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.
According to the online dictionary on my computer, empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
I have long believed that one of the biggest benefits in volunteer engagement, for the volunteer, for the host organization and for the community – indeed, for all of humanity – is the cultivation of empathy.
There are many benefits to both host organizations and volunteers when it comes to volunteer engagement. And usually when empathy is discussed regarding volunteerism, it’s focused just on the idea of well-off people learning more about the experiences of not-so-well-off-people. But for many years, I have been promoting the idea of volunteerism as community building, as a way to cultivate community cohesion and greater understanding among different groups, and as a way to address the growing gaps between different groups. Here are some of my blogs on the subject over the years:
In addition, I’ve also been fascinated by the study of compassion regarding how it impacts individual mental health and community cohesion. It’s terrific to find out that science shows that compassion isn’t just nice – it’s necessary:
So you can imagine my horror to realize that one of the foundations of volunteerism, one of the primary reasons it is worth supporting and worth promoting – the cultivation of empathy – is under attack, primarily by people that support the Republican party:
“I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.” These are the words of Charlie Kirk, who was murdered a few weeks ago.
“We’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on,” says Elon Musk. “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit…. they’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.” Elon Musk.
Idaho-based Chrisitan pastor Joe Rigney has written a book called The Sin of Empathy and claims empathy is “the greatest rhetorical tool of manipulation in the 21st century”.
Extremist Gad Saad wrote a book called Suicidal Empathy which you see in the earlier mention as inspiring Elon Musk and which the author says highlights “the inability to implement optimal decisions when our emotional system is tricked into an orgiastic hyperactive form of empathy, deployed on the wrong targets.”
And I bring all of this up because nonprofits, NGOs, government programs, community organizations, schools, communities of faith and all those that engage volunteers and promote volunteerism NEED TO BE ON GUARD. If you think volunteerism is such a fantastic, pure, universally-loved idea that could never be the target of a political movement, you are wrong – and your lack of preparation will hurt your organization and your community.
This isn’t the first time volunteerism has been under attack by political movements. I started writing about Initiatives opposed to some or all volunteering (unpaid work) back in the late 1990s. I felt like I could reason with both sides of the political spectrum regarding their opposition to volunteer engagement, which in some respects were based in very real fears. But a war on empathy? That is going to be MUCH harder to win.
Are you preparing to argue for the value of empathy? Or are you, instead, rushing to remove the word from your web site, the way you did regarding diversity, equity and inclusion?
I’ve been writing about how computer and Internet technologies can, and do, affect the work of nonprofits, NGOs, government agencies and other mission-based programs (as opposed to for-profit businesses) since the 1990s. I’ve been mostly a cheerleader for such, but also have tried to be realistic and to highlight cautions. So you shouldn’t be surprised that I have thoughts about AI and how it will, and is, affecting that work and those we serve.
And then there is the creative laziness AI seems to encourage. In an earlier blog I warned nonprofits to be careful using Canva, since their graphics are starting to all look the same. Here’s a new story about why reliance on Canva and similar AI graphic programs can be a bad choice: months ago, I had a volunteer from a high school who was supposed to create social media graphics in association with various holidays for a nonprofit I worked for. He turned in designs that were obviously the first template choice offered by Canva, with just our nonprofit logo and a date inserted somewhere – no other alterations at all. He supposedly had taken a marketing class that included learning graphic design basics, but seemed flummoxed when I talked about the need for color contrast, easy-to-read fonts, and the importance of ads being readable without someone having to have glasses. And don’t even get me started on Canva’s profound lack of diversity among its human images in terms of ethnicities, body types and ages. I ended up having to alter all of his work – spending more time on the task, not less.
Using AI-powered chatbots for schoolwork is undermining opportunities for young people to learn skills such as analyzing text, elaborating syntheses and writing coherent narratives. The writing process stimulates thinking, scrutinizing and self-improvement, tasks that all people should learn. But when it is outsourced to AI, people not only don’t have that stimulation or mental improvement, the reduction in cognitive effort can reduce memory retention and diminish learning and cognitive abilities (cited in the Human Development Report on page 73 and in Blanchflower, D. G., Bryson, A., and Xu, X. 2024, “The Declining Mental Health of the Young and the Global Disappearance of the Hump Shape in Age in Unhappiness.” Working Paper 32337, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA).
I’m working with someone right now who uses AI to write all of his emails and reports. These never provide me with the information I need – information I always got when his predecessor wrote the reports and emails herself (and in MUCH shorter form). For some reason, AI always deletes out the essential info I need for marketing efforts.
AI is determining what we see online, and hiding what someone or a company has decided they do not want us to see. Content is being curated, sorted and ranked by machine learning based on the desires of one person or a company, often with users not having any idea that this is happening. I’m using two and three different search engines whenever I do research, because the results are always so different.
AI-written text is showing up with hallucinated facts across the Internet landscape and creeping into the people and government’s decision-making. And if AI is leveraged to degrade human rights or coerce people to believe a lie or harm others, it’s NOT an ally. It’s easy to find examples of this all over the Internet.
We live in a world where trust and credibility is more important than ever before. We’re going to lose more of that if we keep ceding creativity, curiosity and human interactions to AI.
There are a lot of companies who are now telling their employees that they are not allowed to suggest the creation of any new positions – paid staff or consultants – unless they can prove AI could not do most of that job. That means the elimination of graphic design positions, receptionists, data analysts, social media managers, consultants brought on to create and design special products (annual reports, specific marketing campaigns) and managers of volunteer programs who spend most of their time reviewing applications and screening new volunteers. Yes, AI can do all of those jobs – but not well, and not to the standards nonprofits need. As more and more people are using AI to both summarize texts and write emails and reports as well as reading those texts and emails and reports, humans are less and less involved – thereby missing trends, insights and potential challenges, while clients and customers become more and more frustrated trying to get answers to questions and help to solve problems.
A way to counter this AI use demand by management: be able to say, right now, how you are leveraging AI in your work. Show that you are already using it to save money, such as grammar correction programs, graphic design programs, donor data analysis, volunteer data analysis, translating and news alerts regarding certain topics. But then also show why you hold on to certain tasks, like interacting with clients in real-time, because cultivating and sustaining trust with various stakeholders.
What I find fascinating in this push for nonprofits to use AI is that a much better strategy is to push nonprofits to engage more volunteers, thereby doing what AI cannot: engage with the community more, cultivate more supporters, and build more awareness and understanding about the nonprofit and the cause it addresses.
One last thing: if you use AI in any communications, DECLARE IT. If you write an email to someone and you used AI to create that email, declare it. Declare in any online or offline publication if the material was created or authored, primarily, by AI. If you publish a blog that has content that was, even in part, created by AI, say so. “Some of the content of this article was created using AI.” Affirm if an article or blog is written by a human: give credit to the person or people responsible for such, by name.
If your nonprofit has a chatbot for clients, be clear that the chatbot is not a human, that it’s AI. Many people do NOT understand that a box with a human image that says, “Hi, how can I help you?” is not a human.
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 was able to port my blogs since early 2010 from a different platform here to this one, but I was not able to do so for blogs from the first platform I ever used. Those are available only on archive.org and, even then, it’s really hard to navigate through them. Most are outdated and don’t need a revival. But some I think are worth revisiting, like this one from 14 October 2009:
Center for Global Development research fellow David Roodman set the philanthropy world and the humanitarian world abuzz last week when he wrote that Kiva does not work the way many lenders might think it does. Roodman details how “the person-to-person donor-to-borrower connections created by Kiva are partly fictional.” His criticisms of Kiva have been reblogged and caused quite a stir, and a number of knee-jerk reactions. Yet, his comments and supporting details that “What Kiva does behind the scenes is what it should do” and that “technically” Kiva isn’t hiding anything aren’t being referred to as well.
Before you decide to blog about this subject yourself, or to offer a summary of what’s going on, please read Roodman’s entire post. Read the ENTIRE post. Many of the people blogging about this obviously haven’t.
Kiva Co-Founder and CEO Matt Flannery wrote a detailed response to Roodman’s blog, featured on Roodman’s blog itself. And it’s a good response, one that people interested in crisis communication should read.
Flannery’s response on Roodman’s blog is not going to be enough, ofcourse; there are too many bloggers out there reposting tiny snippets of Roodman’s original blog and glossing over the details in order to create a firestorm of criticism against Kiva. Best of luck to Flannery and Roodman to try to bring the discussion back to the facts. Flannery is going to have to get busy posting replies to a lot more blogs, as it’s unlikely they will post links to his reply. In those replies, he should
quote liberally from Roodman’s original blog, as Roodman anticipated a lot of the criticism with several of his original comments,
point out what Kiva will be doing differently because of Roodman’s post and the resulting firestorm,
defend the practices that Kiva won’t be changing because the changes would hurt those Kiva is trying to serve, and
reiterate that the most important people in the Kiva equation are those that benefit from loans, not the donors.
Kiva needs to be ready to lose some donors, but also to work to change the way remaining donors and new donors think about effective financial aid to the developing world, because that’s at the root of this firestorm, IMO.
I’m a Kiva donor, and I’ll continue to be one.
2025 update: I was, indeed, a Kiva donor for years. I’m not one currently, because my funding priorities have changed, as has my finances, but I remain a fan of Kiva.
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.
Diego, our wonderful local liaison, Stephanie, our incredible group leader, and the Habitat Global Village volunteers in Paraguay in May 2025. We are filthy and it’s only the first day. I’m the fat girl on the viewer’s right.
I’m back from my week-long stint volunteering as a part of Habitat for Humanity’s Global Village program, where I helped build a foundation for a house for a family in a low-income community outside of Asunción, Paraguay.
I wrote about the trip for the local Habitat affiliate I work for, part-time, here in Oregon, focusing on what we did day-to-day, how we built the foundation, challenges we faced, what I packed, how I fundraised for the trip, etc., along with tips for anyone who might want to explore being a team leader for such a trip in the future. But I wanted to write about the trip from the perspective of me the volunteer management consultant and researcher, and me the skeptic regarding most volunTOURism trips.
What is volunTOURism? It’s where a person pays a lot of money to travel somewhere for a volunteering experience, coupled with at least some tourism/cultural exchange. Habitat for Humanity would REALLY like to move away from this label, and I respect that – however, by the definition I use, that’s still what this program is. And that’s NOT something to be ashamed of: what they are doing is ethical voluntourism.
I used to think all volunTOURism – all instances where someone pays to volunteer abroad – was bad, period. People in the United Nations and working for other international development agencies tend to look down on people paying to volunteer, mostly because it can often seem to be all about the volunteer and their feel-good, photo-friendly experience (“Vanity Volunteering”), not about actually engaging in sustainable development, in activities that empower local people, that aren’t just charity, and it often can reinforce the worst ideas of white saviorism and colonialism. Some volunteering programs can take away jobs from local people (an example is the backlash against volunteers coming into NOLA after Hurricane Katrina from carpenters, roofers and others who were desperate for work).
More dire horror stories about volunTOURism abound: so-called wildlife sanctuaries that care for orphan animals, but the animals are orphaned because their parents have been killed so that the sanctuary has baby animals for the foreign volunteers to care for. So-called orphanages where, in many cases, children have parents, but parents are paid for their children to live in these “orphanages”, and foreigners come for a few days or weeks to “care for” the “orphans.” And cases where volunteers harm people they are supposed to be caring for, including harming women and children in the worst ways imaginable.
I started to change my mind about all volunTOURism being all bad when I noticed a few programs that seemed to be designed by local people themselves, where there were written standards for both volunteers and for the kinds of work volunteers could, and shouldn’t, engage in, where there were strict rules regarding safety and safeguarding for both volunteers and those served, and where the work by the volunteers was needed and not being done by anyone else. Like Africa Fire Mission, a nonprofit that brings together experienced firefighters from developed countries to train firefighters in various African countries regarding effective emergency response and fire prevention and response services. Or HistoriCorps, a program in the USA where volunteers pay a fee and help restore a historic site on public lands, sometimes in very remote places.
The one volunTOURism program that stood out most was the Global Village program by Habitat for Humanity. Through this program, local Habitat programs in impoverished areas in South America, Central America and Asia receive much needed funding, in part per the fees paid by international volunteers, and an intense, hyper-productive week of labor: the volunteers get an incredible amount done in a week, working right along side local contractors (which the volunteers’ fees have helped fund). The additional goals of the program are that there is an increased understanding by the visiting volunteers of home ownership challenges globally and the role Habitat for Humanity plays in such, that volunteers become better advocates for Habitat’s vision where everyone has a decent place to live, and that people from different cultures get to come together and work side-by-side, leading to greater understanding and appreciation of each other – what Habitat calls God’s love into action, what I call humanism in action and necessary for our survival.
In all my years as a volunteer management consultant, long before I started working for a Habitat affiliate here in Oregon, I was a fan of Habitat for Humanity and its model for volunteer engagement locally. Habitat fully acknowledges that it is not going to solve the housing crisis anywhere by volunteers coming together when they have some time and building some houses here and there; the much needed resolution in the global housing crisis will come only through drastic and impactful policy changes and enforcement of those changes. But those changes will come only through the will of a mass of people, and one of the best ways to get people on your side, to turn people into advocates for your cause, is to get them involved as volunteers at your organization.
Habitat has strict guidelines for volunteer engagement on a local level, and when those principles are well applied, they are, IMO, the best in the “business” of volunteer engagement. Habitat’s engagement of groups of volunteers, when done in alignment with Habitat rules and policies, are models for other organizations. For the volunteer, the bar to participation should feel quick and easy, but behind the scenes, if done properly, a lot of thought, time and care goes into the volunteer feeling that way.
But what about Habitat’s volunteering-abroad program? How do I think it measures up in terms of ethics and impact? I’ll cut to the chase and it won’t be a surprise: this was a model group volunteering endeavor. This is the standard every short-term program should aspire to, whether it’s a local or international program:
Volunteers were provided all the materials beforehand, with all the information they needed to know exactly what they were getting into.
Volunteers were provided details on exactly what the money they had to raise, or pay, would pay for.
Volunteers knew exactly what to pack, what would be provided and what would not.
The group leader, also a volunteer, stayed in touch regularly, but not overwhelmingly, before departure. She sent regular reminders and had answers to all questions. And then after the trip, she sent an outstanding followup message that explained how we could continue to support Habitat and how we could get involved in advocacy efforts.
A WhatsApp group was set up for all volunteers just before we departed, so we would know who was arriving when, we could easily share links to photos, and we could further build community (and trust) with each other (that makes this a virtual volunteering effort, BTW!).
Volunteers always knew where to be and when to be there.
We were warmly welcomed at the work site.
The work was ready for the volunteers to do immediately, every day.
There were several people providing guidance whenever needed.
The safety and safeguarding briefing was clear and provided exactly the information needed, clearly and without any ambiguity.
Volunteers’ time was never, ever wasted.
Drinking water was provided (I can’t believe how many group endeavors don’t provide this).
A bathroom was provided (again, I can’t believe how many group endeavors don’t have this).
The volunteers worked like freakin’ machines. Unstoppable, ever-fueled machines. Get. Out. Of. Their. Way. The team leader definitely recruited exactly the right group for this gig (with one exception: me. I was no where near as productive as the other volunteers. But I had an excuse: I was so sick the week before that I almost had to cancel my trip, and the very strong antibiotics I was on those first days did NOT help).
In all fairness, I have to point out that this group of volunteers in Paraguay was full of ringers: there were 11 volunteers in all, and four were employees of Habitat for Humanity International, and all but two – and one of those two was me – were veterans of the Global Village program. So I was the only person starting from absolute zero. And given that I’m a rather seasoned international traveler, and a volunteer management consultant and trainer, I was a bit of a ringer myself.
But, of course, Habitat’s global volunteering program is more than a group volunteering gig abroad. It’s volunTOURism: volunteers are paying to go abroad and paying a fee to participate. How did THAT aspect measure up in terms of my oh-so-picky list of volunTOURism ethics?
Habitat’s Global Village program was put on hold during COVID so the program could be redesigned to be more locally-focused, more impactful for local communities, and less about tourism. I can’t compare my experience to before the pandemic. But here’s what I can say about my experience, in terms of the changes Habitat said they wanted to implement in the program:
In changing the program, Habitat said they wanted these volunteer activities to be focused on volunteers engaging in mutual learning and exchange with local people, rather than tourism activities. I think they nailed this. There were tourism activities, which took place on the day or two before work began, and in the evenings. But the focus of this trip was on the work itself, and the work took place right alongside the local contractors and local staff.
I was never so happy at my meager Spanish skills: I got to talk a lot with local staff, the local construction workers, the family we served and even some of the local kids gathered to watch. Each day when we arrived at the site, I would greet each member of the family that had come out to watch us work, holding hands, giving greetings and kissing each other on the cheek. One volunteer told me that, while I was feeling envious of the energy and strength of all the volunteers (I really was not nearly as productive as they were), she was envious of me having conversations with the Paraguayans. She said she felt like there was a wall between her and them, and she didn’t know how to bridge it, and she was envious every time I walked over and started chatting with local folks. I definitely got the “mutual learning and exchange with local people” aspect, but I’m not sure all the volunteers did (but those who didn’t were the ones why were hyper productive in building the foundation of this house, and that’s what they seemed to want to do most).
The redesigned program does not want international volunteers to enter a community with their own ideas of what needs to be done. The “agenda of change” needs to be defined by and led by the local people being served, not the outside volunteers coming into a community. I think this was adhered to, but not because volunteers were ever told this priority; the volunteers I was with in Paraguay were all veterans of these kinds of Habitat programs, save one person besides me, and they already knew better than to walk in to a work site and say things should be done differently.
Per the programs’ redesign, a promotion of safeguarding was supposed to be much more emphasized throughout the experience than before. I don’t know what it was like before, but I can say that what I experienced was a MODEL emphasis on and explanation of safeguarding and safety, one that the affiliate I work for still hasn’t mastered. Kudos.
Habitat Global Village projects are supposed to be designed by local communities and the focus should be on local ownership and local sustainability. They nailed this goal too. There was no doubt who was in charge – and it was NOT us, the volunteers – and whose project this was – NOT ours, but the local people themselves.
Also per the redesign of the program, from the beginning, volunteers were supposed to learn about the need for adequate housing around the world, so we can become advocates regarding the cause and champions for equitable housing long after their trip has ended. For me, this goal came up just a bit short. Why is there a shortage of housing in Paraguay? What policies and practices are keeping people from having housing in Paraguay? What’s the unemployment rate? How much would a family need to make to build their own house without NGO assistance? Are all kids in school? How does lack of housing affect education in Paraguay? Where is Paraguay in the UNDP Human Development Index? Where does it rank in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index? I don’t think it would have taken a huge amount of time to touch on answers to these questions, so we could get more context to why Habitat is needed in Paraguay (and other countries). But that said, the followup message from Habitat, after we returned, was spot on: it provided information on how we could be continued advocates for Habitat, how we could become involved with our local Habitat affiliates, etc. There’s an entire paragraph in my blog about the trip for the local Habitat affiliate I work for about advocacy and its importance, and it wouldn’t have been there had we not gotten this follow up email.
Personally, I felt uncomfortable at the stark contrast of our accommodations and our morning and evening meals to the lives of the people in the neighborhood where we worked in Paraguay. I’m a motorcycle traveler, including in developing countries, and I don’t stay in hotels as nice as what we experienced in Paraguay, and I don’t eat at restaurants nearly so nice when traveling. But from what I understand, our level of accommodations in Asunción were necessary because of the security situation in the region where we worked – we were very obviously a big group of relatively wealthy Americans, and we REALLY stood out in the countryside. As for the food at very nice restaurants, I think Habitat is dedicated to volunteers not getting sick, as they have just one week to work (and did I mention it is REAL WORK?). No one wants any volunteer to spend their week mostly in a hotel room bathroom. So, I get why our accommodations and food were as they were.
With all that said, let me be clear: this was an amazing experience. I cried when it was over. So. Much. Hugging. One of the local staff told me, “You were my favorite” and I nearly collapsed in weeping. This experience ticked all the boxes: international volunteers really were needed and really did make a difference, the effort was locally led, I know things about Paraguay I didn’t know before and I am in love with the country, I had an amazing experience, and I am even more committed to the mission of Habitat than I was before. I have a stronger connection to Habitat than ever before – and I intend to turn these feelings into more effective action at the affiliate where I work.
And a few days after I returned home, the homeowner that we had helped had “liked” my Facebook page, and written on one of the posts about Paraguay, “Gracias por todo Ojalá algún día vuelvan las puertas de mi casa siempre estará abiertas para todos ustedes Dios los bendiga.” (Thank you for everything I hope one day you come back the doors of my house will always be open to all of you God bless you.)
That comment, and so much of this experience, is what is too often missing almost entirely in professional international development work. I have worked for the United Nations three times. The first time was at a UN program HQ, and I rarely got this moving emotional experience there like I had in Paraguay, because I was so far removed from the people actually being served, and there were times that this kind of inspiration would have made me much more motivated – something very much needed amid the stress and bureaucracy of the UN work environment. When I worked in Afghanistan and Ukraine, I made a point to get beyond the office space, to get to know Afghans and Ukrainians, and as a result, I loved that field work so, so much more than HQ work. And I cried when I left those countries. And still cry for them.
When I worked at United Nations Volunteers HQ, part of UNDP, the head of UNV, Sharon Capeling-Alakija, said that the reason she was passionate about the UN’s Online Volunteering service, which I managed, was because it gave far more people a chance to be involved in the work of the UN. She felt it unfair that the ONLY way to be involved in the UN was to have a Master’s Degree, 10 years of experience and a job at a UN agency; she wanted a way for people with less experience, but with just as much interest and passion and good ideas, to get to be involved, to get an idea of what the UN does beyond what they read in the media, and maybe it could create a more caring world. Her words came back to me as I was a part of this Habitat experience. It’s still a rather exclusive experience: you have to pay all of your travel costs (or some angel in your life has to pay such for you) and you have to fundraise your program costs, or pay those yourself, and that means it’s not something just anyone can participate in. But it’s an avenue into working abroad with a much lower bar than getting a paid job and giving up your home and all your friends and family for a few years. And it really does have impact. It really does make a difference.
Any program that’s creating a greater feeling of solidarity and understanding among people, that cultivates empathy and caring and learning, is worth supporting, because oh how the world needs that right now.
Local volunteers in Paraguay will now begin to work on the site along those same wonderful contractors we worked with. The staff at Hábitat para la Humanidad Paraguay will update their Facebook and Instagram accounts about this family, so we – and YOU – will be able to see the progress and the finished product. They already have photos and videos there of our volunteer group in action.
And back here where I live in Oregon, I hope that we can incorporate the practices of Habitat Paraguay in making sure volunteers feel supported and prepared, that volunteers feel like they’ve made a real difference by the end of a day of work, and that they feel a part of Habitat for Humanity, so much so that they want to learn more about why there is a lack of affordable housing and why so many thousands and thousands of hard working people in our community cannot afford a house.
One more thing: there were a group of pre teens on bicycles, pretty rough, who came to watch us almost every day. They would call out words in English to see if we would respond. And one day, one of them yelled, “W.W.E!” That stands for World Wrestling Entertainment. One of the volunteers turned around and yelled back the name of a well-known wrestler. And BOOM, that volunteer was The Greatest American To Ever Visit This Village. The kids yelled wrestler names, the volunteer yelled back other wrestler names, imitating how the wrestlers get introduced in the ring. The kids could not get enough of him. At one point, I looked over and the volunteer was helping to repair one of the kid’s bicycles, with the kids all gathered around him. I bring this up because I have blogged about how much kids worldwide, from Kabul to Kansas, LOVE professional wrestling, and I cannot for the life of me understand why international development agencies and governments don’t leverage this. Yeah, People Magazine, I will never forgive you for all but mocking me when I dared to mention wrasslin’ in that project back we worked on in the 1990s…
Habitat is seeking people to become Global Village Team Leaders. Candidates need to be from organized groups, such as university classes or clubs, social clubs, communities of faith, volunteers or staff from local Habitat affiliates, employees from a company, etc. Candidates take the Global Village online trainings and then lead their organized group of co-workers, club members, students, congregation members or other association on a Global Village program trip abroad. Visit the Global Village team leader FAQ to find out if leading a team is right for you. The option for independent volunteers to join teams with whom they do not already have an association is not currently available, but you should sign up at the Habitat web site for updates in case this changes.
New Global Village build dates for 2026 will be released in July! Now is the perfect time to take the team leader trainings and to talk to your co-workers, fellow students, fellow members of your community of faith, other members of your civic club, or your local Habitat affiliate where you already volunteer about this program, to generate interest among your associates for possibly joining your team. That will help you to be ready to book early and secure your team’s spot in the Habitat program. Global Village groups usually consist of up to 16 individuals. Potential participants should understand that each Global Village volunteer raises funds among their associates or contributes a donation ranging from US$1,625-$2,700 that supports Habitat’s housing programs. Volunteers are responsible for paying for their own on-site accommodations (arranged by Habitat), meals, ground transportation and transportation to the country, as well as arranging for any necessary visas.
I am a weekly volunteer for a food pantry that serves 800 guests weekly. Many of these guests are immigrants. As a result, the volunters (sic) have had to undergo training in the case that we are raided by ICE and what to do in that scenario. We were told what ICE is allowed to do legally and what we can do legally…
I hadn’t considered that volunteers and staff at so many nonprofits may have to deal with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent raids, including homeless shelters, food pantries, job training sites, Goodwill program and store sites, Habitat for Humanity ReStores, and youth sports games. Nonprofits that serve farm workers will also likely encounter ICE during raids.
It’s another example of how many nonprofits will have to address the challenges brought on by the current presidential administration, and will have to think about how much they are willing to compromise and what the values at the heart of their organization are. And in cooperating with ICE, if it comes to that, nonprofits will also have to address substantial lack-of-trust issues if we ever reach the other side of this political crisis.
I’ll note that, at one nonprofit where I work, we didn’t receive training, but we did receive an email from the executive director telling us that, if ANYONE showed up claiming to be law enforcement – police, sheriff’s deputy, ICE, the FBI, whatever – no matter what they said or showed, the first thing the staff person was to do was to call the executive director, and to say over and over, “I have to call our boss. I can’t help you.”
How many of you out there are volunteering or working somewhere and have been briefed on what to do if ICE shows up? If you feel comfortable, I would love to hear from you: you can comment below, if you feel safe in doing so, or email me directly and ask for your account to be posted anonymously.
Some things are certain and can be communicated to your staff and volunteers: law enforcement, including ICE, can enter areas open to the general public of a business without permission, BUT that does not give ICE the authority to detain, question, or arrest anyone. Ask to see the identification of any officers or agents and write down the name, contact information, and badge number. If the agent refuses to provide documentation, you should note that as well. Ask if they have a warrant and, if they say yes, look at it and see if it is a SEARCH warrant signed by a judge, that it has the correct address for your workplace, and what areas and items ICE is authorized to search (ICE is not authorized to search areas or inspect items that are not described in the warrant). If they say no, document that.
Executive directors: talk to your volunteers and paid staff, tell them exactly what it is you want them to do if police officers, including ICE, enter your facility, and tell your volunteers and staff that, if anyone has a US passport, they should consider carrying a copy of the ID page in their wallets, since there are so many reports of ICE detaining US citizens they think are immigrants in the USA illegally.
And executive directors, listen to your volunteers and paid staff, and your clients, about their fears. Don’t dismiss those fears as unfounded.
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.
Should you follow me or “like” me in all those places? Probably not. For instance, I post almost exactly the same things to BlueSky and Mastodon, and I post the most to those accounts. And I post almost exactly the same things to LinkedIn and Facebook.
r/Inclusion (and I would LOVE for at least one other person to join me as a moderator on this subreddit – surely I’m not the only person on Reddit that cares about inclusion?)
Should you follow me in all those places? No. Join only those Reddit communities that are of particular interest to you personally or professionally. If that’s any of those, great!
And a reminder of this list I compiled, called Reddit4Good, an exhaustive list of subreddits focused on some aspect of volunteerism, community service or philanthropy (& also subreddits where you may post to if your post here gets deleted)
The online media landscape changes frequently, with online social networks and communities coming and going, or certain ones being abandoned per the ethics and values of the owners. My first communities were on America Online and USENET, back in the 1990s. There will never be an online community that lasts forever, or that you will always want to be a part of.
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.
Back in the late 1980s, when I got my first full-time nonprofit job, it was at a nonprofit professional theater. Within a year, Republicans began to attack the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, extending that fight to criticize a variety of live performances and art exhibits across the USA. The theater where I worked immediately joined coalitions to fight back and prepared blurbs for our donor newsletter. Management and other members of the coalition were vocal and didn’t shy away from what was happening. If it meant losing some patrons, so be it: this was too important to be silent about. It was then I learned that working at a nonprofit doesn’t mean immunity from politics. It was also then that I learned that, while it is inappropriate for a nonprofit, including any church, to tell people what person or party to vote for, they have EVERY right to say, “Please vote. And here are the statements by the candidates/parties regarding issues related to the cause we promote…”
In 2011, I wrote on my blog about Republicans plans to do what they are doing now. Yes, in 2011. And I was the lone voice among consultants and nonprofit bloggers going on record, in a big way, to talk about it. Maybe it cost me some consulting jobs. So be it.
I wrote in 2019 about The Trust Crisis, and how there was a growing number of nefarious actors trying to get the public to stop trusting national institutions and nonprofits. The silence was deafening.
Again, I was mostly alone. YOU were silent. The Points of Light was silent. The Association of Leaders in Volunteer Engagement (AL!VE) was silent. Other consultants regarding volunteer engagement and nonprofit management and Tech4Good were silent. You were not allies. And I haven’t forgotten that. Perhaps you all thought everything would be resolved and undone in four years with a new election, and in some ways, you were right – there was a pause in the madness. But it was a pause. I warned you it would be just temporary unless you spoke out. You stayed silent.
Some nonprofits not only ignored the advice, they wrote that it was never more important to avoid controversy. I remain stunned and outraged by such advice.
Silence will not preserve your nonprofit nor protect those it serves. It will just delay actions that will harm both.
If your nonprofit is part of a national coalition, find out what advocacy they are doing, what legislation they may be talking about in that section of “updates from headquarters” that you have always skipped over in favor of the section on upcoming grant guidelines. You have every right to tell your donors and volunteers and clients about legislation that might affect them, and how that legislation might affect them, and the phone numbers of their elected officials.
Every US conference for nonprofits, whether for wildlife centers or theaters, domestic violence shelters or hospices, museums or food banks, needs to have sessions on how to address the current political landscape. And I don’t mean just about disappearing government funding.
I don’t know what else I can say, except that I am angry about doing so much of this by myself for YEARS. I paid a price for it, and maybe I will pay an even bigger one later, with being so public in my opposition. But let me be clear: your cowardice is going to cost us all. And your silence probably goes against core beliefs your nonprofit proudly states on its web site. No more silence. Otherwise, your silence will be interpreted as approval.
Not every nonprofit, NGO, charity, cause-based initiative, etc., needs a Wikipedia page. And not every nonprofit will qualify to have a Wikipedia page. But if you feel your nonprofit deserves a Wikipedia page, or you want certain Wikipedia pages to mention your nonprofit or some prominent person associated with your nonprofit, this resource is for you.
As someone that’s created more than a dozen Wikipedia pages that have not been deleted, I know what I’m talking about.
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.
Recently, I had an intensely negative experience with a trainer. In fact, it was traumatizing. If you follow me on LinkedIn, you saw my posts about the two days of training:
Trainers doing workshops for improving staff relations: do NOT require that staff share personal stories. For some folks, “Tell me how the past shaped where you are now” is NOT something they care to share in front of all of their colleagues & their supervisor, & certainly not you, a complete stranger (this happened in the first 20 minutes of the training, BTW).
Trainers regarding sensitive topics, like being anti-racist, being more inclusive, etc.: if you are training employees all from the same company, be aware of the power dynamics in the room. People are NOT going to be open with their supervisor or executive director sitting there. And passing around a survey the week before isn’t going to get you the information you need – people don’t know you yet. They don’t trust you yet. They aren’t going to be open with you at that point.
and
Management consultants: at your next company training, no matter how much you think it’s a great idea, do NOT ask people to write down their triggers on sticky notes and to then put those notes on their bodies and to walk around and read and discuss each others’ triggers. And if you decide to do it anyway, do not be surprised nor offended when one of the employees says “No. I absolutely will not do that.” Yes, I really was asked to do this at a training. The definition of trauma: “a deeply distressing or disturbing experience.” Maybe I should put it on a sticky note and wear it.
The comments from other trainers were universally condemning:
I would have asked that facilitator to leave; better that someone internal take over than keep such a person around.
😳😳😳
This is so horrific as a concept I dread to think know what sort of groups are doing this in practice.
As a facilitator myself. This is terrible. And I want to say this as respectfully as I know how. The trainers that did this needs some coaching for real.
This sounds like a bad episode of The Office.
You are spot on, plus it is not very trauma informed (from a woman that manages a center on aging, trauma and holocaust survivor care).
Jayne, you may be the first person with enough awareness and bravery to raise against the concept.
The problem is the cleanup that comes after things like this are shared out and popularized.
I don’t have the time or patience to let things like this go – my face comes with subtitles on Zoom and in person. And I usually won’t hold my tongue when things are so egregious.
And then came the private messages from colleagues:
How in hell did someone actually think this would be a great idea?
Maybe she should have had each person use popsicle sticks to craft their traumas after the team building.
That is so messed up!
I really appreciate everyone who commented. It was nice to get affirmation that, indeed, this was NOT how any training should go. These comments, and the conversations with colleagues afterwards, were the only way I was able to recover from it. And I am not using the word recover lightly.
There were red flags from the start: this consultant did a survey of employees beforehand, where employees could anonymously offer insights, but then in her sessions entirely ignored the very frank and specific feedback given. Our training was to involve three half days, and I asked to know the focus and what issues it was meant to address, but my questions about such were ignored, and all staff walked in having no idea what we would be discussing nor why. In addition to the aforementioned inappropriate questions and comments, she also promoted of long-debunked pseudo science, like regarding “learning styles” and the quality of Myers–Briggs for identifying “personality types.”
The question I’ve gotten over and over: HOW and why was this person chosen for this training?
It seems that the executive director of the nonprofit that hired her had gone to one of her workshops earlier and had really enjoyed it. I have no idea the length of that training and who the participants were, nor if it was exactly what our team experienced.
So let’s get to the lessons learned:
How DO you get a quality trainer to address “soft skills” at your agency, such as conflict resolution, staff team building, creating an inclusive environment, valuing diversity and promoting equity? How do you avoid a situation, where an outside consultant sews division and mistrust at the nonprofit she was supposed to help?
Here are my thoughts:
Look at the person’s credentials. In the case of this consultant, she has only an associates degree from decades ago and three certificates, one in “intercultural communications” and one in “interrupting racism”, both of which seemed to be acquired in just a few days (or less?). That she has no formal studies nor professional work regarding psychology or human resources management, let alone at least a full undergrad (if not a Master’s Degree) should have been a MASSIVE red flag.
Look at the person’s work experience AND volunteering experience. Is it diverse? Is there at least a few years of experience working in an environment similar to what your nonprofit is working in? In the case of this recent consulting experience, her work experience is entirely in corporate marketing with high-tech companies. She has no visible professional nor volunteering experience working with a diversity of people in terms of education and economics, and her entire work experience seems to be with people at middle or upper economic levels (in stark contrast to the makeup of our group).
Ask the person how they will build trust with the group, some of whom do not work together and may not even know each other.
Listen to the exercises proposed by the consultant. What does the consultant intend for them to accomplish? Do YOU feel they are appropriate?
Ask how the person will address power dynamics, where people may be reluctant to be honest because their supervisor or someone they do not trust is in the room.
Ask the person if they will survey staff before the training and ask to look at what those questions are (but not see the answers, since those should be anonymous), so you know that they will tease out issues you are hoping to get addressed with this training.
Define what success would look like at the end of the training and ask the trainer how that will be measured.
Ask for references from past training experiences, but make sure they are not all from fellow consultants or just executive directors.
I have had some amazing soft-skill training experiences, including regarding creating an inclusive environment, valuing diversity and promoting equity, as well as addressing staff conflicts. Some have been quite challenging and moved people in the room to tears. But it’s been only two – this one and one in the 1990s – that have left some participants feeling tramautized.
I wish Susan Ellis’ trainings on staff and volunteer conflicts was recorded – it was always an amazing thing to behold. I could write a whole blog about it. I watched her do it twice, with two very different groups, and I couldn’t believe how deftly she navigated the moments when very real hostilities started to emerge. In both, everyone left with greater understanding and respect and a willingness to be more observant and listen.
There is a training in particular that I can say changed my life forever, by a consultant that was an adherent to Peter Drucker’s management principles. The executive director of the nonprofit where I was working approached me the following week to say that she had had so many misconceptions about me and she was embarrassed by assumptions she had made because of how I dressed (she is VERY corporate and part of a very known power couple of the time in Silicon Valley; I am none of those things), and how blown away she was by my ideas, etc. I cried. She cried. She was one of the best people I’ve ever worked for. I’ve never seen a company transformed so quickly and for the better the way that one was after that two-day training.
Another was a very quick, very fun training of may two or three hours at the University of Texas at Austin. When I started working there, all new staff were required to take this training, and I was lucky enough to take it with one of my best friends (who gave me away at my wedding years later). No one left feeling belittled or lesser than anyone. In fact, we laughed. A LOT. She created the welcoming, honest atmosphere she wanted us to cultivate in our own workplaces. We all left so much more curious about each other and our co-workers, so much more aware of how we can jump to assumptions about each other that aren’t correct, and how someone can smile at you and not seem to be hurt by something you’ve said and they are, in fact, absolutely torn up inside. And her emphasis on power dynamics was outstanding and framed all of the conversations in a way I’ll never forget and frequently references when working in some of our world’s poorest countries, particularly in post-conflict zones.
I’m on a journey. I am always open to learning. I am always open to reconsidering viewpoints and opinions. But I also value my time and my dignity and expect others to do so. No staff training is a mere line item on a list to be checked off. Don’t treat it as such. And remember that these trainings should not make staff feel belittled or marginalized.
I’ve been reading through my blogs published before 2010. They are available only at archive.org, because the site where I hosted my blog back in those days is long gone. Sometimes, I find a blog that I want to make findable again by republishing it here. And this is one of them. I usually blog just twice a month, but while I’m finding these old blogs worth republishing, I’ll be blogging more often.
December 6, 2008.
Work in marketing or PR? Here is a book you must read.
I have no interest in college football. American football bores me. I grew up watching sports: American football, basketball, baseball, and the Olympics. But American football always left me cold.
I had never heard of Collie J. Nicholson, who was considered a legend in his time by every sports figure who knew him, black or white, and whose name inspires awe among those know about black college football. And while I had heard of Grambling, I cared about it about as much as I cared about American football. And I admit I read this book only because the author is a dear friend.
I loved this book. Anyone who works in public relations or marketing, or wants to, needs to read this book, particularly people who feel that their communications efforts are woefully under-funded. What Collie J. did with no Internet, no fax machines and barely a budget is a lesson for anyone now who wants to know how to sell a program or build a brand, particularly nationally or internationally. This was a man who didn’t spend his time whining and complaining about what he didn’t have or how many challenges he faced; he was undaunted in his task to sell Grambling to the USA and, indeed, the world. He was relentless in his efforts. He was an opportunist, in the best sense of the word, and he made things happen through persistence, vigilance, a huge amount of hard work, and constant networking in-person and on the phone and via whatever tools were available to him back in the day. He was an utterly dependable, honest person that everyone knew they could trust to do the best job possible. Collie J. worked in an environment at Grambling that encouraged him to be innovative and to take risks — he was allowed to experiment and dream big — VERY big. And because of his abilities and the support he received, his achievements as sports information director are nothing short of stunning. Jaw-dropping. As a professional in communications myself, I found myself jealous of the support Nicholson got from Grambling to do his job, and the environment in which he worked, where ideas were thrown out no matter how big, no matter how fantastic, and were sincerely considered and, more often than not, supported.
If you have a marketing, public relations, communications, advertising or journalism major in your life, or someone working in any of those fields, buy them this book. If they aren’t an American football fan, they can skip the game accounts and scores — I did. But Collie J.’s strategies, planning, press releases, dreams — don’t miss those, because in terms of advice, they are golden.
