digital world for all abilities.

And remember: accessibility is a human rights issue. And if your organization claims to work towards inclusion of any kind, that should include accessibility for people with disabilities to your web site.

Accessibility: a human rights & a digital divide issue too many ignore

Pioneering in “hacks for good”: Knowbility

Knowbility’s AccessU 2019: Call for Papers

Growing misconceptions about the role of nonprofits in the USA

In addition to sitting in on various local government meetings in the small town where I live in Oregon, I’ve been volunteering with a local unit of my state’s League of Women Voters, registering voters and sitting in on numerous candidate debates. My goal in these activities, which I’ve said before, is to compare what I’ve seen and experienced abroad working in international aid and development with what happens locally in my own community in the USA.

In doing these activities, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend that greatly affects nonprofits in terms of how the public, the private sector and government think about them, and how the public, the private sector and government feel about their funding and support for such. There is a growing chorus of elected officials and their supporters who say variations of the following:

There are enough resources in our region, via nonprofits and communities of faith – charity – for anyone who is homeless, who has an addiction or has mental issues to get the help they need. All someone needs to do to get help is to contact those organizations. 

There was a time in the USA when poverty was successfully and completely addressed by charity, usually through churches, not by government. Charity used to help all the people that were poor, and we should go back to that way of addressing poverty. 

People who have addiction issues, mental issues, homelessness issues or any issues associated with poverty just aren’t working hard enough. They lack morals or willpower and they could stop their drug use or their slide into mental illness simply by choosing to, by really trying.

These statements are not true.

The truth:

Programs that serve the homeless, whether they provide temporary housing or more permanent housing, or even just serve food, are utterly overwhelmed all across the USA and do not have enough resources to help everyone that needs it. Their waiting lists for housing assistance are months, even a few years. And providing food and temporary shelter does not prevent homelessness nor reduce the number of people who are homeless.

Before the creation of Social Security, most people in the USA supported themselves into old age by working. The 1930 census found 58 percent of men over 65 still in the workforce; in contrast, by 2002, the figure was 18 percent. Children and other relatives bore the major cost of supporting the aged. The Great Depression swept this world away: many of the elderly could no longer find work and their family could not afford to support them anymore. To get by in that time, the elderly took to panhandling, moving into dingy, unsafe almshouses or poorhouses, many run by charities or churches, or simply dying impoverished, which was the fate that befell 1 in every 2 older Americans in the years after the 1929 stock market crash.

Homelessness and poverty can be triggered by a range of issues in the USA, including divorce, medical bills/bankruptcy, income vs. housing affordability, decline in public/government assistance and mental health issues. Simply getting a different, better-paying job usually isn’t an option for someone facing homelessness and poverty.

Addiction is a chronic disease that creates a compulsion or even a physical need to use drugs. Drugs, including alcohol, affect the brain’s “reward circuit,” causing euphoria as well as flooding the brain with the chemical messenger dopamine. A properly functioning reward system doesn’t result in addiction. Whether a person is born with a disfunctional reward system or if the disfunction results entirely from drug use continues to be debated and researched; most agree that a combination of genetic, environmental and developmental factors influences risk for addiction, and the more risk factors a person has, the greater the chance that taking drugs can lead to addiction. The initial decision to take drugs is voluntary for most people and often relates to a medical issue rather than recreation, but repeated use of drugs, including alcohol, can lead to brain changes that interfere with an addicted person’s ability to resist intense urges to continue to use. As with most other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, asthma, or heart disease, treatment for drug addiction generally isn’t a cure. Addiction is treatable,  however, like other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, asthma, or heart disease, treatment for drug addiction requires professional intervention and guidance – a person can’t address the issues entirely on their own.

So, that’s the truth. But how did the misinformation happen, and how does this misinformation affect nonprofits now?

The misinformation happened not only because of the political agendas of the people saying such; it also has happened because nonprofits have done a poor job of explicitly, frequently talking about the issues they are addressing and educating the public about those issues.

If anyone believes any of these myths, then any sense of urgency regarding homelessness, addiction or poverty vanishes for potential donors, whether individuals or corporate giving programs or foundations. In addition to these myths creating the idea that nonprofits, communities of faith and “charity” can address all the needs of anyone at risk for harm in a community, these myths also create the idea that poverty happens primarily because of bad personal choices: if you’re homeless, then you just have been lazy and not bothered to contact a nonprofit that could help you. If you are addicted to opioids, it’s because you lack willpower.

I’ve been looking at the web sites of various nonprofit organizations serving my communities and various others, and, for the most part, all I see are pleas for support, for donations. What I don’t see:

  • a list, with citations, as to what causes a man, a woman or an entire family to be homeless, with profiles of clients (actual names can be changed and photos can be taken in such as way as to hide the identity of clients)
  • what activities precede a person becoming addicted to a substance, particularly opioids, with profiles of clients (again, actual names can be changed and photos can be taken in such as way as to hide the identity of clients)
  • a list of exactly what donations to a nonprofit pay for (emphasizing why paid staff is needed, rather than relying solely on volunteers helping whenever they might have some time)
  • information on the number of people the organization turns away, or puts on waiting lists, because it does not have the resources to help them, information on what activities or services the community needs but that the organization cannot provide because of a lack of resources, etc.

Nonprofits have got to be much more deliberate and direct in all of their communications about the issues they are addressing, why those issues exist, and what resources they lack. If tax cuts and tax breaks for corporations have resulted in less money for these critical services, nonprofits must say so. 

Our futures depend on it.

Sources:

Homelessness in Portland, Sept. 26, 2018, Travel Oregon

Roads before homes: Our Homeless Crisis, March 18, 2015, The Oregonian

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, November 2016

National Alliance to End Homelessness. Homelessness: A State of Emergency.Feb. 6, 2016

“A Great Calamity Has Come Upon Us”, Jan. 23, 2005, The New York Times

16 Ways People Survived Before Social Security — Could You Do It?, April 12, 2018, GoBankingRates

What causes homelessness, downloaded Nov. 2, 2018

Why Are People Homeless?, July 2009, National Coalition for the Homeless

Understanding Drug Use and Addiction, June 2018, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (and see more sources at the end of this NIH article)

Also see:

Updated: How Misinformation Can Derail Aid & Relief Efforts

There are lots of obstacles that can stand in the way of human, community and institutional development, aid and relief efforts, or government health initiatives, or even elections. But there is one obstacle that, until recently, rarely got discussed: widespread misunderstanding and myth-spreading.

Folklore, rumors (or rumours) and urban myths / urban legends, as well as organized misinformation campaigns and “fake news”, often interfere with relief and development activities, and government initiatives, including public health initiatives — even bringing such to a grinding halt. They also create ongoing misunderstandings among communities and cultures, prevent people from seeking help, encourage people to engage in unhealthy and even dangerous practices, cultivate mistrust of people and institutions, have even lead to mobs of people attacking someone or others for no reason other than something they heard from a friend of a friend of a friend, motivated legislators to introduce laws to address something that doesn’t exist, and influenced elections. And with the advent of social media like Twitter and Facebook, as well as just text messaging among cell phones, spreading misinformation is easier than ever.

Since 2004, I have been gathering and sharing both examples of this phenomenon, and compiling recommendations on preventing folklore, rumors and urban myths from interfering with development and aid/relief efforts and government initiatives. I do this research and entirely on my own, as a volunteer, with no funding from anyone. I update the information as my free time allows – and time has allowed such.

Once upon a time, I had wanted it to be the topic of my Master’s Degree thesis, but back in 2004, I couldn’t get an agency to go on record to tell their story. The few representatives of organizations that I talked to didn’t want to give any attention to the misinformation campaigns that were targeting them. With the advent of social media and the proliferation of misinformation, government agencies and nonprofits are scrambling to address rumors before they get out of hand – and before people are killed as a result. For instance, in 2017, in India, in the southern state of Telangana, videos were circulated among villagers that had been staged or edited in a particular way and claimed to show children being abducted by a criminal gang were circulated in more than 400 villages in the southern Indian state of Telangana via WhatsApp and an Indian messaging service called ShareChat. These videos claimed that the children were being abducted in order to harvest their organs. The claims in these videos were completely false. But because so many people believed what they saw in these videos, people stopped going out of night, several completely innocent people were attacked by mobs who accused them of being organ thieves, and at least 25 people were murdered – lynched – falsely accused of being a part of the gang. Here’s more about the consequences of such misinformation campaigns and how the situation in India was addressed.

Also see:

Scammers target those that care about soldiers, world affairs

Aid workers need to help local staff avoid scams 

You have an obligation to be truthful online

My voluntourism-related & ethics-related blogs (and how I define scam)

Knowbility’s AccessU 2019: Call for Papers

Knowbility’s John Slatin AccessU 2019: Call for Papers

Proposal submission deadline: Friday, January 24, 2019 at 11:59pm CST

Passionate about accessibility and inclusion?

Think you have a thing or two to share about accessibility?

Accidentally used the phrase “cool as an #a11y cat” in a sentence once?

Knowbility wants to hear from you!

Please complete this online form if:

– You are available to be in Austin, Texas, USA May 15-17, 2019 for AccessU
– You are a skilled practitioner in the field of web and app accessibility
– You are a great teacher
– You want to share practical skills that make the web and other online tools better for everyone
– You find it incredibly difficult to say no to fun

AccessU is the time of year where some of the most amazing instructors in this field get to roll up their sleeves, let their hair loose (here’s lookin’ at you, Denis Boudreau), and dive in as they share their expertise in a hands-on, practical training environment. In addition to valuable networking opportunities and free breakfasts/lunches each day, AccessU instructors receive a complimentary conference badge for Knowbility’s 2.5 day conference from Wednesday, May 15 to Friday, May 17, 2019.

Proposal notifications will be sent by email for each submission no later than February 10, 2019 at 11:59pm CST.

Just want to attend AccessU and soak up the knowledge? Get 2019 tickets at 2018 prices. Sale ends on December 31, 2018, or once the limited seats are gone (only 50 of each ticket type!). Ticket information and pricing at the AccessU web site.

If you have any questions, please email accessu@knowbility.org or call (512) 527-3138.

Also see:

Pioneering in “hacks for good”: Knowbility

Lessons for online outreach to nonprofits, NGOs & charities

Something New & Innovative? How about something that WORKS?

So often – TOO OFTEN – I hear nonprofits, government initiatives, NGOs, charities and other mission-based programs complaining that they aren’t getting good attendance at their events or program activities, or aren’t getting any press coverage, or don’t have enough volunteers, and so they are looking for something innovative and new in marketing.

But is something innovative and new really what they need?

In my junior year at Western Kentucky University, a million years ago, one of my professors proposed an idea to me: for one of my senior year classes, to fulfill my minor in theater, I could be in charge of marketing the Fall Children’s Theatre series, a then-annual event where three to four student-directed productions were presented, all focused on children audiences. I would get credit for a full senior-level class for such. I had also been working at the local arts center as a marketing intern outside of classes and had a wonderful mentor there who had taught me a lot about getting press coverage – combining this experience with my journalism major and newspaper experience, it was an offer I couldn’t refuse!

I was oh-so-successful at getting kids and their parents to the plays. One performance had to be delayed a few minutes because there were so many kids pouring in from an area kindergarten. We consistently sold out of intermission snacks, filling the coffers of our student theater society. Of course, I got an “A” for my efforts: my professor said they had never had so many full houses for the Fall Children’s Theater series.

Was I innovative in my approach to marketing these shows? No. All I did was the basics:

  • Sent press releases in a timely manner, with complete information, to area newspapers, and the one local TV station, in time to get into their calendar sections.
  • Sent press releases to local schools and kindergartens as early as possible.

That’s it. That’s all I did. And I sent these by mail – there was no Internet in my world back in those days. I had no budget to do anything else. All I did to be so wildly successful was the basics of marketing. And I did the basics WELL. Before my involvement, press releases were never sent, or were sent too late for information to be included in a local newspaper or on TV, or didn’t have complete information.

Before you start looking for something innovative to improve attendance at your events, increase program participants, recruit more volunteers, increase your visibility, etc., look at your current communications:

  • Is information on your web site up-to-date and complete, with answers to Who?, What?, Where?, Why? and When? right in the first paragraph of any information about events?
  • When you post about information on social media, do you make sure it includes Who?, What?, Where? and When? (you may not have enough room on Twitter for Why?)
  • Are you sending press releases and announcements to every area media outlet in your area, including newspapers, radio stations and TV stations watched in your area, in a TIMELY manner?
  • If you have a poster or brochure about the event, are the answers to Who?, What?, Where?, Why? and When? obvious and easy to find/easy to see?
  • Has your up-to-date, complete information been emailed directly to every employee, every consultant and every volunteer at your organization, in a timely manner?

There’s nothing innovative about any of that – but these steps are absolutely fundamental to successful marketing by nonprofits. And often, it’s all that’s needed.

Also see:

14 simple things to do to your web site to attract more donors

Quit looking for the magic app or crowdfunding platform that will attract online donations for your organization. Attracting online donations is NOT a software challenge: it’s an information challenge.

Here are 15 EASY things your nonprofit, non-governmental organization, charity or other mission-based organization can do right now via your web site that will make your organization more attractive to online donors, who may be current volunteers, new volunteers, family of board members, someone across town or across the country:

  1. Make sure your organization’s full name appears as text on your home page and your “about us” page (not just in the graphic of your logo). This will make your organization’s information easy to find online. Many times potential donors will look for you online based on your organization’s name – you want to make it easy for them to find.
  2. Make sure the location of your organization is on you home page and your “about us” page. You don’t have to give the street address if, for some reason, you don’t want to make your physical address easy to find (such as in the case of a domestic violence shelter or home for foster children) but you do need to say the city, the state or province and the country where your organization is based. Many times I have looked for a particular nonprofit in a particular place and I cannot tell on the web site if the nonprofit is the one I am looking for because it never says what region it’s in – and there are so many nonprofits and NGOs with similar names.
  3. You need to have as much information on your web site about what your organization has accomplished as you do about it needing funds. And don’t just talk about activities: talk about RESULTS from those activities. People want to fund organizations that make a difference, not organizations begging for money, especially organizations that have dire messages about soon closing their doors.
  4. Note what your organization’s costs are. If I make a donation, what is that donation paying for? If most of your funds go to staff salaries, that’s okay: talk about the expertise of your staff, the hours they devote to working directly with those you serve, what they do in their work, etc.
  5. Make sure your web site is free of misspellings and grammar mistakes. If your web site isn’t a good representation of your organization’s work, why would I donate?
  6. Make sure your web site has no outdated information. If I click on “upcoming events” on your home page, and the first item is about an “upcoming” event that actually happened nine months ago, I’m not going to be inclined to donate, because if you cannot maintain an up-to-date web site, perhaps you struggle delivering your programs or managing money as well?
  7. Make sure your web site is mobile ready – it should work on a smart phone, not just a lap top.
  8. Do not say on your web site that you involve volunteers to “save money” or list a monetary value for volunteer hours, because as a donor, my reaction could be, “Why should I make a donation? They should just get volunteers to do the work for free.”
  9. Make sure your web site has everything it needs to attract new volunteers. Volunteers often become donors.
  10. Have a page that describes the history of your organization, who founded it, where it is located, why it was founded, etc. This establishes credibility for your organization.
  11. List the board of directors. This further establishes credibility for your organization – it shows the people willing to be fiscally-responsible for this organization.
  12. Get a group of family members or friends of staff to bring their laptops or smart phones to your organization. Ask them to find your web site online, without using the URL – using only the name of the organization, or something about your mission and your location, like “Help animals in Henderson, Kentucky.” See how long it takes them to find your organization’s web site using various methods and find out how they search for it. Note any problems they have in finding the site and address this accordingly.
  13. With this same focus group, ask what the site says that would make them want to donate. Listen to what they say and make improvements based on that.
  14. Offer a way to donate online. Even if just 10% of all of your donors choose to donate online, that’s money you would not have gotten otherwise, and the number of people that switch from donations by postal mail to online donations rises every year. There should be a way for people to donate using a credit card and Paypal.

And here is a non-web site specific way to increase donations to your organization: Put a notice on every fundraising event or fundraising activity that says that a person doesn’t have to participate in the event or fundraising activity in order to donate to the organization. “You don’t have to attend our black and white ball to donate to our organization! You can make a donation anytime via our website…”

By the way: much of this is the criteria I use when reviewing a site for an organization I think I might donate to – and many times, I have NOT given to an organization because it lacked the aforementioned info.

Also see:

Mission-Based Groups Need Use the Web to Show Accountability

Crowdfunding for Nonprofits, NGOs, Schools, Etc.: How To Do It Successfully

Web Site Construction & Content Suggestions for Nonprofits, NGOs and small government offices

Design Standards and Tips for Nonprofits, NGOs and small government offices

Required Volunteer Information on Your Web Site

Marketing Your Nonprofit, NGO or small government office Web Site

Don’t Just Ask for Money!

Nonprofits & NGOs: you MUST give people a way to donate online

Basic Fund-Raising for Small NGOs in the Developing World

Reporting impact should be EASY – why do so many struggle with it?

I think the work of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one of the most important that my country, the USA, does.

I think foreign aid by the USA, or any other country, is vital to world economic stability and security. I believe foreign aid prevents wars and reduces human migration fueled by violence and poverty. I also believe foreign aid is just the right thing to do, to help people and our world.

Because I think USAID is so important, it’s difficult to see it stumble so badly, especially in a country I dearly love, Afghanistan. And that seems to be the case with Promote, an Afghanistan-based initiative that is USAID’s largest women’s empowerment program in the agency’s entire history. The Promote web site says:

The aim is to advance opportunities for Afghan women to become political, private sector, and civil society leaders and to build upon existing and previous programs for women and girls.

Three years after it launched, a USA government watchdog agency has reviewed the program and cannot find any concrete data that it has helped any women become political private sector or civil society leaders.

The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) was established by Congress to monitor spending by the USA in Afghanistan. In its report released last week, SIGAR cites a letter from USAID saying that the Promote program had “directly benefited 50,000 Afghan women with the training and support they need to engage in advocacy for women’s issues, enter the work force and start their own businesses.” The letter added that Promote had helped women “raise their voices and contribute to the peace and prosperity of their country.”

But the SIGAR report notes that these USAID claims for the program are not backed up by any measurable data, such as actual jobs, internships or additional trainings made possible because of Promote’s work.

The SIGAR report notes that:

  • The Promote program changed its performance indicators substantially in its first two years, greatly reducing the number of people it committed to serve.
  • Because it did not complete a baseline study early in its implementation, Promote lacks a starting point from which to monitor and evaluate the program’s progress over its first 2 years and to measure its overall impact in Afghanistan. In other words, evaluation was not baked in right from the beginning.
  • The Promote program delivers much of its programming through contractors, and SIGAR found that USAID/Afghanistan’s records on the contractors’ required deliverables were incomplete and inaccurate because management did not give contractors enough guidance on record keeping and tracking important information about deliverables in a consistent manner. In addition to such records being absolutely fundamental to being able to evaluate impact, the report notes that complete and accurate records are critical to documenting and maintaining institutional knowledge in a mission that experiences high staff turnover.
  • The report also notes that the program didn’t have feedback from contractors on the potential negative impacts of the proposed programming.

In some cases, attendance at a single gender empowerment class organized by Promote was counted as a woman benefiting from the program. One target was to help 20 women find leadership positions in the Civil Service, but none have so far, according to the SIGAR report. One of the few concrete results cited in a study of the Promote project was the promotion of 55 women to better jobs, but the SIGAR report says it is unclear whether the Promote program could be credited for those promotions.

Two people associated with the program that I have seen on social media have been very upset about the SIGAR report and the article in The New York Times about it. They are saying the data IS there – but neither could give me any links to it, say where the data is or how it was collected, etc. One said that the kind of data SIGAR is asking for is impossible because of two things out of the program’s control: the security situation in Afghanistan and because of the conservative nature of the country. To which I say: NONSENSE. Neither of those factors are reasons not to have the data necessary to evaluate this program – if those issues didn’t prevent activities by the program, then they would not prevent data-gathering about such.

Program results are not meetings, not trainings, not events, and not the number of people that participated in any of them. Those are activities and mere activities can rarely be reported as program results. What happened because of the meeting or training or event? What changed? What awareness or skill was gained? What happened to the participant at the meeting, or because of the meeting, that met the programs goals?

Here is just how easy it can be to evaluate a program: Create a survey to be delivered before or at the start of a meeting, a training or event for attendees. You can get answers to that survey as one big group exercise, as a series of small group exercises or in one-on-one interviews if its a low-literacy group or if you don’t believe the target audience will fill out a paper survey. Ask about their perceptions of various issues and challenges they are facing in relation to the issues you want to address. Ask their expectations of your meeting, training or event. Then conduct a similar survey weeks or months, with the same group, and compare the results. TA DA: YOU HAVE DATA FOR EVALUATION OF YOUR RESULTS. This is a very simplistic approach and just scratches the surface on all that the Promote program should have been gathering, but even just this would have been something. It would have given some indication as to whether or not the program was working.

Now, let’s be clear: this SIGAR report does NOT say the Promote program isn’t doing anything and should be ended. Rather, as the report itself says:

after 3 years and $89.7 million spent, USAID/Afghanistan has not fully assessed the extent to which Promote is meeting its overarching goal of improving the status of more than 75,000 young women in Afghanistan’s public, private, and civil society sectors. 

And then it makes recommendations to the USAID Administrator “to ensure that Promote will meet its goal in light of the program’s extensive changes and its mixed performance to
date.” Those recommendations are:

1. Conduct an overall assessment of Promote and use the results to adjust the program and measure future program performance.

2. Provide written guidance and training to contracting officer’s representatives on maintaining records in a consistent, accurate manner.

3. Conduct a new sustainability analysis for the program.

Here’s some tips regarding number 2:

  • give the representatives examples of what data should look like
  • explain the importance of reporting data that shows an activity has NOT worked in the way that was hoped for, and how reporting this data will not reflect poorly on the representative but, rather, show that the representative is being detailed, realistic and transparent, all key qualities for a program to actually work
  • engage the representatives in role-playing regarding gathering data. Have staff members do simple skits showing various data-gathering scenarios and overcoming various challenges when interviewing someone and how to address such. Then have representatives engage in exercises where they try these techniques, with staff playing the roles of government officials, NGO representatives, community leaders hostile to the program, women participating in the program, etc.
  • emphasize over and over that evaluation isn’t a separate activity from program delivery, done at the end of a project, and provide plenty of examples and demonstrations on what evaluation activities “baked in” to program delivery really looks like.

I developed this comprehensive list of questions to answer in preparation for reporting to donors, the media & general public with a colleague in Afghanistan, to help the local staff at the government ministry where we worked know what information donors and UN agencies regularly asked for, and what we anticipated they might start asking for; what subjects the media regularly asked about or reported on, and what we anticipated they might start asking about or reporting on; and what information could be used for evaluation purposes later. It was part of our many efforts to build public sector staff communications capacities in countries where I’ve served. We needed a way to rapidly bring staff up-to-speed on reporting – on EVALUATION – needs, and I think we did with these kinds of efforts. I hope Promote will develop something similar for those delivering their services, and make sure the lists are understood.

Also see:

“But I wanted to help POOR people…”

A friend works as a manager of volunteers at Meals on Wheels somewhere in the USA – I’m not going to say exactly where, to protect her anonymity. She recently got a response from a volunteer that left her head spinning. “He said his experience has been 5/10 so far because he didn’t expect to deliver Meals on Wheels to people in such nice houses!”

This volunteer is serving in a county where there are not many people living anywhere near the poverty line. Home ownership is quite high. She calls the county “affluent.” However, as she points out:

Meals on Wheels has no age requirement and no income requirement to receive our services. People who have greater incomes do pay a higher fee for their meals, and it’s not like they’re stealing food or volunteer time someone who “needs it more.” I can’t get over this volunteer. You expect for volunteering to magically lead you to a pocket of poverty, and you’re the only person from the outside going in to help?

As one official Meals on Wheels web site says:

Whether you want the convenience of healthy and ready-to-eat meals delivered to your home, or are unable to prepare nutritious meals for yourself, you can receive meals from Meals on Wheels! Meals are available both on a long-term basis and temporarily if you are recovering from surgery or illness… While we ask for a modest contribution toward your meals, the price is based on need.

She asked me, “Do you encounter a lot of people that are unsatisfied with the demographic they’re helping?”

And I said, “Girl…” (I’m from Kentucky, it’s how we start a rant).

I have heard people who have volunteered for Habitat for Humanity say they were disappointed that the people they are building a house for aren’t REALLY poor – because they saw them and they didn’t LOOK poor. I’ve heard volunteers who think if someone isn’t in rags and doesn’t have sunken cheeks then what in the HECK are they doing at that food pantry?! I’ve heard people in the county where I live, one of the most affluent counties in Oregon, talk about how they long to go for a few weeks abroad and help people in another country learn to read, and when I say, “you know, you could get some experience right here at home first doing that” and they look at me like, huh? Why would I do that when the selfies wouldn’t be NEARLY so interesting as in Africa…

I volunteered to be an overnight host at a family shelter hosted at a church near me. The families that night were all single moms with two to four kids each. And how did they look? Like any other family. How exactly are homeless families supposed to look?

My grandmother wasn’t living in poverty – but she most CERTAINLY needed Meals on Wheels. Did the volunteer that came to her well-kept apartment in the senior living complex think, “Oh, geesh, she’s not poor, this is such a let down!”?

Need isn’t limited to the most economically-poor amongst us, and you cannot always see why someone is in need just by looking at their house or clothes or car.

In addition, volunteers shouldn’t start with the mentally of “I am Super Man / Wonder Woman, parachuting in to save the day and I can’t wait to blog about it.” Because they are not Super Man nor Wonder Woman and probably not even Dead Pool (yes, I know, I am mixing the DC and Marvel universes). Make sure volunteers understand what their role is – and what it isn’t. Make sure they understand that they very likely won’t be saving someone’s life or inspiring a child to become a doctor on that afternoon shift next Friday. They most certainly will be making a difference, but talk about what making a difference really looks like, and why doing something that doesn’t seem all that flashy or interesting enough to post to Instagram is actually very important – even vital.

Also, nonprofits, governments and politicians have to stop outreach and messaging that equates poverty or even general need regarding food, shelter and healthcare with someone’s appearance, and stop messages that equate needs around food, nutrition and healthcare with only those living in abject poverty. Poverty and need are complicated issues – let’s stop the stereotypes and embrace the complexity.

June 6, 2020 update: A Meals On Wheels volunteer in Clearwater, Florida may no longer be delivering food in Pinellas County after she refused to drop off meals to people at an upscale condo complex. “Why are we delivering to these wealthy people who can call a deli or Publix or McDonald’s and get their food delivered?” she asked. But the non-profit’s marketing director disagrees with Barnes. “Unfortunately she kind of thought some people on that route didn’t deserve that food,” said Sandra Narron of Neighborly Care, the organization that runs Meals on Wheels in Pinellas County. Narron said the non-profit assesses every applicant and some people pay to have food brought to them. “We don’t distinguish between who pays and who doesn’t pay, whether they’ve got a nice house or whether they don’t have a nice house. That doesn’t matter to us. We’re there to help that client with the food they need” said Narron. Narron said Helen will be able to return once she gets retrained.  “As long as she’s willing to play by those rules, we want her back,” said Narron.Barnes says she will comply. Narron tells us this is the first time she’s had to let a volunteer go in her 26 years with the agency and is using Barnes’ story to remind readers that some people are house rich and cash poor.

Also see:

For those that want to volunteer: