Category Archives: Community Relations/Outreach

YahooGroups is Going Away – SAVE YOUR FILES

Leave a reply

Yahoo will no longer allow users to upload content to the Yahoo Groups site. Yahoo is saying that YahooGroups will continue to exist, but only has a message site – messages aren’t going away, but all attachments and everything in the collaboration areas are. Here is the Official Yahoo Announcement.

Beginning October 21, 2019 YahooGroups users won’t be able to upload any content to a YahooGroup except for messages, and as of December 14 all previously posted content on the site will be permanently removed. You’ll have until that date to save anything you’ve uploaded.

EVERYTHING but messages on YahooGroups is going away: 

  • Files
  • Polls
  • Links
  • Photos
  • Folders
  • Calendar
  • Database
  • Attachments
  • Conversations
  • Message Digest
  • Message History

All Yahoo Groups site will be made private or restricted. Any new group members will need to request an invite or be invited by an admin.

You will still be able to communicate with YahooGroup members via email and search for private groups on the site and ask to join groups.

My advice, other than backing up the files on a YahooGroup you don’t want to lose: ABANDON SHIP. Find a new platform to communicate with your group! I do NOT recommend Facebook, since Facebook’s privacy is non-existent and not everyone is on Facebook (nor wishes to be forced on it just to be a member of your group).

I’m testing out groups.io. I’ve set up a group myself, to discuss nonprofit management. The free version is quite robust.

Just know that there is no magic third party messaging platform, file sharing platform, collaboration platform or blog platform that won’t, at some point, go away. Just as car brands come and go, just as technology comes and goes (remember cassette tapes?), online platforms come and go. All that talk you heard of the permanence of digital data, that nothing disappears from the Internet? Yeah, about that…

two exceptional resources re: donor cultivation

Leave a reply

There are two sites that I think are exceptional in talking about donor cultivation and building meaningful, ethical relationships with donors that lead to long-term support. These two resources can help move your program’s mindset away from “Where is that magical list of people/corporations/foundations that might donate to my organization” – which, by the way, does not exist – and, instead, move to creating much more effective, ongoing strategies for attracting support and new supporters. Taking time to read these free blogs once a week is as good as attending any conference or workshop regarding fundraising for nonprofits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), charities, schools, community projects, etc.

One site is made up of excellent communications / outreach resources from Philanthropy Without Borders regarding donor site visits, empathy and ethics in fundraising and how to make the “big ask” during a site visit. Two of my favorite articles:

Another terrific resource: blogs by blogs by Mary Cahalane (Hands-On Fundraising). Mary has been a very successful fundraiser and believes strongly on cultivating relationships with donors, not just asking for money. She talks a lot about making emotional connections with donors and other supporters and about ethics in managing fundraising staff.

  • Mary also offers this gem from her Ultimate Guide on Donor Experience: We need to avoid focusing on the quick transactions and the shiny objects that are cropping up and begging for our attention. Without proper stewardship of both our donors and the data that represents them, we will never be able to perform our responsibilities and deliver on the promise of our mission.

Also see:F

Dealing with customers with diminished mental capacities

2 Replies

No matter what business you are in, you encounter people with diminished mental capacities caused by dementia, a brain injury, even Schizophrenia. They may be job applicants, they may be applicants to volunteer, they may be attendees to a public event, they may have paid to be a part of a service you have offered, such as a class or a hackathon.

In thinking about customers and clients and public spaces, including online spaces, nonprofits, NGOs, charities, libraries and others need to consider how to balance the priorities of the program and the needs of other clients and customers with the rights of a person with diminished mental capacities who, just like any member of the public, has a right to attend any public events, speak with you in public, come into your lobby to make inquiries, apply to volunteer, apply for a job, comment on your blog, blog about your organization, etc. For me, the boundary is if and when the behavior of someone, for whatever reason, becomes disruptive or they violate the decorum or rules of onsite or online interactions – and that’s a boundary for EVERYONE, regardless of their mental capacities.

I’ve worked in and with nonprofits, in and with agencies focused on international humanitarian work and with people who want to work in these sectors for more than 30 years – I started when I was still at university. This kind of work regularly attracts people who say they want to be considered for work or funding, or want to participate in a program, but who are not capable of such and also have significantly diminished mental capacities.

It’s not always obvious during a first encounter, when the person attends an event and begins asking a question, or calls to set up an appointment, or writes an email asking for information about consulting fees, or even applies for a role: the person may be quite well-spoken, may have a university degree, may be well-read and may have a credible, professional background in a particular field – or seem to. But further conversations reveal the mental issues: a belief that they are freelancing for a major media outlet, a belief that they are in regular contact with heads of state, a belief that a legitimate, credible group has somehow endorsed the work this person wants to do (when, in fact, the group has NO formal affiliation with the person, and either has never heard of the person or actually wants to distance themselves from the person as much as possible), a belief that a certificate of appreciation for attending an event is actually a major, prestigious award, a belief that those they encounter are working for a secret government agency that spies on them, and on and on.

I’ve encountered such people regularly in my work, people who believe they are journalists and asking for interviews with senior staff or high-profile politicians or with celebrities participating in our organization. Or claiming to be experienced humanitarian workers. Or asserting that they have formal connections with a variety of high-profile organizations and government officials. Or claiming that they have a nonprofit or NGO, or are starting such. Or claiming to be the spokesperson for a particular indigenous community or minority group. Or just walking into a conference and then into a workshop and asking questions and joining break-out groups, despite not being registered and having no formal affiliation with any of the subject matter of the conference or workshop. When I realize that the person isn’t who they believe they are or isn’t supposed to be at the conference or event, myself or others are often deeply engaged in a conversation with them – or they are so deeply ingrained in the moment that it might cause a disruption at the event to ask them to leave.

I once attended a conference as the keynote speaker and only after arriving at the venue did I realize, along with other speakers, that the organizer herself was someone of diminished capacity who had put herself deeply into debt renting space and paying for accommodations and travel for speakers and presenters and actually had NO formal affiliation with the organization she had claimed was sponsoring the event. It was a painful experience for everyone, and I learned the importance of always confirming that someone who makes any offer to me regarding a speaking engagement, consultation or interview really is with the agency they claim to be with.

Another time, I accepted payment for career consulting from someone who, according to her résumé and LinkedIn profile, had an excellent academic background and rich professional history that would make her a good candidate for humanitarian work. After several email exchanges, she said that the CIA regularly tracks her communications and she feared I was working for the agency, among other theories. A Google search of old web sites and newspaper articles showed that she really did have the professional background she had claimed, but at some point, her career had just stopped, during a time when she claimed to have gone back to university for another degree, and there were no more listings for her after a certain date on the Internet. I ended up returning her money, wishing her well, saying that I thought it was best we no longer have communications and blocking her email address so that I no longer received communications from her.

More recently, I volunteered with a local citizens’ advisory group that helps local artistic groups and artists with publicity, grant writing and networking. I encountered an elderly woman who wanted advice on proposal writing and had signed up to get assistance via this group. As we talked, I slowly realized she was someone of diminished capacity: she said she wanted to start a nonprofit, but she was vague on what its mission would be, she had no letters of endorsement from those she claimed her nonprofit would help, she has no board of directors, she couldn’t verbalize any concrete goals or steps and she seemed confused at my questions. She continually talked about how she needed office space so she could do her work – work she couldn’t really describe. She also had some unfortunate, quite racist things to say about the people she wanted to help. After some checking later with others, I found out that, indeed, decades ago, she really did have an extensive, international arts background. She definitely knows about nonprofits in general, and how to find the events this advisory group puts on. But her ideas for her nonprofit were unrealistic: she believes there’s a magical grant that will give her office space and office equipment, even though she still isn’t sure exactly what it is her nonprofit will do, and believes artists will become a part of her program, even though she doesn’t know any personally.

I am not a doctor, a counselor, a therapist, a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and I do not want to imply I am in any way. I do know that there are several health factors that can affect a person’s already-diminished mental and emotional capacity, such as age, fatigue and hearing and vision loss. There are other factors as well, such as a particularly traumatic event, grief or depression. I also know that people with mental illness can come from any racial group, any cultural tradition, any economic level or any level of intellectual capacity (they can have legitimate PhDs). While I am not in any business to help people with emotional or mental challenges, I do know that I am going to encounter people facing such challenges in my work – and during activities on my personal time as well – and I need to be prepared for such.

When I have encountered these situations onsite, my approach has been to remember that this person has a right to attend public events, speak with me in public, ask for a meeting, apply to volunteer, etc. (unless it’s a paid conference or ticketed event- just like anyone who didn’t pay to be there, they will be asked to leave and escorted out if necessary). So long as he or she isn’t profoundly disruptive, doesn’t become insulting and won’t monopolize my time or the time of others at the public event or in the public space, I’ll interact with that person, just as I would with anyone. I have ended up involving people with diminished mental capacities as online volunteers: while I knew they had challenges, per things they said on their application and some of our email interactions, I could also see their capabilities, and I was able to find tasks they could do as volunteers – they were never disruptive and one such person in particular was one of the highlights of my early days working with online volunteers.

In situations dealing with people I suspect have some diminished capacities, I sometimes need to be more explicit about setting and sticking to strict boundaries, such as the time I have available for the meeting, or noting that it’s time for someone else to ask a question and that our workshop does not allow anyone to monopolize workshop discussions. I work to be clear and consistent in what I am saying, staying respectful even as I am being blunt: “I appreciate your goals, however, I have spent 20 minutes speaking with you and now this conversation will need to end. I will walk with you to the front door and then you will have to leave, so that I may do the work I have scheduled for today.” Or “Thank you for your comments, but I’m going to have to stop you now, because other people in this workshop need to be able to speak.” I do not encourage any medical or mental health treatment to the person, but I may ask if there is a family member or someone else I can call to transport the person elsewhere, especially if that person becomes tearful or distressed or seems incapable of removing themselves from the premises. If the person has paid money to attend an event or for consultation time, or has made a financial donation, I do all I can to refund that money as immediately as possible.

If the person does become disruptive, such as refusing to stop talking during a workshop, or is trespassing, I will be more blunt. This happened at a conference in Portland, by a person who had wandered into a conference workshop I was leading. I told the person, in front of all the other workshop attendees, as the person rambled on and on, “You will have to stop talking now and you will need to leave. I will call security immediately if you do not.” The person did leave immediately.

I also make sure co-workers are aware of what is happening and make sure everything that happens is documented in some way. Sometimes, this is just an email to another organizer detailing what happened, what action I took, and suggestions for avoidance and, if that doesn’t work, for future encounters. I make sure all staff know what to do if this person attempts to purchase an event ticket, make a donation, register for an event, etc.

Psychology Today has an excellent article, “Communicating with People with Mental Illness: The Public’s Guide” that has a detailed list of strategies for communicating effectively with people with mental illness. The article was posted Oct 19, 2010. The suggestions include:

  • Be respectful to the person. When someone feels respected and heard, they are more likely to return respect and consider what you have to say.
  • If they are experiencing events like hallucinations, be aware that the hallucinations or the delusions they experience are their reality. You will not be able to talk them out of their reality. They experience the hallucinations or delusional thoughts as real and are motivated by them. Communicate that you understand that they experience those events. Do not pretend that your experience them.
  • Some people with paranoia may be frightened, so be aware that they may need more body space than you.
  • Do not assume that they are not smart and will believe anything you tell them.
  • Mental illness has nothing to do with the person’s intelligence level. Do not lie to them, as it will usually break any rapport you might want to establish.
  • Try to limit your interventions to relatively short periods of time, but realize that taking time to try to communicate effectively with the person may save you a lot of time in the long run and help someone in the process.
  • Listen to the person and try to understand what he/she is communicating. Often, if you do not turn off your communicating skills, you will be able to understand. Find out what reality-based needs you can meet.
  • If needed, set limits with the person as you would others. For example, “I only have five minutes to talk to you” or “If you scream, I will not be able to talk to you.”

When you realize you are dealing with someone online with diminished capacities, it can be much more difficult: being online may constitute a substantial part of that person’s time every day, and they may rely on online activities to feel included or important, to make their imaginary nonprofit seem legitimate, etc. It’s much easier for any person to appear credible online. Your program should know what to do if they start to suspect they are having such an interaction:

  • Tell your staff that they need to let their supervisor know if they suspect someone they are interacting with online, or someone writing about your organization online, might have mental or emotional challenges, and let staff know the rest of these guidelines (and make sure they understand them).
  • Do NOT say in any public forum or on any social media channel, or to the person, ever, that you think the person is mentally ill, emotionally challenged, etc.
  • If interactions with any person online are disruptive to your business, or you think at any point someone from law enforcement, a judicial body or the person’s family may need to see these exchanges, or you are going to have to cut off communications with this person because of their behavior, screen capture all communications that illustrate how the person is disruptive and save these for future reference.
  • If you are worried in any way about this person escalating their communications and actions to the point of being disruptive or dangerous, have a staff member search online to see if this person has caused issues for other organizations. Searching for the person’s name on Google and Duck Duck Go, as well as on YouTube, will probably be enough to reveal such, but you may need to add words to that search – just the word complaint or words that the person uses frequently in their online interactions with you can lead to the specific information you need to see that you are not the first program targeted. Screen capture any examples you find of this person behaving this way with others (and don’t be surprised to find that you aren’t the first target of this person’s fascination or ire). You may want to discreetly reach out to those earlier targeted organizations and individuals, to see how they handled being targeted by this person and if the situation died down, was resolved, etc.
  • It may be best to not respond at all to blogs they write about your program, or what they write on their own social media channels about your program – but you need to screen capture those references to your organization and your staff for future reference.
  • It may be best to stop engaging with the person – not to reply to their emails, not to reply to their online comments, etc. You need to save those communications for future reference, if needed. You may want to simply stop replying without explanation or you may want to say, “We appreciate the time you have taken to share your viewpoints about our work. We have responded as much as we think is needed and, In the interest of staying focused on our work, we are going to stop replying to your emails.”
  • It may be best to block the person from your online community, not publish the person’s comments on your blog, remove comments from the person on your Facebook page, etc. You may need to go even further and block the person entirely on social media channels so that they cannot see your posts – but know that they can simple create a new account and view your public information from that new account. Know that blocking someone entirely might escalate the person’s hostilities or anger, as they will be able to see that you have blocked them.
  • You may need to let your entire staff and all of your volunteers know about the situation, if they are seeing this person’s posts on social media, on a blog the person owns, on other organization’s blogs, etc. Be very careful in your communications with staff regarding your choice of words to describe the person. An example of how you could communicate this situation in a meeting, “Some of you have noticed that there is a person producing videos about our organization where he says that our Executive Director is engaged in illegal behavior. We are aware of these posts. We ask you to please never interact with this person online, never comment on anything this person says online, and please do not to have any conversations with anyone about this person online. If you see this person doing something online that relates to our organization, please notify such-and-such. If you are worried in any way about this situation, please notify such-and-such.”
  • Once interactions get to the point of screen captures, muting or blocking, notify at least one board member and, if it’s not that person, your nonprofit’s legal counsel, about what is happening. The likelihood of this escalating to legal action is minuscule, but you do need to cover your bases.

Hootsuite has an excellent blog about dealing with online “trolls” – people who “deliberately provoke others online. By saying inflammatory and offensive things. They live to make people upset and angry.” I think that most such people are dealing with diminished mental and emotional capacities. One section of the blog asks, “Troll or upset customer” and notes that it can be hard to tell, as “Both might appear irked, perhaps even furious or enraged.” The blog’s advice:

  • Stay calm. Look at the substance of their words. That’s usually the tell-tale.
  • Listen and think about their motivation. Do they appear frustrated, stating a seemingly authentic claim about your business, product or service?
  • Do they seek truth?
  • Or… do they sound outraged, seething and trying to incite rage in your brand or in other users?If so, you’ve got yourself a live, social media troll—an internet misfit, in the digital flesh.
  • For the un-delighted customer, listen to them. They want to be heard. If you address and resolve their issue, they’ll be satisfied and those unhappy messages will cease.
  • But not the online troll. They won’t stop until they’re forced out or get bored.
  • Trolls aren’t looking for resolution. They want to engage in battle, one that nobody can win.

To be clear, while I do think trolls are people with diminished mental and intellectual capacities, I don’t think all people with diminished mental or intellectual capacities are trolls.

The situations I have had talking with people with diminished mental capacities have not turned dangerous or litigious for me (yet), but I always have that potential in mind, however unlikely. I am also thinking about the safety of myself and others at the facility or within the organization where I am working. The importance of having other people around during onsite conversations and encounters, and having screen captures of online encounters that your board, other staff or legal advisors could reference if needed, cannot be stressed enough.

If I see the person somewhat regularly, know them by name, etc., and I perceive a progression of behaviors that I believe could lead to violence, such as yelling or crying, I will contact a family member or friend the person has identified to me to come help in the situation. I would call the police if the situation had the potential to become dangerous for anyone, including the person I’m talking with.

One thing I do NOT do is “kick the can down the road” – as in suggest to the person that the person go to another nonprofit or consultant because it is my hope that this will take the person’s attention off of me. I may recommend another organization if I think the experience might help the person understand that, for instance, they will not be able to get funding for a nonprofit they are dreaming of building, or that they are not going to get support to go to another country to do work they’ve always dreamed of.

If your nonprofit has a mission to work with people with diminished mental capacities, such as people who are experiencing dementia, I have a suggestion for a funding source: offer short courses for businesses, government offices and nonprofits in recognizing customers, clients, volunteers and staff who may have such issues. We need this training!

Also see:

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. 

The opposite of poverty porn: erasing clients from storytelling

Leave a reply

Earlier this year, I wrote a blog about poverty porn and other kinds of exploitative marketing by many nonprofits, where graphic photos and videos of people in desperate situations or images of people with disabilities are used to make the viewer so upset or emotional as to garner donations, or to make someone delivering services on behalf of that nonprofit look exceptionally compassionate and heroic.

But on the other side of that marketing no-no are nonprofits that make their outreach stories more about what their staff is doing and about their leadership than about those that are served or the cause at hand. You want to tell compelling stories about your organization’s without trivializing people’s lives, absolutely, but you also don’t want to mostly or entirely erase those you are serving from the narrative.

Examples I’ve encountered in the just the last three months of nonprofit marketing that erases clients – or pushes them out of the focus:

  • An arts group that says it promotes the art and artistry of indigenous people, but has no photos or testimonials of these artists on its web site (just clip art of indigenous people the organization has never met), nor does it have any indigenous people on its board or in positions of leadership.
  • A homeless coalition that uses social media to feature photos and commentary about its founders, but offers no testimonials, commentary or images from those the coalition is supposed to serve.
  • Any number of nonprofits and NGOs that have far more stories and photos about the founder of the organization and what he or she is doing and thinking than they have about those being served – including photos where the founder is NOT pictured, or stories where the founder is NOT quoted.

Unlike marketing for businesses, which is pretty much about selling more and more of a product and making as much money as possible, communications for nonprofits, charities and other mission-based organizations requires addressing a variety of needs:

  • getting people to attend events or to participate in activities,
  • attracting new donors and volunteers,
  • giving current donors and volunteers a feeling of satisfaction about what they have donated,
  • allaying fears about the clients served or the cause that’s being promoted,
  • promoting behavior change (encouraging people not to litter, to recycle, to use condoms, to not use certain words, etc.),
  • addressing misunderstandings and crises,
  • and on and on.

In fact, at nonprofit organizations, the people working to attract donations may have a message that is in conflict with the people who are delivering the program – the fundraisers want to evoke an emotional reaction that attracts donors while program managers may feel that the messaging reduces those served to stereotypes. It can be a delicate balance.

So, let’s go back to those aforementioned cases and talk about what it should look like instead:

  • The staff of the organization that promotes indigenous artisans should have ongoing conversations with those artisans about how they want to be supported, how they want to participate in decision-making, how they want to be pictured and how they want their work presented online and in print.
  • The staff at an organization that helps people experiencing homeless, or people with disabilities, or people who have experienced a trauma, should have ongoing conversations with those clients about how they might want to be pictured and talked about online and in print. They should be talking with clients about the goals of the messages in brochures, on the web site, on social media, in slide show presentations: what is it the nonprofit wants to show, and how might images help?
  • Be careful about Executive Director over-exposure in messaging. If the nonprofit leader is the face of the organization and the primary reason people donate, make sure that this messaging is balanced with strong messaging about the impact the organization is having on the community or cause it serves, messaging so strong that the organization could survive the Executive Director’s departure or negative publicity regarding that person (unless, of course, your board is comfortable with the idea of the organization folding with the departure of the Executive Director and, indeed, there are boards that are absolutely fine with this setup – as am I regarding certain charities).

Of course, it’s not easy to feature all clients in marketing and public relations materials: there are charities that support foster kids, for instance, that use child and teen models rather than actual foster children in photos and videos, in order to protect the identities of clients. Something that is “exploitative” or a stereotype can be in the eye of the beholder. The best strategy: consult with your clients. Talking to them about what you want to portray, how images will be used, etc., can lead to more buy-in from those you are trying to serve for your efforts, can build more trust for program delivery, can help prevent misunderstandings down the road, and can even lead to great ideas for marketing and public relations you may never have thought of.

There are some good resources regarding ethics and photography in humanitarian work that have advice that can be applied for nonprofits working with vulnerable populations (people who are homeless, people experiencing addiction, people who have experienced domestic violence, foster children, people with disabilities, etc.) in their own countries, including:

I would love to hear from others about how they maintain this balance in their representation of vulnerable populations in public relations and marketing materials.

Also see:

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. 

Harms caused by persuasive technologies – what your nonprofit needs to know

Leave a reply

Nonprofits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), charities, government agencies, schools and other mission-based organizations, no matter what that mission is, needs to be aware of persuasive technologies and how that tech is being used to gather data and use it to target people to get them to buy or do something. You should even consider how you can educate your board, your other volunteers and your clients about persuasive tech and they can better recognize such.

This is from a recent email newsletter of the Center for Humane Technology:

We are as concerned as you are about the harms caused by persuasive technologies. A key lever in our theory of change at the Center for Humane Technology is applying pressure on technology companies by educating policy-makers. When government officials understand the harms more deeply, they can create guardrails to protect society.

On June 25, Tristan Harris, a co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, testified on Capitol Hill in the U.S. Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing, “Optimizing for Engagement: Understanding the Use of Persuasive Technology on Internet Platforms” with Rashida Richardson (AI Now Institute), Maggie Stanphill (Google, Inc.) and Dr. Stephen Wolfram (Wolfram Research). Tristan’s opening statement argued that persuasive technology platforms have pretended to be in an equal relationship with users, while actually holding the upper hand in an asymmetric relationship. Paired with an extractive business model that is based on predicting and controlling people’s choices in the name of maximizing engagement, this inevitably causes serious harm. Algorithms like YouTube recommendations suggest increasingly extreme, outrageous videos to keep us glued to tech sites. In the hearing Tristan said, “Because YouTube wants to maximize watch time, it tilts the entire ant colony of humanity towards crazytown.” 

While many people feel they are opting in as an equal, in reality, algorithms hold asymmetric power over us — they know more about us than we know about ourselves — even predicting when we are going to quit our jobs or are pregnant. As platforms gain the upper hand over the limits of human brains and society, they cannot be allowed to have an extractive relationship but a “Duty of Care” or a “Fiduciary” relationship.

To learn more, check out CHT’s testimony, watch Tristan’s comments (17 min video) and read this Gizmodo article, “This is How You’re Being Manipulated.”

The Gizmodo article does a great job of showing that, the longer you spend in these social media ecosystems, “just scrolling”, the more machine learning systems learn about you. They build a profile of you, based on what you are looking at, what you have “liked,” what your friends have liked, etc. Think of that profile as an avatar – as, Tristan Harris, the executive director of the Center for Humane Technology, puts it, “a voodoo doll-like version of you inside of a Google server. And that avatar, based on all the clicks and likes and everything you ever made—those are like your hair clippings and toenail clippings and nail filings that make the avatar look and act more and more like you—so that inside of a Google server they can simulate more and more possibilities about ‘if I prick you with this video, if I prick you with this video, how long would you stay?’ And the business model is simply what maximized watch time…”

“Without any of your data I can predict increasing features about you using AI… All I have to do is look at your mouse movements and click patterns […] based on tweet text alone we can know your political affiliation with about 80-percent accuracy. [A] computer can calculate that you’re homosexual before you might know you’re homosexual. They can predict with 95-percent accuracy that you’re going to quit your job, according to an IBM study. They can predict that you’re pregnant.

Lawmakers weighed in on the issues as well:  

  • Sen. Schatz (D-Hawaii) “Companies are letting algorithms run wild and only using humans to clean up the mess. Algorithms are amoral. Companies designed them to optimize for engagement as their highest priority, and in doing so eliminated human judgment as part of their business model.”
  • Sen. Thune (R-South Dakota) “The powerful mechanisms behind these platforms meant to enhance engagement also have the ability, or at least the potential, to influence the thoughts and behaviors of literally billions of people.”
  • Sen. Tester (D-Montana) “I’m probably going to be dead and gone—and I’m probably thankful for it—when all this s— comes to fruition, because I think that, this scares me to death.”

So… what can you do?

  • Consider creating a workshop jointly with other agencies to educate volunteers and clients about how social media is used to gather information about them and their children, and how that technology is designed to encourage them into action and beliefs in ways they may never have realized.
  • Write your elected national representatives and tell them you believe these companies should be required, by legislation, to do a better job of talking about how they target users to keep them engaged.
  • Create a written social media policy that makes a commitment to never “like” or share any information on social media that does not fit absolutely into the mission of your organization and that cannot be verified. Know what your social media manager is doing (watch, don’t just ask). If a board member or prominent volunteer asks you to share something via the organization’s social media account that you feel does not meet that criteria, be prepared to explain to that board member why you will NOT be sharing such.
  • Create a page on a private GoogleDoc or a public web page that has a list of links to the Facebook pages you want to check in regularly regarding news and updates instead of liking those pages on Facebook (I have a private page where I have listed the Facebook pages of all of the city and county governments of my area, political groups I support, nonprofits I want to keep an eye on, sports teams I like, etc.). Any time you want to get an update, you just go to that page you’ve created and click on the link of any group or office you are interested in. Unlike every Facebook page except those you want to publicly, officially endorse by doing so. The result: you are more likely to get the updates you want from the groups you most want, because you aren’t relying on Facebook to show such in your timeline.
  • Get rid of your Facebook group for volunteers, clients, etc. Facebook data mines every post made to these groups, even if you set the account to private. Also, not everyone wants to use Facebook, because of its data-mining/profile-building and selling practices. Free alternatives include YahooGroups, Groups.io, and MeWe. Or consider making the investment for a completely private platform to create an online space for working with your volunteers or clients – my favorite is Basecamp.
  • Be flexible about how you communicate directly with volunteers and clients online and be ready to use whatever tool they seem most engaged in – and be ready to change as they change. That may mean using WhatsApp for a year or two to send direct messages to volunteers or clients and then switching to Telegram because that’s what your volunteers or clients are switching to.
  • Keep using Facebook if its proven to be a good way to get your message out and engage with others, but never use it as your only avenue for online outreach: your web site should be always up-to-date, you should post to Twitter and create content for YouTube, and you should post information, as appropriate, to online communities on other platforms, like Reddit and even Craigslist. I find places to potential new places online to post information by asking clients or volunteers where they are getting ANY information.

Also see:

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. 

The Trust Crisis

1 Reply

The world is experiencing a trust crisis. People don’t trust their national governments nor their local governments – not elected officials and not public sector employees. People don’t trust established media outlets. People are pushing back against science and historical facts being taught in schools. People will believe an unverified viral video or social media post shared by a friend or family member but not an article by a journalist or peer-reviewed academic paper by a scientist.

In addition, in the USA, there has never been a time where there have been as many opportunities to talk directly to elected officials, via council meetings, town halls, open houses, social media, email, surveys and citizens’ advisory committees, yet people are staying away from these. Officials are talking to largely empty auditoriums and rooms and getting low returns for any surveys inviting feedback about projects.

Skepticism can be a healthy thing: it can encourage people asking questions that very much need to be asked and force a project designer to improve a design before anything gets built or launched. Answering questions can make the reason to do something even stronger. But these days, people aren’t even asking questions: they are dismissing outright anything government representatives or academic institutions or news sources say. They are saying civic participation doesn’t really matter.

I grew up in rural Kentucky, in a civically-minded family: one of my great-grandmothers worked for a local county government, one of my grandfathers was a city council member and active member of and volunteer with a variety of civic groups (he even helped rally support for a school tax back in the 1950s), my other grandfather was a minister and outspoken in the community on a variety of issues, my mother was a deputy sheriff and then assistant to the head of the county government for many years, my father was the local head of a political party in Western Kentucky, and both of my parents sometimes attended and often talked about local government and school board meetings they had attended. I always knew who was running in every local election long before I could ever vote. Politics and values – but never facts – were frequently debated at family gatherings. No one was discouraged from working on a political campaign, from writing a letter to the editor of the local paper, from voting, etc. I never once heard It doesn’t matter. It won’t make a difference Why bother? from anyone. My family didn’t always like what local government agencies or public schools did, but they believed it mattered to use official channels to find out what was happening and to let their opinions be known. I also got my undergrad degree in journalism from a university that, at the time, was widely known for its journalism training, worked at a few newspapers, have worked with journalists for decades, and have idolized journalism, when it is at its best, for most of my life. I have always had a paid subscription to a newspaper, even if, now, it’s entirely online.

In the eight years I lived outside the USA, I was often working on initiatives that encouraged civic engagement in other countries, and people – particularly women – seemed hungry to take part, and encouraging their government to be more transparent via its own publications and via its interactions with the media. It was incredibly energizing to encourage the kind of civic participation I had grown up with and to see people from a variety of cultures and economic levels jumping in and doing it their own way. As a result, when I moved back to the USA in 2009, I was inspired to do my best to be a part of local government, as a citizen and resident and maybe as a government employee, if I found the right position. In the first town I lived in Oregon, I joined the local government’s bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. In the next town I lived, I joined the local government’s public safety advisory committee, the county’s public arts coalition and the local chapter of the League of Women Voters. I also went through the county sheriff’s 12-week citizens’ academy. I attended city council meetings and political candidate forums. And I have, indeed, applied for a few government jobs.

I’ve known where to look for these kinds of opportunities to observe government, and participate in such, because of my background. And I’ve come to it with a trust in the people that staff government, public schools and media outlets, a trust that was long-cultivated. I’ve never thought of them as anything but people, with strengths and weaknesses just like anyone, just like me. But I’ve realized most people my age and younger aren’t like me: they have a built-in distrust of these institutions. They also need more than one post to a Facebook page or one tweet announcing a meeting to be motivated enough to attend. They need more than one notice in their utility bill to be inspired to do anything. They need more than whatever worked 20 years ago to get them to that meeting, that open house, that presentation. Because for every one official message from a government office or school, they have gotten probably a dozen from family and friends about how whatever it is that office is doing isn’t in the public’s best interest, isn’t trustworthy, has nefarious intentions, or just really doesn’t matter.

Governments and public schools: in your outreach planning, you not only need strategies for meeting your legally-mandated public communications requirements and for letting people know about your events and activities, you also need strategies for cultivating, even rebuilding, trust with the community. And this is something you need to hire someone to do – don’t think you can get an intern to manage your social media and make it happen.

Cultivating or rebuilding community trust takes multiple steps and ongoing efforts – not just one public meeting or open house. You have to think not only about how you will invite public comment on activities but also how you will regularly show how public comment has influenced decision-making. You have to have strategies to make yourself aware of misinformation campaigns about your efforts and strategies to address them. How will you leverage speeches, presentations and meetings with civic groups, social media posts, surveys, community meetings and more not only to share information but to also find out what trust gaps exist and to address those gaps? I research and compile recommendations for trust-building on my web site about how to folklore, rumors, urban myths and organized misinformation campaigns interfere with aid and government initiatives, and those recommendations, which come from a variety of organizations, can be adapted to help any agency craft its own strategy for addressing the trust crisis.

Here are my related resources, which aren’t just my own ideas, but ideas from a variety of resources, with an abundance of links to other articles and web sites (and I would welcome suggestions for other resources as well):

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. 

UN Report on Assembly and Association in the Digital Era

Leave a reply

On 12 June 2019, the United Nations Special Rapporteur Clement Voule issued a report (A/HRC/41/41) on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association in the digital era. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law has created an unofficial summary of the report here. In its introduction, ICNL notes:

As technology plays an increasingly vital role in the freedom of assembly and association, the Special Rapporteur finds that many governments are not fulfilling their obligations under international law. In fact, government measures restricting online space have become all too common. Furthermore, technology companies act as gatekeepers to people’s ability to exercise these rights, creating new issues. The report addresses these challenges, with a focus on developing guidance to preserve and expand the digital civic space.

In its summary of the Special Rapporteur’s report, ICNL notes the following regarding “digital technology companies,” and I think it’s worth highlighting in particular:

Digital technology companies, particularly social media companies, have become gatekeepers, controlling people’s ability to exercise assembly and association rights online. The role these companies play has created new risks or exacerbated challenges. The Special Rapporteur finds that these platforms’ policies and algorithms may undermine the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, despite some attempts at improvements. The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned that social media’s content policies seem to affect those with a public profile in a disproportionate manner, placing activists and those calling for mass mobilization at risk of facing arbitrary content removal and account suspension or deactivation. Compounding this problem is social media companies’ increasing use of algorithmic systems to flag content for takedown and determine findability. In the words of the Special Rapporteur: “Algorithmic systems have the power to silence stories and movements, prevent civil society actors from reaching a wider audience, and reinforce echo chambers or reproduce bias and discrimination, to the detriment of democratic development. These measures can also have a disproportionate effect on already marginalized or at-risk groups.”

Read the full UN report (A/HRC/41/41) here.

Read the ICNL summary of the report here.

Poverty porn, survivor porn, inspiration porn

Leave a reply

Sophie Otiende is a program consultant for HAART Kenya, a nonprofit that bills itself as the only organization in Kenya that works exclusively on eradicating human trafficking. In this podcast with The Nonprofit Quarterly, Otiende discusses her anti-trafficking work and why awareness campaigns fail to deter vulnerable women who are already suffering from poverty and abuse in their own homes. She also says donors must do a better job of providing emotional support to frontline staff. And she talks about the ethics around what The Nonprofit Quarterly calls “survivor porn,” which happens when survivors of trauma are asked by a nonprofit to provide an account of their causes, in a video, in an interview with the press, etc., to provide an emotional hook to attract donors to the nonprofit. The podcast asks some hard questions about the power dynamics between survivors and the nonprofits that have helped them.

On a related note is this article from March 2019 from the Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism: “Inspiration Porn: How the Media and Society Objectify Disabled People.” This article is about, specifically, someone film or taking photos of a person with a disability in public doing just about anything – eating, getting on and off a bus, going down the street – without that person’s permission, and then uploading it to social media with some sort of inspirational message, making the person with a disability’s experience a “feel good” story. Even journalists are guilty of this. Often, the stories are about someone helping the person with a disability – say, to push their wheelchair over a corner curb that doesn’t have a curb cut – which deflects from what should be the real story: why doesn’t the curb have a curb cut? As one person in the story says, “Inspiration porn makes us feel that everything is going to be OK.”

Both of these are, like “poverty porn”, voyeuristic. As Skye Davey says in this article, “It captures human beings in vulnerable, deeply personal moments, and packages that trauma (and humiliation) for consumption.” All three over-simplify poverty, famine, human rights issues, sex trafficking, accessibility and challenges for people with disabilities, and other complex issues. It promotes a fiction that these issues can be fought with charity and message-promotion on social media, without structural change.

In this opinion piece in The Guardian, Jennifer Lentfer notes:

Poverty, disease, injustice, and conflict are all heartbreaking. But sometimes the work needed to tackle them is not new, innovative, or sexy. It might be citizens demanding fundamental services like improved healthcare or better roads; or governments better managing their budgets; or pressing local agencies to be more responsive to public concerns… We must highlight the grey area between our interventions and the reality of how social change occurs. Trust the public with a little more nuance – they can handle it.

The subhead on this Guardian piece says, “Our job is to tell compelling stories without trivialising people’s lives – and to promote a more nuanced narrative about how to achieve lasting change.” Without poverty porn, survivor porn or inspiration porn. It can sometimes be a difficult balance, but it’s a balance worth pursuing.

There are some good resources regarding ethics and photography in humanitarian work that have advice that can be applied for nonprofits working with vulnerable populations (people who are homeless, people experiencing addiction, people who have experienced domestic violence, foster children, people with disabilities, etc.) in their own countries, including:

I would love to hear from others about how they maintain this balance in their representation of vulnerable populations in public relations and marketing materials.

Also see:

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. 

Nonprofits addressing homelessness or addiction urgently need to improve their public education

Leave a reply

Myths abound about people who are homeless and people who have addiction issues in the USA – and probably other countries too. I see the myths stated as fact on online communities, in posts to social media and in online comments on news articles. What I’m NOT seeing are rebuttals of these myths by local nonprofits and professionals that are trying to provide services for people who are homeless or people who have addiction issues. I can’t find rebuttals for these myths on the web sites of the MOST local organizations addressing these issues – I can find them on a Google search, for a national audience (rather than a city or county audience), but only with a lot of digging. And representatives from organizations addressing issues around homelessness or people with addiction issues don’t make any attempt to enter online conversations and counter the myths.

Because so many nonprofits addressing homelessness and addiction issues are not making it a priority to educate the public – and that includes the press and politicians – about why people are homeless, about what services are available to people who are homeless or have addiction issues, about gaps in availability of service, etc., people are not voting for taxes necessary to fund government services to address either of these issues and many people that could donate are not donating to nonprofits trying to address either of these issues. In addition, the growing hostility by many towards people who are homeless or people experiencing addiction issues is deeply disturbing: I’m seeing and hearing more and more comments about how law enforcement shouldn’t carry NARCAN or EVZIO and shouldn’t offer any assistance to someone overdosing, how people should engage in vigilantism to remove people who are homeless from their towns and neighborhoods, how people who are homeless or have addiction issues should be imprisoned, and worse.

National statistics and facts that should be on any web site by an organization addressing homelessness (these come from Move for Hunger, the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition – and probably others that Move for Hunger didn’t credit) include:

  • The chronically homeless make up only 15% of the entire homeless population on a given day.
  • On any given night, nearly 20% of the homeless population had serious mental illness or conditions related to chronic substance abuse.
  • According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a family with a full-time worker making minimum wage could not afford Fair Market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the U.S.
  • A renter earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would need to work 90 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom rental home at the Fair Market Rent and 112 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom.
  • A lack of employment opportunities, combined with a decline in public assistance leaves low-income families just an illness or accident away from being put out on the streets.
  • Many survivors of domestic violence become homeless when leaving an abusive relationship.
  • While families, children, and youth are all affected, most of the people who experience homelessness are single adults.
  • Chronic homelessness is the term given to individuals that experience long-term or repeated bouts of homelessness. The chronically homeless are often the public face of the issue, however, they make up only 15% of the entire homeless population on a given day.
  • Nearly 48,000 or 8.5% of all homeless persons are veterans
  • On a given night, nearly 20% of the homeless population had serious mental illness or conditions related to chronic substance abuse.

This article, Why Are People Homeless?, is published by the National Coalition for the Homeless (July 2009) and offers citations for each fact stated.

Are these stats true for your community? Maybe – but you should have information that adapts this data for your own community and reflects the reality where you are. Perhaps a higher rate of your homeless population are veterans. Perhaps a greater number of your community’s homeless population are teens.

Here are the myths that nonprofits, academic researchers and professionals MUST rebut – on their own web sites, on online communities, on social media, in talks with the community, in meetings with politicians and police and on and on – about people who are homeless and people who have addiction issues.

Myth: People who are homeless have addiction issues, and people who have addiction issues are homeless. If you are an organization that helps the homeless, you need to have information on your web site that clearly shows not everyone who is homeless has addiction issues, and for those that do have such, WHY they have such issues. You need to reiterate this information your social media channels regularly and make sure all of your staff and volunteers understand this as well. Organizations that address issues regarding addiction need to have information on their web site noting that people with addiction issues come from all economic levels, all zip codes, all types of families.

Myth: There are plenty of services for people who are homeless or people who have addiction issues – those peple just won’t seek help. I have heard, anecdotally, that every nonprofit in my community where I live that has programs to help people attain affordable housing has a waiting list of years, and that residential facilities to treat addiction have waiting lists of months, and that if a person doesn’t have health insurance, they have no options for addiction treatment other than maybe some AA meetings – but there’s no web site I can point you to that says any of these things for my community.

Myth: People are homeless because they are lazy or don’t manage their money properly. If they would work and not spend money on things like iPhones, they would have enough money to have housing. Every organization that works to assist the homeless should have a web page that lists the myriad of reasons individuals and families become homeless and the myriad of reasons that affordable housing is out-of-reach for so many, including people with full-time jobs or working more than one job, more than 40 hours a week. You need to reiterate this information your social media channels regularly and make sure all of your staff and volunteers understand this as well.

Myth: People who have addiction issues are weak. They’ve made poor choices and they refuse to make the right ones. They lack will power. All they have to do is make the decision to stop using. Addiction is recognized by the medical communities – doctors, nurses and medical researchers – as a medical condition and a crisis health situation. An addict craves his or her drug because her body is craving it, and many will go through extreme flu-like symptoms for days without taking that drug because they are addicted – given the choice between feeling good or shaking uncontrollably and throwing up for hours, most of us are going to choose to feel good, and for an addict, that choice involves abusing the substance to which they are addicted. Drugs change the brain in ways that make quitting hard, even for those who want to. What Is drug addiction? What happens to the brain when a person takes drugs that can turn them into an addict? Why do some people become addicted to drugs while others don’t? The National Institute on Drug Abuse has an excellent web site with fact-based information answering these questions clearly and succinctly. The information in no way absolves someone with abuse or addiction issues from personal responsibilities or the choices they make or the crimes they may commit, but it does offer realistic information on how to effectively prevent and address addiction (and prevention and treatment is complex and long term). The brain changes related to addiction can be treated and reversed through therapy, medication, exercise and other treatments. And also note: many people enter drug treatment involuntarily (court-ordered, or given a dire choice by their families: go to treatment or leave our home).

Myth: The people who are homeless in our community aren’t from our community – they are from INSERT THE NAME OF A BIG CITY OR ANOTHER STATE. I have heard, anecdotally, that the homeless people here in the community where I live in Oregon are from this city or county, that most of them graduated from the local high school and/or have or had parents that lived here. But this statement cannot be found on the web site of any organization that serves the homeless in my community. The information needs to be there as well as regularly shared on social media.

Myth: People choose to be homeless. They want to be homeless. Debunking other myths proves this myth untrue, for the most part. In addition, some homeless people may choose to sleep outside rather than in a shelter because they fear being assaulted in the shelter, they fear having to leave their pets or possessions outside, or they are addicted and may not take their drugs or alcohol into a shelter. You may hear someone say, “I chose to live on the streets. I prefer to be FREE.” Saying this gives the person a feeling of empowerment, a feeling of self-worth. They also may have mental health issues and are not completely rational. A whole range of different issues come into play when talking about teens who are homeless.

Myth: The way nonprofits want society to treat homeless people and people with addiction issues require us to not be upset about things like people using my front yard as a bathroom, needles in the park, people breaking into my car and taking anything left unlocked on my property, etc. No one has the legal or ethical right to threaten you, your family or your property. No one has a right to steal from you. No one has the legal right to leave trash or human waste on your property or in any public space. Efforts to educate about people who are homeless or people who are addicted are not about telling anyone they must accept destructive, unsanitary or illegal behavior. Efforts to educate are about encouraging actions that will effectively address homelessness and addiction and about discouraging actions and attitudes that may make problems worse, may endanger someone or may be violations of the law.

Myth: Services to help people that are homeless will encourage people to want to be homeless. Services to help people that have addiction issues will encourage people to keep using drugs and alcohol. Again, you may hear someone say, “I chose to live on the streets” but it’s rarely true, and given the opportunity to have a safe, private, simple residence, the vast majority of homeless people will take that opportunity. For someone who is homeless, every day is a struggle for survival. Many people who are homeless are chronically sleep-deprived because there is no safe place for them to get a full sleep cycle: they sleep an hour on a bus or train line, then another hour in a library, then another hour somewhere else, and so on. Homeless people are targets for theft and rape, so they have to stay awake to ward off an assault. They don’t have access to a bathroom with they need it most or to a shower or bath regularly. They have nowhere to store essential documents – birth certificate, social security card, certification of military service, contact information for family, etc. – and therefore often lose these documents, and don’t have the resources to get them replaced, which further deprives them of resources needed for survival. They cannot sit in one place for very long – either the weather, a security guard or police will move them along. Most services for homeless people aren’t just providing charity, giving people toiletries or a meal or one night to sleep somewhere; they connect homeless people with resources and assistance to get them into more permanent housing. And while there are some approaches to treating people addicted to drugs that include providing a clean, safe space to use their drug of choice so that they do not overdose and are not using in public spaces (libraries, parks, bathrooms, public transport, etc.), there is no evidence that this creates more drug users or in any way discourages someone from seeking help with addiction.

Here are some good examples of web sites and online material debunk myths about homelessness or addiction in their respective communities:

Debunking the Myths of Homelessness, a resource about Santa Clara County, California (San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Cupertino – Silicon Valley)

FAQs and Myths, by the Coalition for the Homeless, with New York City-specific information

Myths and Questions About Homelessness, from the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, with Canada-specific information

Exploring Myths about Drug Abuse, By Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health – rebuts myths like “Drug addiction is voluntary behavior” and “You have to want drug treatment for it to be effective.”

Myths About Drug Abuse and Addiction, from the Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – rebuts myths like “People can’t force someone into treatment; if treatment is forced, it will fail.”

If the local nonprofits that serve the city and county where I live had fact-based rebuttals for these myths on their web site, and localized the information, people could share them, over and over and over, on their social media accounts, and refer people to them when they hear these myths at civic meetings, meetings of communities of faith, family dinners, etc. That information would, in turn, help change peoples minds about who is homeless, who is addicted to drugs and alcohol, what the most urgent needs of people who are homeless are, what works to address homelessness, what works to address addiction, etc.

But we can’t share such information, because the information isn’t there. And so, hostilities against homeless people and people with addiction issues grows and grows, and donations stay flat or even shrink.

It took me two hours to compile the aforementioned information. I reject any excuses an organization would offer for not doing this themselves.

By all means, if you want to share this blog to encourage nonprofits in your area to do a better job of communication, please do so. If you want to share this blog in a grant proposal to get more funding for your outreach efforts, please do so. But if you are a nonprofit organization that addresses homelessness or people who have an addiction and you also don’t want to start from scratch and develop your own information for your own web site, please do NOT link to this blog from your web site as a way to fulfill your education efforts – instead, I would prefer you cut and paste content from this blog and put it on your own web site – you don’t even have to credit me – but then make it a priority in the coming weeks to localize the information, with local statistics from your own organization and government agencies like your county health and human services, profiles of clients, links to local news articles that relate to these subjects, and more. There are volunteers that would LOVE to help you find the information you need – all you have to do is recruit them – local colleges and universities are a great place to start (faculty teaching health, social work or public administration topics would be an excellent source for recruiting students to do this).

Also see:

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.

Easy way to get a video made & posted re: your org

Leave a reply

You don’t have a video on YouTube, with a link on your own web site, that talks about how great your nonprofit is? Or a video that shows what volunteering is like at your organization or celebrating volunteers at your program? SHAME ON YOU! In this era of smart phones, there’s no excuses for not having such a video – or more than one!

Here’s how you can get such a video produced and online QUICKLY, with the help of volunteers.

First: make sure every volunteer, employee and consultant at your organization has signed a photo and video release form – examples of these are easy to find online. You want to have signed permission from all of your staff, always, to take video of photos of them and use them in promotional materials. It’s a good idea to require that any person sign these on their very first day of working at your organization. If you haven’t been doing this, then print several copies out and have volunteers sign them when they sign in for their next shift, when they attend an event, etc., and keep track of everyone who has and hasn’t signed. You will also need to have releases on hand for members of the public or clients to sign if you film them at your facilities. If anyone refuses to sign – and that is their right – you may not film them.

From among your current and previous volunteers, or through whatever volunteer recruitment tools you use (like VolunteerMatch, AllforGood, posts to your web site, posts to Facebook or other social media, etc.), recruit volunteers who will pair up during volunteering activities: one volunteer will do the actual task, as usual (this should be one of your veteran volunteers) and one will record the volunteer for a few moments doing the task with his or her smartphone (always landscape – hold the phone sideways!). Sound isn’t important. Each volunteer should try to get at least a full 60 seconds of footage.

So, for instance, at a nonprofit animal shelter, if you paired up volunteers, you would have raw video footage from various smart phones (they can all be different kinds) of:

  • a volunteer staffing the front desk and interacting with clients
  • volunteers interacting with animals
  • volunteers dealing with inventory
  • volunteers pouring dog food or cat food
  • a volunteer taking photos of new animals for your web site
  • etc.

Recruit a video editing volunteer who will gather all of the videos together in one place online, a place where staff at your organization can always access the raw footage in case this volunteer is unable to complete the task. For instance, all volunteers could be asked to upload their footage to a YouTube account set up specifically for this project, and for footage to be uploaded so that it is not public. If they don’t know how to upload footage, they could get guidance from someone at your organization the next time they are onsite at your organization.

Where to recruit a video editing volunteer? From your current volunteers (and have them ask their family members), previous volunteers, via a post on your web site which you link to from an announcement on your social media channels, via a video production class at the nearest high school, college or university, via employees at a large company where they have an in-house marketing staff, etc. What about asking the faculty of such a class to turn your video needs into a class assignment, with different teams of students each producing a video based on raw footage and then your voting on which you think is the best? Be sure to write a full description of what the volunteer video editor’s duties are, that you will include in all recruitment materials so expectations are clear.

This video editing volunteer will be charged with:

  • editing bits and pieces of the raw video into a 2 or 3 minute video
  • adding in copyright-free music (easy to find such via archive.org)
  • adding in titles and captions that say whatever it is you want to say about your organization and how great it is, perhaps also about why your volunteers are so wonderful and essential

The video editor presents the first draft of his or her work to appropriate staff and, once staff approves, up it goes onto your organization’s YouTube channel.

You could do something similar regarding interviewing clients to talk about how they have benefitted from your services, or talking to volunteers about why they enjoy volunteering, or talking to donors about why they donate money. For videos where people will be interviewed and sound during recordings IS important, recruit your video recording volunteers from a video production class at the nearest high school, college or university, via employees at a large company where they have an in-house marketing staff, etc. Be sure to write a full description of what the volunteer video recorder’s duties are, that you will include in all recruitment materials so expectations are clear. What about asking the faculty of such a class to turn your video needs into a class assignment? And, again, this person or team should put all of the raw video footage in one place online, a place where staff at your organization can always access the raw footage in case this volunteer is unable to complete the task.

For any video where words will be spoken, you will need to recruit a volunteer who will caption the video on YouTube. I have recruited online volunteers to do this for my short video projects for nonprofits via VolunteerMatch – recruitment of such a volunteer has always taken less than three days! Here’s more about recruiting volunteers to caption videos.

There is no excuse whatsoever for NOT having such videos about your organization’s work! And video editing is shockingly easy: I do it myself, self-taught, on my ancient Macintosh computer. Here’s a video I put together for Knowbility, a nonprofit in Austin, Texas, showcasing nonprofits it was working with in its OpenAIR program. I had video footage from various organizations, all remote to me (hundreds, even thousands, of miles from me) – none of the video was what I had shot myself. I also had some slides of information as visuals. I spliced it all together using the free video-editing tool that was on my ancient Mac, then laid in some music – something I’d never, ever done before – using copyright-free music I found on archive.org, and finally transcribing using the free captioning tool on YouTube. My video is not going to win any awards: my transitions between videos and “moments” arent’ very good – but I had just one day to do it, and the video was VERY effective at the event at which it was shown. Imagine what a volunteer who DOES have some video editing experience, with several days, could do for YOUR organization!

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.

Also see: