Please do NOT stay in your lane (walking the talk on mainstreaming)

Leave a reply

logoWe have a saying in English: Stay in your lane. It means “mind your own business” or “keep moving straight ahead and don’t veer over into other people’s affairs.”

Unfortunately, in the workplace, it’s a mentality frequently used to pass the buck and avoid activities we should be doing, to avoid thinking about things that, for whatever reason, we don’t want to. It’s a strategy to avoid mainstreaming.

This kind of thing happens to me a lot: in a meeting with a group or initiative, we start talking about marketing, public relations, etc., and I bring up that we need to consider that outreach will need to done to target a specific group among our stakeholders because our traditional outreach might not reach members of that group. And someone will say, “Oh, no, so-and-so is in charge of outreach to that group. We don’t need to talk about it.”

For instance, say I’m in a community advisory group regarding a public library, and when the library staff says to our group that they want advice from us regarding community outreach about a new story hour, I ask, “What do you think could be done to reach out to Spanish-speaking residents specifically and make sure they feel welcomed?”, and the response is, “Oh, the city has a diversity specialist and she handles all that. You don’t need to consider it. It’s her job.” Really? I shouldn’t, just as a human being, have a commitment to making sure everyone is welcomed at the public library? I shouldn’t have a commitment to being inclusive? It’s just one person’s job to do that? You are going to cede all discussion and action for outreach to a specialized population to just one person, rather than relying on that person for consultation and guidance as we consider ALL of our actions? You are going to let the community advisory group off the hook in considering minority populations in it outreach entirely?

The job of specialized committees or specialized roles isn’t to be responsible for absolutely all outreach or engagement of particular groups – women, Spanish-speaking residents, people with disabilities, etc. Certainly they will direct specialized outreach or engagement activities, but they are also meant to support ALL staff, regardless of their job titles, in taking those particular groups into consideration in their work. It’s called MAINSTREAMING – where staff get guidance for making considerations about a particular issue, but still feel empowered to take action.

Back in March 2009, I wrote a blog on a now-defunct platform where I noted that I am not a gender specialist, however, that I mainstream consideration of women and girls’ needs into my international and local community work:

if you say in a report, “the majority of the community expressed support for this project,” I’ll ask in my edits how many of the “majority” were women and how their feedback was gathered. If you draft a proposal for a public event or project, I’ll ask how women and girls will be targeted and accommodated to participate in it (as appropriate; maybe it’s specifically focused on men, and that’s okay, provided justification for such is detailed). If you say in your evaluation report that the community technology center is always full with young people using the computers and attending the workshops, I’ll ask what percentage of users were girls. I look for the gender breakdown for any references to community, participants, students, patients, attendees and leaders in reports, and if I don’t see it, I ask for it. I also let community field workers know that they have to systematically collect relevant data/information regarding women’s participation just as they collect overall information…

You shouldn’t have to be a gender specialist to mainstream women’s issues in your aid and development work. Why is the gender specialist the only staff person who goes to gender-related meetings outside the organization, for instance? Why is the gender specialist the only staff member who is asked to write a report about how women’s issues are being addresses by a project — as an annex to the main report written by someone else? To truly mainstream gender, shouldn’t a project manager who is not a gender specialist be at gender-focused trainings every now and again? Shouldn’t every staff member in a development organization have to show how he or she addresses the concerns of women and girls in their work, and if not, say explicitly why not? Shouldn’t every staff member be held accountable for what they do — or don’t do — to address the needs of women and girls in their aid and development work?

Let’s use another example: on any project I’m on, as a paid employee, consultant or unpaid volunteer, if anything comes up regarding a website, I am going to ask these questions: “Has the website been/will the website be designed so that it is accessible to people with disabilities or people using assistive technologies? If it hasn’t been, shouldn’t we have a commitment to doing that?”

There is rarely anything in my job description about advocating for people with disabilities. I have no written mandate to advocate for this issue. But I do, every time. Because I have mainstreamed web site accessiblity into my life. I don’t wait for a web accessibility expert to bring it up – I bring it up. I’m not a web accessibility expert any more than I’m a Latino outreach expert, yet, I bring these issues up, because I have a commitment to inclusiveness. And I will happily consult with the official disability rights advocate on staff in advocating for these issues – but I am going to advocate for these issues, regardless.

What drives people to want to pass off consideration of communications or engagement that will target particular audiences to one specialist, or one entirely separate committee, to do all of the work him, her or themselves?  Perhaps someone thinks, “I don’t want to step on any toes.” Perhaps they are scared of the issue, afraid they will say or do something that isn’t welcoming to that minority group or to women. Perhaps they really don’t understand cross-cutting issues or cross-cutting considerations – I met someone today who has worked in community relations for decades and had never heard the term cross-cutting issue.

Of course, this kind of “we shouldn’t talk about this at all – leave it to the specialist” approach can also be driven by a silo mentality of an outreach specialist or particular committee that does want to collaborate with other individuals in the same organization – they don’t want to empower, they want to control.

Let me be blunt: the gender specialist shouldn’t be the only one promoting women’s inclusion in an initiative or project. The diversity specialist shouldn’t be the only one promoting inclusion of Latino members in a city’s activities. A commitment to inclusiveness shouldn’t be one made only by one staff member or committee. Everyone making a commitment to inclusiveness – mainstreaming – doesn’t mean taking anything away from a specialist or a committee with a designated role regarding specialized outreach. It also doesn’t mean you have to become an expert. A comment from someone who wants to be inclusive, who wants to mainstream, can be as simple as this:

Hey, we’ve got this proposal in front of our committee about where to locate the new public pool. How will the city be informing our Spanish-speaking population about the possibilities and get their input?

That doesn’t mean your committee suddenly becomes experts in Latino affairs. Rather, it means you are bringing up an issue that needs to be addressed by someone.

Another example: a nonprofit wants to create a community technology center in a poor community, to give people experiencing extreme poverty access to critical information and communications they need online or via a phone. Any staff member should feel empowered, even encouraged, to say, “We need to make sure women feel welcomed and safe here. What resources can we access to make that happen?” Again, that staff member is probably not a gender specialist, but he or she has made a commitment to make sure gender issues are considered and addressed by someone.

 

The cost of my greatest weakness

2 Replies

logoIf you have ever been interviewed for a job, you are familiar with some version of the question “What’s your greatest weakness?”

My greatest weakness is the couch and a great day’s lineup on the classic movie channel here in the USA. But I know that’s not what someone in a job interview is wanting to know. Rather, they want to know what my greatest weakness is in the workplace.

Of course, so many people answer this question with, “I love to work! I’m a workaholic!” Spoiler alert: I don’t say that and saying it doesn’t make a person a good candidate. A workaholic is unhealthy for both employee and employer.

The reality is that “What’s your greatest weakness?” is a bad job interview question. All it does is make interviewees nervous and set them up for failure later. The potential hire is declaring to a potential employer, “Here’s what you need to be on the lookout for if you hire me!” And the employer WILL remember the declaration and be on the lookout for it – and probably be hypersensitive to any hint of a new employee showing it, in fact. Were it to be a truly fair question, everyone in the room would share their biggest weakness with each other, so the potential employee could decide if it’s the right office culture for him or her.

When I am interviewing candidates, I never ask that question. Instead, I ask “What frustrates you most in the workplace and how did you address it?” I’m not looking for a “Oh, nothing frustrates me, I love work!” answer. I’m not looking for a red flag either. What I’m trying to do is to see how self-aware someone is and trying to just get a feel for what kind of person they are. A red flag would be “I’m never frustrated in the workplace!”

But, with all that said, when I’m asked that “What’s your greatest weakness?” question in a job interview, I am honest. And my answer is this:

I ask a lot of questions and, often, this really frustrates my co-workers. 

When someone introduces a new project, or when I join an initiative, even one that I’m familiar with, I ask a lot of questions. I’m not trying to be critical and I’m not trying to play “gotcha” – I trying to understand an activity as completely as possible. I don’t just ask if something happens, but how it happens and who is responsible for different pieces of a project. The answers help me be clearer in my communications, help me know my own responsibilities and help me to be able to better support co-workers. It also keeps me from making a lot of mistakes that can hurt a project later.

Unfortunately for me, people often find my questions annoying. So many people see questions as criticism, even as a personal attack, especially if they cannot answer all of the questions. People starting new projects or people who haven’t introduced someone new to a project in a long while often haven’t thought about some of the issues I raise, and I think they feel called out when I ask my questions. People managing established projects are often shocked that I have questions, especially if it’s a project that has existed for several years. Again, I’m just trying to understand so that I can do the best job possible and prevent avoidable mistakes on my part.

In an effort to not seem critical, I often find myself prefacing my questions with apologies, something so many women do in order to try to head off any feelings that we’re “too aggressive.” Apologies I find myself making are statements like “I’m so sorry to bother everyone with this, but…” or “I’m sorry if the answer to this is already on your project web site but…” or “I hope everyone can be patient with me, but I don’t think I’m clear on some things…”  These kinds of self-depreciating apologies that women are conditioned to do are not something most men are conditioned to do. Women are conditioned to want to be liked and to assume responsibility for others’ feelings. Women apologize for being direct in an effort to somehow justify our questions, even our opinions. Professional women are told in so many ways: be assertive, but only if it doesn’t upset anyone else. It doesn’t matter how calm a woman remains, how civil a woman’s demeanor, how cool and collected she remains: it DOES hurt to ask when you’re female in the workplace.

Dr. Robert Alberti and Michael Emmons, authors of Your Perfect Right, provide a few questions to consider before choosing to be assertive, as quoted in the blog “Quit Being a Pushover: How to Be Assertive“:

  • How much does it matter to you?
  • Are you looking for a specific outcome or just to express yourself?
  • Are you looking for a positive outcome? Might asserting yourself make things worse?
  • Will you kick yourself if you don’t take action?
  • What are the probable consequences and realistic risks from your possible assertion?

Note that this blog is from the blog The Art of Manliness, not from an article to help women… the advice for women trying to be assertive is far, far different. Google it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

Still, I find these questions helpful to me. These qeustions have often kept me from asking a question I really wanted to, but didn’t, because the political cost will be too great. It hurts not only to bite my tongue, but weeks or months later, watch someone have to deal with something that could have been prevented, and perhaps my question could have prevented it – but I chose not to speak up because the consequences for me in terms of hostility or defensiveness by co-workers just wasn’t worth it.

The other frustrating thing I do in the work place is to take notes. Later, I sometimes refer to those notes when there is some disagreement on what was said or decided. Again, I’m not trying to be hurtful or critical but, rather, to be clear. And, to be honest, I’m often trying to cover my butt, as we say in American English. If I’ve done something wrong, I will absolutely take responsibility for it, but if I’ve been directed to do it that way – sorry, but I’m giving credit where it’s due. It’s not an easy strategy because no matter how diplomatically or gently I try to reference decisions from a previous meeting, my thorough note-taking does sometimes end up making people angry – they feel called out. And, let’s face it, who likes to be proven wrong?

Perhaps my weakness is that I like things explicit and transparent.

I offer this blog both as sympathy and encouragement to others like me, as well as a warning to potential employers of me. But before you shrink away in horror, I also ask this: wouldn’t you rather it was me, someone on your team, asking tough questions, rather than a potential funder or member of the press? Bridges are supposed to be stressed tested. Think of your project as the bridge and me the test…

Also see:

Frank description of what it’s like to work in communications in the UN

Nonprofits: volunteers can caption your YouTube videos

Leave a reply

I had never captioned videos ever until recently, and in the last eight weeks, I’ve captioned four, via YouTube’s free tool. My conclusion: there is NO reason that your organization’s videos should not be captioned. None. Zilch. Nada. If I can figure it out, anyone can.

Why caption your videos? So that people with hearing impairments will be able to experience your videos, because a lot of people that want to watch your video aren’t in an environment where they can politely listen to your video (for instance, at work in a cube farm, or someone in a coffee shop that forgot his or her headphones), and because you may want to use the narrative of a video or phrasing from such in other ways (speeches, grant proposals, etc.).

YouTube’s captioning tool can be used multiple ways:

  • from scratch, meaning a user can go through a video and type in what’s being said, easily syncing it to the sound
  • from an upload, meaning you upload the text from a script you used for the video, and then sync up the text to the sounds
  • and the way I do it: wait for YouTube to automatically transcribe the video, and then go through the text YouTube has generated and correct it (and have a big laugh over some of the way it has mistakenly interpreted what’s being said).

Here is the online document from Google, the owner of YouTube, telling you how automatic captioning works. There are lots of online tutorials that are really easy to find as well. One caution: If automatic captions are available, you’ll see Language (Automatic) in the “Published” section to the right of the video, but it may take several minutes to appear. I uploaded a video that was more than an hour long, and for 15 minutes, this automatic link didn’t appear, so I thought the video was too long. But after 15 minutes, it appeared. GIve YouTube at least 30 minutes after going to the captioning function for it to figure out your video text.

Examples of some of my videos that I have captioned myself:

Knowbility 2018 OpenAIR Kick Off Event (1:12:35) – in case you’re wondering, I edited this myself (down from more than two hours) and I start talking at about the 14:50. If you watch, notice how we integrated videos from other people into this onsite event, which was live-streamed.

Human rights, the digital divide & web accessibility (4:39)

Nonprofits, non-governmental organizations, community-focused government programs, schools, charities: GET YOUR YOUTUBE VIDEOS CAPTIONED. No excuses! If you don’t have time to do it, recruit online volunteers to do so. That’s going to mean giving an online volunteer your login and password for your YouTube account – if you are uncomfortable doing that, then require the volunteer to come onsite to your organization and provide him or her a computer or laptop at your agency to use, one where you login to your YouTube channel for the volunteer.

Also see:

Transcribe & Caption!

AccessU: three days accessible design courses

Leave a reply

Accessible online design – design that welcomes people with disabilities – is a part of addressing the digital divide and meaningful digital inclusion.

John Slatin AccessU is an interactive and communal conference where attendees learn everything needed to integrate accessibility into online products. Presented by the nonprofit Knowbility, AccessU provides methods and resources that can immediately be put to use by designers, developers, project managers, administrators, and anyone who is responsible for online content and development.

Classes at Knowbility’s AccessU include:
Accessibility 101: Beginner’s Basics, Annual Accessibility Legal Update, Accessible Office – Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Accessible PDF Documents, Accessible iOS Development, Building Accessibility into Design, Designing Accessible Forms and Tables, Mobile Accessibility, Accessible User Experience Design Studio, Practical Accessibility Testing Tools for Everyone, Usability Testing for People with Disabilities, and much more.

John Slatin AccessU
Mon, May 14, 2018 – Wed, May 16, 2018
Austin, Texas
https://knowbility.org/programs/accessu/

More than 49 million Americans have some type of disability. One in five people will experience a disability at some point in their lives, and those numbers are sure to increase as the population ages.

People with disabilities want to be able to learn online, to work, to buy things, to attend online classes, to volunteer, to donate and to contribute to their society just as everyone does. And just like other people, they want to use the Web and other online technologies to access information and network with others.

Also note that Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all services, programs, and activities provided to the public by State and local government. That has been interpreted by the courts to include online services and programs.

Also see:

If I can’t find what I’m looking for on your web site, who else can’t?

Leave a reply

I saw an online article about an initiative in Afghanistan and I immediately wanted to donate money to it. So I followed the directions in the article, went to the web site, and looked all over for the promised “donate” link.

It wasn’t there. I even used the “find” tool. Nada.

Test your web site to see if anyone coming onto the site can find what they might be looking for. This is a great test to be undertaken by new volunteers. You could get a group of volunteers to use their smartphones or laptops (you should have a mix of devices and browsers being used) to go to the home page and try to find:

  • your information on exactly what services or activities your organization provides. They should rate how easy it is to find and how easy it is to understand.
  • your organization’s physical address.
  • your hours of operation (if applicable).
  • the “donate” link, and if they do, to click on it and see if they find all the info they want to donate to your organization. They should rate how easy it was to find the information on how to donate and how easy it is to donate (you do allow for online donations, right?!?).
  • information on what a donation pays for. They should rate how easy it is to find this information (if they ever do).
  • the “volunteer” link, and if they do, to click on it and see if they find all the info they want to donate to your organization. They should rate how easy it was to find information on how to volunteer and on what volunteers do at your organization, on how easy it is to use your online application process (if you have such), etc.

Here’s another test: ask them what they think, based on looking at your web site, your organization’s attitude is regarding volunteers. They could rate, on a scale, what messages your web site information regarding volunteer engagement says:

  • We involve volunteers because we don’t have to pay them; they are cheaper than paying people.
  • We involve volunteers to do the work staff doesn’t want to do.
  • We offer a variety of opportunities for volunteers, in terms of the amount of time they have to commit, the nature of the service they will provide, where they will provide service (onsite, online, in the office, in the field, etc.).
  • We value our volunteers.

You also want to hear if the web site works well on desktops or laptops and smartphones.

You could have volunteers do this from their home, over a week, and have an online survey for them to fill out, or you could have volunteers come into your conference room for an hour, bringing their devices, serve them some cookies or pizza and have them do the testing and feedback together, in-person.

On a related note, someone from your organization should also see how easy it is to find your organization online at all. Go to Google and Bing (yes, do it on both), and search for:

  • the exact name of your organization. Is your organization’s web site the first in the search results? Does it come up at all on the first page of results? If it doesn’t come up at all, or doesn’t come up early, it’s probably because you don’t have the exact name of your organization on several pages, if not every page, of your web site. Make sure you have this full name on “about us” on your Facebook page as well.
  • the acronym of your organization and the name of your city. Is your organization’s web site the first in the search? Does it come up at all? If it doesn’t come up at all, or doesn’t come up early, it’s probably because you don’t have the acronym and the name of the city where you are on every page of your web site.  I’m stunned at how many nonprofit web sites I find that never say what city (or state) they are in nor what cities they work in.
  • the word volunteer and the name of your city, and, perhaps, a word related to your organization’s mission (children, arts, homeless, dance, teens, women, etc.). Does your organization come up at all in the results? If it doesn’t, or doesn’t come up early, it’s because you don’t have the word volunteer and the name on your city on various pages on your web site.

Also try to find your organization on Twitter, if your organization has a Twitter account. Use a variety of names and acronyms that people use for your organization in your searches. Can you find your organization’s account? If not, then it’s probably because of how you describe your account on Twitter. Your account description also should have the full name of your organization and your acronym – do NOT use your mission statement instead! If you use your mission statement instead of your organization’s name, then it probably won’t be found by people looking specifically for your organization on Twitter.

If you have room in your Twitter description, you can also put in keywords to help people find you. What keywords? It depends on what your organization does, or the target audience for your Twitter account. For instance, in my own, personal account, I use these keywords, because I want people that are interested in these subjects to be able to find me when they do a search for such:      , , ,  

In your Twitter description, if you have room, you might want to put the hashtag for your area, if you want people in that area to find you. For instance, if I wanted to target people in Portland, Oregon specifically, I would put in #PDX in my Twitter profile (instead, I put it in tweets that target people in Portland specifically). If I wanted people in Oregon who wanted to volunteer to find me easily on Twitter, I would put #volunteer and #Oregon in my profile (again, instead of doing that, I put those keywords in tweets that relate to that subject specifically).

You can apply these recommendations for Twitter to your YouTube channel as well, to increase the numbers of people viewing your organization’s videos (if you have such).

Altogether, these are things your nonprofit, charity, NGO, school, government agency or other community initiative can do in ONE day to immediately improve your Search Engine Optimization (SEO).

Also see:

Recognizing university sports players for their community service

Leave a reply

If you follow sports in the USA, then you have heard of all-star teams and all-conference teams –  but how about a Community Service Team honor?

The Southeastern Conference is a governing body for more than a dozen universities in the Southern USA: the University of Alabama, University of Arkansas, University of Auburn, University of Florida, Georgia, University of Kentucky, Louisiana State University, the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, University of Missouri, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee, Texas A&M University and Vanderbilt University. I just found out that, each year, the SEC chooses a “Community Service Team” of basketball players from among SEC schools – a men’s team and a women’s team. At a different time, they do the same regarding football. The honor goes to players in recognition of their off-the-court/off-the-field volunteering and community service activities. Like an all-conference team or an all-state team, the Community Service Team is a hypothetical team – the members won’t actually get together and play a game.

I’m from Kentucky, so I’ve grown up with SEC teams. The SEC Women’s Basketball Community Service Team for 2018 includes Makenzie Cann of Lawrenceburg, Kentucky and a junior at UK. She has volunteered more than 150 hours at the Lexington Humane Society working with the marketing and fundraising team, spent time building houses and a local park with Habitat for Humanity, visited with children at the UK Children’s Hospital and Breakfast with Santa program, has packed backpacks of food for local kids, has volunteered at several local elementary schools afterschool program and spent an afternoon at the local YMCA playing basketball with kids.

This year’s SEC Men’s Basketball Community Service Team includes Dillon Pulliam from Cynthiana, Kentucky and a sophomore at UK. He volunteered in a telethon to support victims of Hurricane Harvey, a food backpack program, a mission trip to Belize, as a counselor in the UK basketball camp and been a guest speaker at a local elementary school.

I wish these players got even half as much attention for this honor as for their university team winning the SEC conference tournament or the NCAA tournament!

Also see:

My favorite Super Bowl moment: NFL Man of the Year

Press relations tip from a person I loathe

Leave a reply

There is an activist that I loathe, a spokesperson for causes that go against everything I believe in. When I would hear or see him speak, my blood would boil. I’m not going to say his name because I do not want to give what he stands for any spotlight whatsoever.

Before he passed away, he was everywhere in the media here in the USA: in newspaper articles, in TV programs, on the radio. Some days, I saw him multiple times across networks. And I would seethe and wonder: why do reporters and producers call this man all the time to comment on, well, anything at all? Why do they give him so much attention?

At some point, I heard a press person be asked this very question. And he said something along these lines, “Because he will always, always return our calls, within minutes of our calling. He places a priority on talking to us. Whether it’s national network or a tiny newspaper in a small town, he always talks almost immediately to any press person that asks for an interview or comment.”

It immediately made me think of all the times I told the Executive Director of wherever I was working that some reporter was on the phone, or had emailed, and wanted an interview or comment, and the agency head telling me “I don’t have time” or “I don’t want to” or “Yeah, just give me the info, I’ll call” but she or he never did. I thought of how often I have had to BEG a senior staff member to do a requested interview, how I’ve offered to sit in on the interview and answer any questions the director may not know. And I thought about how, later, after not doing these interview requests, these same people will complain about lack of coverage from the press.

I worked at the Williamstown Theatre Festival for two summers, the second time as the head of publicity, both times pre-Internet, and I got a lot of compliments about how much press coverage I was able to land for the shows. Someone asked me for my “secret”. And it was easy to answer: I treated the press as my customers. I would knock myself to get them absolutely anything they needed, no matter how tight the deadline. I also made sure, before the interview with the famous person, that the reporter had everything about the upcoming show that person would be in, with the key information – what, when, where and how to buy tickets – right up front. Whether it was Entertainment Tonight, the entertainment reporters from CNN, or a tiny community newspaper in Vermont, everyone got immediate callbacks, everyone got complete info, everyone got some kind of access, even if it wasn’t precisely, exactly the access they wanted. And I have to give kudos to the two Executive Directors I worked under, first Nikos Psacharopoulos and then Peter Hunt, both of whom would do absolutely any interview with the press they were asked to do, no matter how crazed they were with final rehearsals, no matter the absolutely horrid mood they were in.

Sure, some reporters were still hostile and wrote the negative stories they had every intention of writing before they ever called me. But for the most part, I really enjoyed working with the media at Williamstown, and I think they really enjoyed working with me, because they saw me as on their side – and never knew all the many things I was hoping they wouldn’t find out about and want to do a story on… I remain grateful that digital cameras nor camera phones existed at that time.

I realize this was more than 20 years ago, but I think it’s still the key to getting press coverage: treating the press as customers and making calling them back quickly a priority. Also, keep sending those “old fashioned” press releases: I still use them for nonprofits I work with, and they still work in getting coverage – or, at least, a mention.

One more lesson: the man I loathed also always had a message, always had something to say. He knew what his central message was for whatever media moment was offered. Some speakers get that naturally, but very often, communications managers have to brief and prep someone before an interview regarding such a central message. Executive Directors: listen to your communications manager, meet with them, work with them, and craft that central message well! The payoff for doing so is enormous.

Also see:

        • Basic Press Outreach for Not-for-Profit and Public Sector Organizations
          Like fundraising, press relations is an ongoing cultivation process. These are basic, low-cost/no-cost things you can do to generate positive attention from the media.
        • Daily, Mandatory, Minimal Tasks for Nonprofits on Facebook & Twitter
          There are a lot of nonprofits using Facebook and Twitter just to post to press releases. And if that’s how your nonprofit, NGO or government agency is using social media, then your organization is missing out on most of the benefits you could gain from such. Facebook, Twitter and other social media are all about engagement. This is a list of must-do social media tasks – these tasks take minutes, not hours.
        • Outreach Via the Internet for Mission-Based Organizations
          It’s more than just putting up a Web site; it involves finding and posting to appropriate Internet discussion groups, sending emails to current and potential customers, using online social networking… it’s pro-active, interactive and ongoing. Here’s how.
        • Your initiative should exploit UN days
          International days, weeks, years and decades, as designated by the United Nations General Assembly, offer excellent outreach opportunities for nonprofit organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations, charities, government initiatives and other agencies focused on improving and enriching communities and individuals, as well as protecting the environment.
        • For Schools: You Should Be Using Social Media. Here’s How.
          This advice talks not only about exactly what your school should be posting to social media, but the consequences of not doing so, as well how to handle tough questions and criticism. It also links to legal advice.
        • Getting More Viewers for Your Organization’s Online Videos 
          Videos are a great way to represent your organization’s work, to show you make a difference, to promote a message or action that relates to your mission, etc. But just uploading a video isn’t enough to attract an audience. This page on my site offers specific steps that will get more views for your organization’s videos on YouTube.
        • Where Are Your Organization’s FAQs?
          Reporters love FAQs – frequently asked questions and their answers. Are yours on your web site?
        • Handling Online Criticism
          Online criticism of a nonprofit organization, even by its own supporters, is inevitable. It may be about an organization’s new logo or new mission statement, the lack of parking, or that the volunteer orientation being too long. It may be substantial questions regarding an organization’s business practices and perceived lack of transparency. How a nonprofit organization handles online criticism speaks volumes about that organization, for weeks, months, and maybe even years to come. There’s no way to avoid it, but there are ways to address criticism that can help an organization to be perceived as even more trustworthy and worth supporting.
        • Lessons for online outreach to nonprofits, NGOs & charities
          From working with the nonprofit Knowbility in 2017 & 2018.
        • Frank description of what it’s like to work in communications in the UN
        • My consulting services regarding communications and community engagement

A letter to ODOT

Leave a reply

Today, February 25, 2018, I submitted a letter to a letter to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) via the ODOT comment form.  I also submitted a copy to the city council of the town where I live, to my representative on the Portland Metro government, and to my state Senator and state Representative.

Here is what I wrote:

Like much of the Portland metro area, Forest Grove and Cornelius are going through rapid, massive development. Forest Grove alone is adding a significant number of apartment buildings, many along Highway 8. These new residents pouring into Forest Grove won’t drive everywhere they need to go: many will want to walk, to ride bicycles and to take mass transit to their destinations. Yet, to do those three activities on or across Highway 8 is treacherous, and with increased traffic, it is about to become even more so.

Highway 8, starting from Oak Street in Forest Grove to 26th Avenue in Cornelius, is NOT safe for pedestrians or bicyclists:
— speed limits go from 25 to 40 in different parts of this 2.3 mile stretch of road.
— several points along the road have no sidewalks at all.
— bicycle lanes are not protected
— there is no prominent signage reminding drivers of the very heavy pedestrian traffic crossing this street at the many intersections on this road

Making a road more appropriate and safer for bicyclists and pedestrians is often not a matter of more money but, rather a matter of spending priorities. I fear that, without ODOT making it a priority to drastically improve this stretch of road for pedestrians and bicyclists, there are going to be many tragedies in our future – beyond deaths that have already happened.

There is a plethora of free advice from a variety of organizations on how to make streets safer for people walking and riding bikes. Will ODOT make a commitment to the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists on this stretch of road, or will its priority continue to be getting as many cars as possible through the area as fast as possible?

If nonprofits were brutally honest with funders

Leave a reply

How will the community be transformed as a result of this grant? 

Hahahaha, that’s a good one! This grant is for $5,000! And people say funders don’t have a sense of humor! 5K will allow us to pay for six weeks of rent, which means we can stay open, and who knows what awesome stuff we’ll accomplish during those six weeks, am I right? Please add three zeroes if you really want to see transformation.

This is from a hilarious article from Nonprofit: Adorable Festive by Vu Le, Executive Director of Rainier Valley Corps, and is something every nonprofit, NGO and government program will have a hearty laugh about – it’s something every foundation and corporate philanthropy program manager should read as well.

Read it, have a laugh – and, seriously, think about how you could say some of these things diplomatically in a funding application. Because it needs to be said.

Also see:

International aid workers having sex with people in countries in crisis

3 Replies

I’ve written about the danger of sexual assault for women that work in aid and development, including PeaceCorps members (see the end of this blog for links). But, as I’ve researched, written and published these pieces, I’ve thought about women living in those developing countries, and how those local women are at even greater risk of sexual assault by the foreigners coming to their communities, either military, private enterprise or humanitarian workers. They are at MUCH greater risk, in fact. The Oxfam scandal reminds me that I’m overdue to focus on this.

If case you aren’t aware: earlier in February, The London Times reported that the U.K.-based agency Oxfam covered up an internal inquiry finding that the country director for the African country of Chad, Roland van Hauwermeiren, and members of his staff, had paid prostitutes in Chad for sex. Similar accusations emerged after van Hauwermeiren and his team were reassigned to Haiti following the devastating 2010 earthquake there. In an open letter responding to the allegations, van Hauwemeiren, a 68-year-old Dutch citizen, denied the allegations of sexual exploitation, saying he had “intimate relations” with a woman in Haiti during his tenure there, but that she was “not a prostitute. I never gave her money.”

Can local women in a developing country that has been devastated by war, corruption, natural disaster and/or poverty have consensual sex with foreign military members, business people or aid workers? Can a refugee? I say no. It’s impossible for someone in such a vulnerable position economically or socially to freely consent to sex with someone with that much power. 

About 20 years ago, there was an online community called the Aid Workers Network. I was one of the facilitators of that network, and we had some really incredible discussions about working in aid and development. It was through that network that I read an article about a humanitarian worker seeing his boss leaving a brothel, and it was the first time I had ever considered issues around aid workers and sex with local people – or even six with each other.

I’ve worked with international aid agencies since 2001, including in some developing countries, and in my briefings for working in those countries and with local people, people who are in highly-vulnerable positions because of their dire economic situation and because of the insecurity of their situation, I never once heard a caution about sexual relationships with local people, about power dynamics that many would say render it impossible to call a sexual relationship with a local woman and a foreign man “consensual.”

Sara Callaway, co-founder of Women of Colour Global Women’s Strike, noted in this article in The Guardian: “When women are starving and living in rubble, it is not prostitution. It is rape – what choice do women have?”

Other than on the now-defunct Aid Workers Network, I never once witnessed this as a topic of discussion among aid workers, including at the United Nations. I never felt that I was in a position of stability in terms of my job to dare to ask questions of human resources managers or anyone else, for that matter, regarding being on guard regarding sexual exploitation of local people by aid staff. I now so regret not asking the questions I wanted to, even if it would have jeopardized my career at the UN.

Here’s what I think needs to happen to keep local women safe and to change the culture at oh-so-many field offices regarding the safety of local women in their interactions with international staff:

  • Aid agencies MUST have written policies regarding international staff engaging in romantic or sexual relationships with local people or international staff that are subordinate to them, and these policies should be communicated when a person is hired and re-iterated regularly to ensure that no one can say, “Oh, I didn’t know!”
  • Visiting a prostitute in a developing country for sex, rather than as a part of official work with sex workers to ensure their basic rights, protect their health, etc., should be grounds for dismissal of international staff, as a violation of that agency’s written code of conduct. It should not matter if money was exchanged or not. Aid agencies cannot say they worry about the rights of women and then ignore that staff are visiting prostitutes for sex in developing countries. They must also consider what their policy will be regarding local male staff and their interactions with sex workers – this isn’t just about appropriateness; it’s also about abuse of power.
  • Aid agencies should publicly report how many accounts of sexual misconduct they investigate each year, the number of people dismissed each year for sexual harassment or abuse, and the processes they have for investigating and dealing with reports of sexual harassment or abuse. No need for names of people nor even of the countries where incidents happen – naming the countries where such happens could, in fact, endanger humanitarian workers in those countries.
  • Aid agencies should also say, in writing, publicly, if they are willing to rehire or reassign a staff member or contractor they suspect to have violated their policies regarding sexual misconduct or abuse, and what their policy is for providing a reference to such staff people regarding jobs at other agencies.

Oh, but what if an international aid worker truly falls in love with a local person? Then the aid worker can quit their job, get out of that power position, and get on a more level playing field with the love of their life.

There has never been a greater need for aid agencies. There has never been a greater need for foreign money to support those aid agencies. Aid agencies have prevented wars – no, not all of them, obviously. Aid agencies prevent genocides – no, not all of them, obviously. But without aid agencies, the amount of chaos happening in the world would be untenable. Aid agency scandals provide perfect scenarios for isolationists in government to cut foreign aid even further. Humanity, nor the environment, can survive without aid agencies – and they cannot survive if they do not address this very real, serious issue.

Related blogs: