Tag Archives: government

Me as a volunteer? More frustrated than ever.

Leave a reply

I’m a consultant regarding volunteer engagement (among other things). And one of the ways I keep my skills sharp and I keep learning and evolving, is by volunteering myself, both online and in traditional, face-to-face assignments.

In October 2011, I wrote a blog called How to get rid of volunteers, based on a really bad experience I had as a volunteer.

In February 2012, I wrote a blog called I’m a Frustrated Volunteer., based on more bad experiences as a volunteer.

In May 2018, I wrote a blog called Still trying to volunteer, still frustrated, based on even more bad experiences I’ve had as a volunteer.

And now, in 2021… I’m still here and still frustrated. The upside is that it helps me to keep creating what I think are practical, highly-relevant guidance for successfully engaging volunteers. The downside is… I don’t like being repeatedly frustrated, and it’s a reminder that volunteering is NOT always the uplifting, inspiring experience so many say it is.

I saw this meme and it hit so close to home regarding my own volunteering experiences in 2021 I almost burst into tears.

Never push a loyal person to the point where they no longer care.

When I express interest in volunteering with a nonprofit or program, I’m excited. I’m energized. I’m inspired. I’m highly motivated. I’m ready to help regarding a cause that I’m feeling strongly about. And very often, I’m hoping for a long-term experience. I’m hoping to volunteer for months, maybe even years, not just a few times. I’m hoping to enjoy myself.

Too often, I leave a volunteering experience that I’ve wanted to be a long-haul after a year or less, feeling overwhelmed, taken advantage of, ignored and/or under-appreciated. And I haven’t enjoyed myself. At all.

As I read the message in that image, I immediately thought not just about my own experiences as a volunteer, but also how many programs have lost fantastic volunteers because of not being clear about expectations, or changing those expectations, or asking too much of a volunteer’s time, or not welcoming and showing appreciation for a new, enthused, passionate volunteer, or otherwise “pushing.”

For this latest experience, I joined a county advisory board regarding the arts. It was a really nice experience the first year, though quarterly meetings were always in-person and held in places that were extremely difficult to get to via public transport (that’s how I get around weekdays, pre-COVID). The second year of my volunteering service was dominated by the global pandemic, and suddenly, we were allowed to do something our host organization assured us was absolutely impossible and not allowed: have meetings online. At the end of 2020, I was asked if I would consider being chair and thought, hey, what the heck, I should step up and do this for one year.

At my first meeting as chair, the bomb was dropped: our government host organization was dropping our board as a responsibility and we would move under the fiscal sponsorship of a nonprofit. At that first meeting, it was said several times, “Things won’t really be changing.” That proved to be a gross misstatement: my required time commitment skyrocketed as I realized a whole host of new processes would have to be researched, developed, proposed and voted on by the board members in a very, very tight timeframe. I went from meetings once a quarter to two or three times a month, and dozens of emails a week – sometimes dozens of emails in one day. Lots of steps in the transition hadn’t been identified by the previous host and the new host, and as I asked questions for clarification, more and more work to do got revealed. I was no longer a part of an advisory group; I was a full-fledged board member of a brand new nonprofit that the board had not asked to be a part of. And I was the chair. And that is NOT what I signed up for when I agreed to volunteer.

My passion wained quickly. My excitement evaporated. My energy and motivation have been squashed.

How did this happen? The people who created this substantial change:

  • did not consult with the volunteers who would be told to take on the responsibility.
  • were in denial that it was a substantial change.
  • have not taken a volunteer management 101 workshop or read any of Susan Ellis’ books.

Yes, I’m still a frustrated volunteer. I still haven’t found a volunteering experience since returning to the USA that’s been what I’m looking for. I still haven’t really had fun volunteering since 2009. But I’m so happy to have yet another experience that will help me as a consultant regarding volunteer management.

Other blogs inspired by my volunteering:

If you have benefited from this blog or other parts of my web site or my YouTube videos 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. 

Hearing Directly from Programs Involving Online Volunteers

Leave a reply

On Wednesday, December 2, 2020, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hosted a webinar on “Virtual Volunteerism.” The purpose of the webinar was to illustrate how broadband allows volunteers in a variety of regions to engage in substantial, high-impact virtual volunteering activities. The webinar presented a panel of representatives from virtual volunteering initiatives – nonprofits that have programs that involve online volunteers primarily, rather than traditional programs that added an online volunteering component (a screen capture of participants is above). I was pleased to have been called on by the FCC to make recommendations about programs they could feature in this webinar, some of which are profiled in The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook.

The webinar featured representatives from:

The webinar was facilitated by David Savolaine from the Consumer Affairs and Outreach Division, who contacted me for references for presenters, and Eduard Bartholme, FCC Associate Chief in the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

The webinar panelists talked mostly about the specifics of how their initiatives involve online volunteers (the exact roles that volunteers undertake), how those volunteers are supported and how those volunteers are central to their initiative’s online program delivery and mission.

It’s rare that there is a presentation on virtual volunteering where audiences get to hear directly, at length, from organizations that are engaging online volunteers. Most presentations on virtual volunteering are by people like me – researchers and consultants about the practice – or by people from the corporate sector either bragging about their employees that volunteer online in a program they designed or that have launched yet another web-based platform to recruit online volunteers. There’s no better place to learn about factors for success in engaging volunteers online than by talking to the nonprofits and NGOs engaging such volunteers – which is why The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook quotes extensively a variety of organizations that involve online volunteers, to illustrate how the recommendations in the book are put into practice.

The panelists talked about the makeup of their online volunteers (quite diverse), the personal, substantial relationships online volunteers have with clients and each other (something I devoted an entire video to on YouTube), and what’s key to success in supporting the volunteers to ensure they are successful – keys that are detailed in The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook. I’ll summarize them below:

Recruitment

When asked how they recruit people to volunteer with their initiatives, all of the panelists said they don’t actively recruit – instead, volunteers find them. Be My Eyes noted that they had 10,000 people sign up to volunteer within the first 24 hours of their launch – far more than they have opportunities for. The representative from Be My Eyes noted, “The key is people having a great experience and they tell their friends about it. We haven’t spent any money on marketing on anything like that.” Infinite Family and Open Street Maps affirmed that volunteers having a great experience and telling their friends is key for not having to actively recruit volunteers.

Per the disproportionate number of roles and assignments for online volunteers versus demand that so manhy virtual volunteering initiatives report, Naoual Driouich in the United Nations Volunteers New York office said, “For the volunteers, I will say to be patient and to continue applying for opportunities, not to give up, even if the opportunity closes, even if there is a waiting list. Just continue looking for opportunities.”

It’s worth noting that in my four years of managing the Virtual Volunteering Project and the four years managing the UN’s Online Volunteering service, those programs were never marketed to people to encourage them to volunteer online – instead, we marketed exclusively to programs to host online volunteers. And, yet, there was always, always, far more people contacting me that wanted to volunteer than there were roles and tasks for them to do.

Make the experience collaborative

Mikel Maron of the Open Street Map Foundation noted a key to ensuring sustainability of a program that I would love to write an entire blog about, and it would make a great research topic to see how this works at other organizations:

I think opening up the opportunity to your volunteers to create with you and to figure out what you’re doing together is really an amazing way to build something, to build a platform. It takes some humility because you don’t know everything, but the result can be – if you can find a way of gathering together and figuring out things together its amazing, and it created more dedicated volunteers if they really have a stake, not just in what they do, but how they do it.

Amy Stokes, Infinite Family, agreed:

I think we’re all learning together, certainly we are in our organization.

Support Volunteers

Infinite Family is an international online mentoring program, which brings together adult mentors in the USA together with students in South Africa, via a special platform the organization uses for interactions. Amy Stokes of Infinite Family noted in the webinar,

One of the things that we found that is really important is (providing) ongoing support for the volunteers throughout the relationship. We have an on-call site all the time (to help with) stressful situations tech problems, whatever. Volunteers know there’s always somebody there to help with ongoing challenges.

She noted that volunteers are all using different tools to access Infinite Family’s tools and resources – they are using different browsers and different operating systems – and so the nonprofit has tried to create a platform that will work across these systems – and it doesn’t always.

The interaction between the browser, the operating system, the application, whatever your ISP is doing that day – all of a sudden, something that worked a week ago beautifully won’t work at all. Sometimes, tech companies don’t put out notes to say, ‘Oh, we’re going to do this and it might affect the rest of your system.’ And so, sometimes, a volunteer reaches out and says ‘What is going wrong?’ It might not work today, they might not be doing anything wrong. We find that it helps if we tell them upfront, at the very beginning, ‘You know, this is a tech thing. You’re probably used to everything working in your world and you can control it. But now you’re working in a lot of other worlds at the same time, and we can’t control all of those things…’ I mean, how many times do you log in at the last minute to do something and the app pops up and says, ‘Oh, no, you’ve got to change your password. Or, Oh, no, you’ve got to upgrade, please download.’ You just have to build in a kind of flexibility.

Ashley Womble of Crisis Text Hotline also talked about the importance of support to volunteers when you are asking them to use a custom online tool:

We teach as part of our training how to use our platform. We don’t expect crisis counselors and volunteers to come to us knowing how to use our platform at all. We built it and we have to train them… certainly, we can’t know whenever people are going to have Internet issues, but we do help in the beginning (with training) and that reduces a lot of the stress.

A diversity of people and experiences

Mikel Maron of the Open Street Map Foundation noted the importance of remembering that every place in the world is not the same when you are dealing with online volunteers that are in other regions, especially in other countries.

I spent a lot of time working in Kenya and it looked very different to volunteer in a place where you may also have a struggle to make ends meet day-to-day. But people (from those places) also want to contribute.

So Open Street Map has to help support those online contributors. “How do you testify what a road is in rural Kenya versus the middle of London?” He says that organizations need to consider how different people from different places communicate online.

We’re a global project and even if you all speak English… there’s just a lot of assumptions about our communications and we miscommunicate all the time…. Within Open Street Map that just means we’re constantly on our toes and learning about how we can connect to others. On the flip side, it’s amazing we get to connect with others through what we do. We learn so much about other places and other people and really build rich relationships with people on the other side of the world and around the corner.

Crisis Text Line had a unique approach:

We’re also gamefied our program a little bit. Based on the number of conversations people have, they get to a certain level, and people want to work up the ladder so they can unlock different perks, as you might in a video game. That’s worked really well for us. I know I’m personally very proud that I’m a level four, and I can’t wait to become a level fie, and I’ll be spending more time myself volunteering in the organization.

Final advice

Naoual Driouich in the United Nations Volunteers New York office had this advice for organizations that want to involve online volunteers, and I think she’s absolutely correct:

Please put yourselves in the shoes of the online volunteer when you put together the opportunity. Make sure it is complete and straight forward.

I absolutely agree. When host organizations put themselves into the shoes of volunteers, thinking, “What would I need to be able to do this assignment if I was not already a part of this organization? What would I need to be successful?” they end up instituting the support volunteers need.

It was a terrific learning experience, and if you missed it, here’s the full information about the webinar and here is the recorded webinar on YouTube. Congrats to the FCC on an excellent webinar.

cover of Virtual Volunteering book with hands raising up various Internet connected devices

As noted earlier, some of these initiatives, and all of what they noted was essential to success, are profiled or detailed in The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook. The book, available as an online book and in traditional print form, offers much more detailed advice on creating assignments for online volunteers, for working with online volunteers, for using the Internet to support and involve ALL volunteers, including volunteers that provide service onsite, and for ensuring success in virtual volunteering. It also talks about policies and procedures, such as how developing written agreements to be signed by both online volunteers and their host organization (page 66) can prevent problems down the road, not only regarding ownership and use of what an online volunteer create, including web sites and code, but also regarding confidentiality and privacy in using of the volunteer’s information, including images of them, regarding confidentiality regarding the organization and the information the volunteer has access to, particularly client information, regarding how the online volunteer should represent his or her association with the program online (in emails, on social media, on LinkedIn, etc.), and liability regarding malware.


Too much text on the web? Bollocks

Leave a reply

I have always believed content drives design for any communications product, from a paper brochure to a website. What good is a supposedly “well designed” or “eye-catching” poster, billboard, flyer, manual or website if it doesn’t get the result you want – and the result is not just people looking at it and saying, “Oh, what a lovely design,” but what they DO and how they THINK after experiencing that product.

I will never forget being handed a company brochure at a nonprofit where I had just started and being told, “It won a design award!” I looked it over and said, “The text is too small for someone who needs glasses to read and dark green text on a light green background makes it really hard for ME to read as well.” I didn’t last long at that job…

Then there was the designer who so proudly presented me with his design for an upcoming event, and it was beautiful, but it was missing the date, the time and the location of the event, and it implied the event would be something that it wasn’t. But, hey, it was pretty! He was crushed when I told him he had to add the necessary info. “But… it ruins the design…” he sighed…

And then there was the nonprofit that decided it wanted to delete at least half the text off of its web site. It did so, resulting in an onslaught of email from people asking for more information, and me having to constantly cut and paste, over and over, the information that used to be on the web site.

My attitude about text – about the importance of clarity and completeness over just brevity for brevity’s sake – puts me at odds with many a designer. But it recently put me at odds with people who believe “too much text intimidates young people” and, therefore, you should cut down on the number of pages on your web site.

Bollocks.

Yes, I get it – most people don’t read everything on a web site. That has ALWAYS been true. I have always known people don’t go to a website and read it like a book – they go to a website, read the home page, and if they are enticed, or in need of certain information, they click on something and read more.

What’s great about the web is that you can create a site that appeals to BOTH of those groups of information consumers, those who just need a bit of info, and those who want to dive deeper.

Also, people often go to a web site not as a fresh, new visitor who need something shiny waved at them to be intrigued – there are those that go to a web site looking for specific details. They may be a current volunteer who wants to get clarification regarding the purpose of your organization’s community engagement. They may be someone who wants to understand more about why the issue your nonprofit addresses exists at all. They may be someone who is doing a reference check on someone claiming to be on your board. It may be a CURRENT STAFF MEMBER who wants to stay on brand/message, and to do that, needs to know what the official wording is regarding some program or practice.

How many times have I joined an organization as a new employee or consultant and my only source for vital historical information I need is the organization’s web site? And how many times has the organization not had that vital information on their new, shiny, modern, streamlined website, so I have to go find it on an old version of their site on the Internet Wayback Machine?

Absolutely, when someone opens a web page, they shouldn’t feel overwhelmed. Some are overwhelmed by lots of text. I’m overwhelmed by lots of photos – because I rarely go to a web site for photos, I go for information, and I feel like I’m lost in a sea of images and I search for real, actual information I need.

The philosophy is to put JUST enough information on a web page to get people to sign up for an event, put JUST enough to get people to buy a ticket. I get that. And, certainly, for landing pages, it’s a good philosophy. But there are many users who are going to need more information. So why not have a link to more information so people like me, who are NOT going to buy that ticket or sign up to volunteer based on just a paragraph or two, can dive deeper? Believe me, there is PLENTY of room on your web site for that additional information. There is plenty of room on the web for more web pages.

One last note: I have once again been in a position to create tasks for volunteers and then to recruit and involve volunteers in those positions. I tried the less-is-more for role descriptions – and ended up with an endless number of questions from volunteers, asking for all those details I was leaving out of my pithy recruitment posts. Lesson learned: I went back to long-form.

If you have benefited from this blog, my other blogs, 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. 

Volunteering to help national public lands cleanup after shutdown

Leave a reply

Updated February 1, 2019, at the bottom of the blog entry:

The House and Senate have passed a bill to reopen the government until February 15, and the President is expected to sign it – it may be signed by the time this blog is published.

The impact of the shut down on US public lands – national parks, national forests, national monuments and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land – is still being assessed, but we already know, per numerous press reports and social media reports by visitors, that it’s been bad: trash, graffiti, plant destruction, trail destruction and more.

Official groups that volunteer on US public lands have all been somewhat or entirely inactive as well during the shutdown because they are under the auspices of official partnerships with federal offices, and their liaisons have all been out during the shutdown. Many have been making plans during the shutdown on what to do immediately when the shutdown ends, and many will be starting activities ASAP to address the damage that’s been done to national public lands.

If you want to help volunteer in the next two weeks in particular to address the damage on US public lands during the shutdown, look for “Friends of…” groups that support specific national parks, national forests, etc. You can find these using Google, Bing and Facebook. Check their social media accounts for updates on what their immediate volunteering activities will be and apply to volunteer via their web sites. If they don’t have a way to fill out an application on their web site, email them and ask how you can become a part of their efforts.

These groups do not provide transportation to the public lands they support, nor do they provide accommodations – that means if, say, you want to help at the Grand Canyon, you have to get yourself to the Grand Canyon, find and pay for a hotel or motel room somewhere, etc., all paid for by you. If you decide you want to join in on these volunteering efforts, you need to be prepared to be self-funded and get to wherever the group wants you to be on your own.

You also need to apply to become an official volunteer with any volunteering group you want to help – don’t just show up at the gates of a national park, national forest, etc., and say, “Here I am!” These groups have information on their web sites on how they do this. You may want to apply to volunteer with more than one group – I have no idea if they are getting lots of applications or very few, nor any idea if you will get a quick response, or any response at all.

These groups could all be shut down again on Feb. 15, if no more permanent legislation is passed.

Also, remember that these groups need help year-round – when there’s not a shutdown happening. Many would welcome your support running their gift shops (which raise money for their efforts), building and restoring trails, leading groups and more.

Update: I curated tweets sent by various people and organizations about #volunteers helping on public lands – national parks, forests, monuments, BLM land, etc. – during the 2018-2019 US Federal government #shutdown. The tweets have a lot of links to news articles. I’ve posted this list of curated tweets to Wakelet.

One of the social messages that went viral during this shutdown was a video of a group of spontaneous, unaffiliated community volunteers being told they had to stop cleaning up in the Shiloh National Military Park in Tennessee. Again: official groups that volunteer on US public lands had to be inactive during the shutdown because they are under the auspices of official partnerships with federal offices, and their liaisons were all out during the shutdown. The park worker or law enforcement person or whoever it is in the video did a very poor job of trying to say this in explaining why the people had to stop trying to clean up the park, and his explanation left these community members confused and angry. What he should have said was this:

Thank you. I know you all really care about this park and it’s bothering you to see trash and other debris laying around. These are public lands, your lands, and of course, you feel like you want to clean them up. However, even when the government isn’t shut down, even when there is staff in the parks, people cannot just show up at the park and “volunteer” here. We don’t allow people to spontaneously volunteer, without any formal affiliation with our park, because of liability risks and because of the risk, however small, that unsupervised volunteers will do damage. I so appreciate what you are doing, but park policy says you need to stop. Here is the name of the person you can call the day after the shutdown stops so that your group can volunteer.

Of course, if you’ve watched the video, based on the logic used by the worker, all those unaffiliated volunteers had to do was say, “Oh, we’re not volunteers. I’m an individual citizen enjoying the park and this is how I choose to enjoy it.”  They might have gotten away with it.

Sadly, there have been cases where even “official” volunteers on public lands have caused damage. For instance, 30 miles of dirt trails and primitive roads in Deschutes National Forest in Oregon were deliberately wrecked in 2014 by unsupervised volunteers who were supposed to be doing necessary, environmentally-appropriate trail maintenance. They caused more than $200,000 in damage.

Also see:

Governments cracking down on nonprofits & NGOs

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SIGAR report notes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Conduct a new sustainability analysis for the program.

Here’s some tips regarding number 2:

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

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

Also see:

17 year old successfully fundraises, learns lifetime lesson

Leave a reply

A colleague’s question reminded me of when I got my first grant. It was a government grant. I was 17 years old and in high school – it was the late 1980s. My best friend and I formed a theater group with friends to produce a children’s play for the community. We bought the rights to the play, cast the show, rehearsed and looked into booking the high school auditorium for an evening. Then we presented a scene one night to the arts council in my hometown in Kentucky – the council acted on behalf of the city to make grants – so we could rent costumes and pay other fees.

We got the money! I was stunned! We were “just kids”! Was this government agency REALLY going to give us money, even just a few hundred dollars? Later, I learned that the council had been blown away by how organized our group of teens were – not only asking for money, but knowing exactly how much was needed and proving we were capable of pulling of the production. They were particularly impressed because, before we went into the meeting room, another arts nonprofit, one run by adults, had walked in and said, “We need money.” No documentation, no formal proposal, no budget, no list of how the money would be used – just a demand for support.

I have never forgotten that early lesson in making a proposal for support. We had no experience doing anything like this, but my co-founder – who went on to make The Blair Witch Project – thought carefully about how to sell our idea, to make it look worth funding. I thought it was audacious and doomed to failure – and I was wrong. In fact, our production was so successful that, the next summer, my co-founder and I produced another play for community children, one we co-wrote, this time in the central park.

Since then, I have never had any hesitation in writing a funding proposal or talking to any foundation, corporation or government agency about why a nonprofit I’m working with deserves support.

The name of our company, by the way, was the Henderson Audubon Repertory Company – HARC. Our first production was The Prince Who Wouldn’t Talk. There were three wizard characters in the show – I played all of them.

Also see:

Disaster Crowdsourcing Event – FEMA’s Disaster Hackathon

Leave a reply

Disaster Crowdsourcing Event – FEMA’s Disaster Hackathon
Sat, Oct. 21, 2017, 10 AM – 5 PM Eastern USA time
Washington, DC. and virtually

“Learn about FEMA’s current crowdsourcing coordination efforts, participate in building new projects, experiment with new tools, and shape the future of crowdsourcing in emergency management. If you are not in DC or cannot come in person, sign up to volunteer remotely. All skill levels and backgrounds are welcome, you don’t need to be a coder to participate in this Hackathon! Just bring a laptop!”

Sign up to participate onsite, or online, here.

Yes, I’ve signed up to participate remotely!
FEMA flyer

How Will Trump Presidency Affect Humanitarian Aid & Development?

Leave a reply

Note: since this blog’s publication in November, I’ve been adding how Trump’s presidency actually is affecting humanitarian aid & development:

How will the Trump Presidency affect humanitarian aid and development policy and practice?

And how will it affect humanitarian aid and development workers from the USA?

Effects on the work

2015-07-21-SDGsAid and development efforts in the last 10 years have made amazing strides in terms of addressing issues that make many people, even a majority of people, very uncomfortable, even angry. It’s oh-so-popular to put in a well for drinking water or to build a school for young children or to provide maternal health care, but it’s rarely as popular in those same communities to encourage women to demand their sexual partners to use a condom to prevent HIV/AIDS, or to suggest a plan for providing housing and other help for refugees from other countries. Women’s equal rights to education, life choices, roles in society and employment are now unquestioned in the policies of most international development agencies, including the United Nations, something I wasn’t expecting when I started working internationally. Honestly, I fully expected some kind of “out” in UN policy documents to allow local people to refuse rights for women, if the refusal was based on religious or cultural grounds. But the UN has stood firm, at least officially. Yes, the UN and other aid agencies absolutely look for accommodation within local cultural and religious practices, they absolutely encourage recognition of local values, and that may mean your meeting with a local village is segregated, with all the men in one place, and all the women in another. It requires very delicate maneuvering at times, but the core policy and priority regarding women’s rights, and other rights, does not change.

Reaching women in socially-conservative areas, like Afghanistan, can be an incredible challenge, as you navigate a culture that does not want women in public and is easily angered if they perceive an attack on their religion. And just because local senior staff are singing the praises of gender mainstreaming doesn’t mean the staff they supervise has bought in. But, as an aid worker, you have to find a way. It is your mandate. You find a workaround. Because you know that full civil rights for all people is the only way a country can prosper and become resilient to corruption, crime, and armed civil unrest, and when civil rights for any residents are curbed, officially or by widespread cultural practice, the entire country suffers, and your aid and humanitarian efforts will ultimately fail.

Something that shocks a lot of people is that the UN has a human rights mandate that includes rights for people that are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ). The United Nations Free & Equal initiative is on Twitter (@free_equal) and on Facebook. It is an initiative of the Office of the High Commissioner for United Nations Human Rights. There is this video from the UN Secretary General in support of the Free & Equal initiative. I was stunned, and thrilled, to find this out a while back. It’s a daring position, given the majority attitudes about LGBTQ people throughout the world, including right here in the USA. In promoting equality and human rights, it’s a great comfort to know that a major international development agency has your back, policy wise.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a government agency, also has the  LGBT Global Development Partnership. It was put into the planning and formation stages by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then launched in April 2013 under the tenure of Secretary of State John Kerry. The initiative works to strengthen the capacity of local LGBTQ leaders and civil society organizations in developing countries and to enable the economic empowerment of LGBTQ people in those countries through enhanced entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprise development.

The UN and USAID initiatives in support of LGBTQ people are in response to the violence, economic hardship, stigma and political marginalization that are a daily fact of life for millions of LGBTQ people throughout the world. These people experience a lack of employment opportunities, discrimination in access to health care, housing and education and violations of their civil rights regularly because of their sexual preference. 83 countries and territories currently criminalize LGBTQ behavior or identification, and at least eight have laws allowing the imposition of the death penalty for same-sex relations. These USAID and UN initiatives are desperately needed, as are women’s empowerment initiatives. As are initiatives to help refugees. As are initiatives to help religious minorities. As are initiatives to help people with disabilities. And on and on.

But now, the USA elections of 2016 show that the majority of people in the USA support politicians dedicated to eliminating the civil rights gained by LDBTQ people in the USA over the last five years. Donald Trump is on the record as planning to create a militarized deportation force to remove 11 million undocumented immigrants from the USA, to ban the entry of Muslims into the USA and aggressively surveil any Muslim already here, to punish women for accessing abortion once he makes it illegal with the help of his Supreme Court appointees and Congress, and to change our nation’s libel laws and to restrict freedom of expression and freedom of the press. He talks about fully militarizing and otherwise empowering police to enforce “law and order” regarding Black and Latino Americans and other racial minorities in their own communities. He has said climate change is a “hoax” and that he will eliminate all government programs that address such. He promotes myths about vaccine safety. International programs that run contrary to these soon-to-be official policy positions in the USA, that run contrary to the values of many millions of Americans who support this administration, are now in severe danger of being eliminated as well.

Even if all of these initiatives are, miraculously, not cut by the Trump administration, they will be much, much harder to deliver in years to come by aid and development workers. Why? Because any local person can look an American aid worker right in the eye and say, “Why are you promoting something – freedom of the press, rights for immigrants, rights for gay people, reducing car emissions, reducing green house gases, increasing wind and solar energy, vaccines for children – that most people in your own country do not support?” Any person can say, “Your own President mocks powerful public women, and brags of sexually assaulting them. Why is it wrong that men in my country are doing the same as him?” People in developing countries intensely watch what happens in the USA, and they are always on the lookout for hypocrisy, for the USA demanding something of another country that it does not do itself. That a majority of American voters support a political party and government lead by a man who promotes nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny and racism will fuel these movements in other countries, resulting in pushback against humanitarian aid and development workers’ efforts for the rights of women, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, the rights of LGBTQ people, the rights of immigrants and refugees, and on and on.

US development policy can—and has—lifted millions out of poverty and social exclusion, and played a role in transforming countries for the better and creating peace and prosperity where it would not be otherwise. Travel the world, talk to people, you hear the stories over and over, in Africa, in Eastern Europe, and even in Afghanistan, by people that have experienced this transformation first hand. Yes, there is still vast amounts of work to do, and many gains are fragile, but that lives have improved and business has flourished because of USAID and similar efforts simply cannot be denied. These programs not only benefit local people in their everyday lives; they also create social and economic stability that, in turn, creates a market for USA-made products and reduces the need for American military action. A lot of support for USAID and other development agencies comes from a motivation for growing the USA’s markets overseas rather than any feeling of compassion – and I’m okay with that, because such investment still helps local people, which is MY motivation. Weak or failed states are havens for armed criminal groups, some motivated by religion but most motivated by greed, and these groups not only keep their home country in chaos, they also destabilize neighboring countries. Human freedoms in such countries are at risk – and so are their economies, and all the economies attached to such. And that includes the USA. Natural disasters, including pandemics, also destabilize countries – which, in turn, threatens surrounding countries – and ultimately threatens the USA.

Nancy Birdsall and Ben Leo wrote in White House and the World:

Gender discrimination, corruption, lack of opportunity, and repressive governments in many parts of the developing world are an affront to universal values. America is often the only actor capable of marshaling the resources, political capital, and technical know-how required to address these tough issues.

In addition to security threats, the US economy and the American workforce are more reliant than ever on developing-country markets. US exports to developing countries have grown by more than 400 percent over the last 20 years. Today, they total more than $600 billion annually and are greater than US exports to China, Europe, and Japan combined. Brazil, Colombia, India, Korea, Malaysia, Turkey, and other countries are leading markets for US exports. Three decades ago, these were relatively poor countries that offered limited US export potential. Populous countries like Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Nigeria have the potential to be the next wave of emerging markets. It makes strategic sense to further advance America’s global prosperity agenda, thereby helping to grow middle-class societies that drive democratic change, promote peace with their neighbors, and reliably purchase US products and services.

Even if what happened far away didn’t affect the USA, I would still want to help – that’s who I am – but the reality is that even neo-liberals have acknowledged this reality, hence why even Republican Presidents in the USA in the last three decades, until now, have supported the idea of a global economy and foreign aid.

(for USA-based readers, particularly Trump supporters – the term neo-liberal doesn’t mean left wing. In the rest of the word, the word liberal means someone who believes unfettered free market capitalism is the best economic and social policy for the world – in the USA, we call those people libertarians or Republicans).

Effects on aid workers

Trump has said he will reauthorize waterboarding and other forms of torture. This, coupled with his stated attitudes about Muslims, immigrants and refugees from Syria, has the potential to put workers in aid and development from the USA, working abroad, in further danger than they already face. It is yet another thing people from the USA working in humanitarian aid and development must consider, must be mindful of as they are offered posts abroad, and must think about as they navigate another country’s landscape.

Distancing yourself from these policies and statements on social media, including Facebook, might adversely affect your employability with USAID and international agencies that receive funding from the US government during the Trump President and Republic control of the federal government, however, such posts could also help you in your work with people from other countries, people angered and further disempowered by Trump’s foreign policy. That doesn’t mean you post anti-Trump memes on Instagram or are ever have to say publicly who you voted for. It could mean posting sometimes on social media of your support of and concern for Muslim Americans, Syrian refugees, people in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Occupied Palestinian territories, human rights for immigrants, etc., and your condemnation of waterboarding, torture and any violations of human rights.

It was already difficult for female aid workers to complain about sexual harassment on the job; when I complained about such 10 years ago, while doing field work, I was told by a UN HR manager, “Well, you just have to ignore it and not let it bother you. If you can’t, you can always quit.” That’s the usual response, I quickly learned when talking to colleagues. But now, women aid workers from the USA are going to be at even greater risk of sexual harassment and assault because of the Trump presidency. The incoming President has, by his statements and behavior, made it acceptable for anyone, including politicians and other government representatives, to rate women by their looks and to insult women reporters, politicians, artists and celebrities with most vile statements about their character, appearance – even their sexuality. His bragging about sexual assault also normalizes such behavior in the minds of many men, in the USA and abroad. Megyn Kelly, a reporter for the politically right-wing Fox News channel, noted to Trump during a Presidential debate she moderated: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.” Imagine a female aid worker having such comments directed at her by men she is working with, and when she says these comments are inappropriate, is told, “But it’s what your own President says!” It will be hard to demand such comments stop when the head of the most power country on Earth is saying the same.

For male aid workers in particular, repeated statements on social media and as a part of your aid and development work in support of women’s equal rights and respect for women, as well as condemnations of sexual harassment and assault, can help counter the dangerous narrative being established about acceptable treatment of women. More than ever, your female colleagues need you to speak up when you hear people you are working with joking about sexual assault or women’s behavior.

Final thoughts for now

It’s all quite dire, I know. But it’s based on what Trump and GOP members of the House and Senate have said and promised, and therefore, it must be considered as really happening. Organizations and governments abroad that have counted on support from UN and USAID need to think about what they will do if that support vanishes, both the financial support and the rhetorical support. Aid workers from the USA, more than ever before, need to be conscious of how they are perceived abroad, and remember that the safety climate in a place can change dramatically per a rumor or a sound byte on the news. And aid agencies need to revise all of their safety measures for their staff, particularly women, and to think about how they will reinforce their anti-sexual-harassment policies in the face of this new climate.

Also see:

US aid for women’s sexual health worldwide under threat, from The Guardian

Taking a stand when you are supposed to be neutral/not controversial

Update Dec 1

The UN in the Era of Trump from Centre for Policy Research, United Nations University

The $64,000 Question: Can the UN Survive the Trump Era?, from PassBlue.

Battles to end poverty, inequality will falter in Trump era, experts predict, from Reuters

Also, I’ve gotten two comments from people taking issue with my comment “the USA elections of 2016 show that the majority of people in the USA support politicians dedicated to eliminating the civil rights gained by LDBTQ people in the USA over the last five years.” It is true that Secretary Clinton garnered more votes on election day – and that her lead in the results continues to grow: As of Dec. 1, Clinton has garnered 65,152,112 votes, compared to Trump’s 62,625,928. That’s a margin of 2.53 million votes. The Democratic Party nominee’s margin in the popular vote is also rapidly approaching 2 percentage points. But I’m not sure the vote really does represent what a majority of Americans think. Perhaps I’ve got more access outside the bubble than a lot of folks, but being from a rural part of the USA, I see and hear a jaw-dropping amount of glee over the soon-to-come rollback regarding civil rights gains in the USA. There’s no question in my mind that this is, indeed, what a majority of people in the USA want – and that’s something we need to accept in order to address and change it.

Update:
Donald Trump might be more popular than you think, from Politico, Feb. 2, 2017

Update January 13, 2017

From an article today in The New York Times: “a series of questions from the Trump transition team to the State Department indicate an overall skepticism about the value of foreign aid, and even about American security interests, on the world’s second-largest continent… the tone of the questions suggest an American retreat from development and humanitarian goals, while at the same time trying to push forward business opportunities across the continent.” The article says, “The questions seem to reflect the inaccurate view shared by many Americans about how much the United States spends on foreign aid and global health programs.” In the article, Monde Muyangwa, director of the Africa program at the Woodrow Wilson Institute, noted that “the framing of some of their questions suggests a narrower definition of U.S. interests in Africa, and a more transactional and short-term approach to policy and engagement with African countries.” Ms. Muyangwa said the queries could signal “a dramatic turn in how the United States will engage with the continent.” The article notes that Former President George W. Bush quadrupled foreign assistance levels to African countries during his term, and President Obama largely maintained that, even as his administration was making cuts elsewhere.

Update Jan. 26,  2017

More from undispatch.com:  Trump dramatically expanded the scope of the Global Gag Rule to include all global health assistance provided by the US government. Rather than applying the Global Gag Rule exclusively to US assistance for family planning in the developing world, which amounts to about $575 million per year, the Trump memo applies it to “global health assistance furnished by all department or agencies.” In other words, NGOs that distribute bed nets for malaria, provide childhood vaccines, support early childhood nutrition and brain development, run HIV programs, fight ebola or Zika, and much more, must now certify their compliance with the Global Gag Rule or risk losing US funds.

Update February 8, 2017: Charities Say That Trump’s Refugee Ban Will Be “Incredibly Problematic” For Their Work Abroad. Charities operating in countries on the US president’s banned list, or employing staff with dual nationality from these nations, also warned the ban would jeopardise their work. A nonprofit has said plans to have Syrians speak to the US Congress have had to be shelved.

Update February 27, 2017: With aid under attack, we need stories of development progress more than ever – from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues.

“If no one is complaining, we don’t have to change how we do things”

3 Replies

handstopOne of the most common defenses I hear from an organization or program not addressing issues regarding diversity, communications, and accommodations is this:

We’ve done it this way for years, and no one has complained about that. No volunteer / client / member / donor has ever said they don’t like how we do such-and-such. You are the only one. So we’re not changing.

My observation might be about the way something is worded on a web site. Or the process to submit an application for volunteering. It could be about the lack of mass transit access to a location of an annual event or training. It could be about a lack of representation of various groups amid volunteer ranks. Or about a prayer before a volunteer recognition event at a secular organization. It could be about a lack of certain information in another language. Any of the aforementioned, and more, often incurs that defense when I bring up an issue related to diversity, accommodations or communications.

Often, when I do a little digging myself, talking to people that wanted to volunteer at the organization but didn’t, or to current members, or to former clients, and on and on, I find that, indeed, there is dissatisfaction among a few, maybe even more, but no one says anything to the organization itself, because no one wants to be seen as ruining an event or hurting the feelings of others or not being “a team player.” Some even fear repercussions by friends, neighbors and others. So they don’t say anything about something they would like to see changed or improved because there is a culture within the program or the entire organization, that discourages complaints or suggestions.

In the 1990s, I worked for a really incredible organization called Joint Venture: Silicon Valley. While I worked there, as internal communications manager – very much a junior staffer – a board member arranged for a retired HR executive from his oh-so-large global company to visit our organization and do a survey and discussion with staff about the work culture and environment, and then report our feedback to senior staff, keeping individual comments anonymous. That HR executive handled those surveys and conversations with the greatest of care, making us feel welcomed and comfortable in sharing what we liked, and what we didn’t, about our workplace. Afterward, he revealed to us, then senior staff, that junior staff and assistants felt we operated from a place of fear, rather than a place of power. We, as an organization, were risk-averse and even suggestion-averse. We felt corrections were given out by management far more than praise and support. After senior staff got over the shock of the culture they created – they really had no idea – things changed almost immediately, under that HR expert’s guidance. It rapidly became a delightful place to work, because senior management changed the way they worked and talked to all staff. And we all felt free to suggest, even to complain.

Would your organization be so brave?

Also see: