Tag Archives: transparency

Tweet thread from a city’s annual town meeting

Leave a reply

Since moving back to the USA in 2009, and before the pandemic, I attended a lot of public meetings by local, state and national officials, both elected and otherwise, and for some meetings, I live-tweeted what was happening. My goal was to try to generate some excitement for civic engagement and, in the cases of meetings that aren’t recorded and available later for public viewing, like town hall meetings with US Senators, to capture how certain things were being talked about / addressed. I also wanted to see if city, county, state and national officials were paying attention to Twitter, seeing if they responded when they were tagged or named in a post, etc. (for the most part, no, they aren’t paying attention).

The city of Forest Grove, Oregon held its 2021 annual town meeting online rather than in person because of the COVID-19 pandemic. And even though, I assume, the meeting was recorded and will be made available for viewing any time somehow, I decided to live-tweet the event, both to offer my commentary and to show as an example in workshops and classes I teach about what live-tweeting an event can look like. I also find it amusing to see how live-tweeting can affect search engine results.

I have the text of all the tweets below, with each tweet as a separate paragraph. Also here in this blog, I embedded the links that I attached to tweets. Sorry for misspellings and any confusion – live-tweeting requires fast typing and you cannot go back and correct tweets once they are out there:

Tweets began at 9:44 AM · Jan 30, 2021:

About to log in to the Forest Grove, Oregon annual town meeting, 1st-ever via the Interwebs. On the agenda: police. We’ve had some ugly incidents here & they still haven’t been addressed. If I decide to live-tweet it, it will be in the replies below.

Logged in & we’ve already had our first “does anyone know how to…” from a panelist. 

Mayor is warning not to be cute and make your Zoom name and title “Jake from State Farm.” He did that for a meeting and was kicked off because they didn’t know who he was. 

Lowell Greathouse of the Committee for Community Involvement is kicking off the meeting. He’s the MC of this meeting. I so wish the CCI was on Twitter and Facebook & Reddit.

Background: Here’s the 1st story from the local Forest Grove newspaper, the @FGNewsTimes, about the ouster of the police chief more than a year ago, which kicked off the growing distrust of the community regarding the police.

Now speaking is the city manager, Jesse VanderZanden. He’s introducing all the city officials & staff in attendance. VanderZanden played a key role in Forest Grove Police Chief Janie Schutz. 

VanderZanden is now addressing the departure of Chief Schutz. He is saying he is not anxious to discuss personnel matters. 

City manager is saying that the city has been transparent, having released emails between the chief and him, all official documents. He says all are available for the public and that they “tell the story.”

“We could have done a better job” regarding communication – city manager. Public disclosure procedures have been revised to make it easier for public to get info. 

“What I’d like to do is thank the former chief.” He’s now praising her transparency, how she built community connections, and what she did to promote the police facility. 

My opinion: THIS IS SO RIDICULOUSLY OVERDUE. Shame on the city for taking so long. Reprehensible. 

How Forest Grove, Oregon police are funded (from the slides now)

Forest Grove police funding levels. Along with this slide, the city manager when through the why costs increase (primarily salary and benefits, some additional staff).

Says interim Forest Grove police chief will get the option to stay another year. Here is how city will advertise for the chief’s position. Says city will have opportunities to participate in the hiring process.

Now talking about how they will create community panels for the hiring process, how they will try to make it a diverse representation from the community. 

If you have things you want the Forest Grove police chief job description to have regarding what kind of qualities the person should have, etc., the city manager says they want this feedback from residents. Here’s how to do that:

Apologies for not putting in alt text on the pics. I believe the slides will be available on the Forest Grove, Oregon’s city web site and I certainly hope all materials will be accessible for people with disabilities. 

He’s now reviewing why the city needs a new police station and the current design process. If you went to the police station open houses in 2019, or watch Chief Schutz’s excellent video on the subject, you know all this. 

City manager is now making a pitch for why the cost is cost-effective, the difficulty of passing a bond, the reluctance of residents regarding paying for this, etc. The presentation is now done.

Now Forest Grove, Oregon interim police chief Henry Reinmann is speaking. He’s touting that the station is more transparent, policies they have adopted, etc. 

Says these police policies have already been adopted in Forest Grove, Oregon. Now going through stats: type of calls, number of calls, etc. You can see these stats in the presentations that will be available on the Forest Grove city web site (or should be).

Now talking about mental health resources. Now talking about history. 

Now going through the history of policing. While he’s doing that, here’s one of the issues last year: Forest Grove Police Officer Steven Teets, off duty, terrorized a family in the middle of the night. & was NOT immediately arrested

Officer Teets is still employed, FYI, as are officers that initially covered for him. This incident, plus Chief Shutz’s firing, plus someone dying after being tased last year, & other things that haven’t made the news, have affected trust of police here.

Interim police chief is still doing his “history of policing” and very general presentation about approaches to policing. Has not made any reference to Black Lives Matter, to warrior training, white supremacy in police ranks, etc. Just very general stuff.

Now touting the relatively new Community Policing Advisory Commission, which replaced the citizen’s committee that was focused on BOTH police & fire (there is now no citizen’s committee regarding fire services). 

Forest Grove interim chief is still touching on very general things. No specifics about what the city of Forest Grove, Oregon is doing – just general things about what’s needed – “transparency” and “trust”, etc. This is all in his sides which will be available on FG web site. 

Finally is giving examples of specific changes. Says sergeant promotions interviews at Forest Grove, Oregon had no tactical questions – questions were about diversity, equity, etc. Says they will change how they train and who they hire. 

Forest Grove interim police chief reviewing state and national changes that will affect the Forest Grove police department. Says they will change what they test for. Will focus more on behavioral competencies. 

Is talking about systemic bias of society, in general, but has not acknowledged that police, specifically, have a problem with systemic racism. Is framing police problems as a reflection of all society’s problem. 

Now referencing Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A Changin’.” And returning floor to meeting chair. 

Now going to the questions submitted in advance. First question is regarding having a problem like “Cahoots” in Eugene in Forest Grove, Oregon, regarding unarmed mental health staff going to some calls. Interim chief says, instead, they are using the “Colorado model.” 

Mayor can’t get his video to turn on. But we can hear him. 

Mayor is reminding everyone that all of these changes will have financial costs and that there is no one big fix that can solve everything. 

Interim chief is now addressing what the subjects are covered in the police academy and who makes that determination. 

Questions regarding diversity training, number of officers that identify as people “of color,” etc. Interim chief is noting that the force makeup does not reflect the community. One officer “of color”, three women. Says they will do better. 

Question about Chief Schutz’s departure. City manager says former chief never made a complaint “about gender or otherwise.” Me: this is in contrast to what she said in the previous articles I shared earlier in this tweet thread. 

City manager is now saying that the city’s policies cover gender discrimination and how the policies and work place culture aren’t at all discriminatory, that people are held accountable, etc. 

City manager is now reviewing stats and diversity. 

Questions in Q & A box is filling up. I just submitted this: “Is there a prohibition on Forest Grove police officers taking so-called ‘warrior’ training? Does the chief know which officers have had such training and what do they do to address that?”

They are now addressing a question I submitted previously regarding the Western Washington County Fire Department & relationship with the T V F & R. 

They are now clarifying titles and terms. Mayor says there is no effort nor interest in becoming a part of TVF&R. Noting (sudden!) retirement of former chief. Says interim chief hiring is not a precursor to joining TVF & R. 

Councilor Ewing says a team has been formed that is working through “facts.” Says she is still gathering facts. Says she can’t raise her hand for or against TVF& R until she has more info. 

Forest Grove Interim fire chief Patrick Fale, who is from TVF & R, says he knows of no interest by that agency to expand into Western Washington County, Oregon. Says there is a meeting in February about future of fire departments in this area. 

Now a question and suggestion about backyard burns from someone who suffers from lung issues. Mayor is clarifying current regulations. 

Mayor says the Forest Grove sustainability commission needs to look into a year-round burn, if that really needs to happen. Says advisory commissions need to advise. Council member Ewing is now weighing in. 

Council member Ewing is now talking about “equitable” issues regarding people who need their fireplaces for warmth, older people who cannot afford to get rid of yard debris any other way. 

And now the obligatory grocery store question. Paul Downey is answering, but I have no idea what he’s talking about. Sorry, folks. Something about a developer, a grocery store, affordable housing, etc. 

MC is now about to list all of the questions relating to the Officer Teets situation (see my earlier tweet with link to the story). Notes that, because of the legal nature of the outstanding issue, some things won’t be answered at this meeting. 

Interim chief is noting there are two different investigations – one regarding Officer Teets, one regarding the response by the other Forest Grove officers. Notes he can’t say much more because it’s a current investigation. 

Question regarding make-up of CPAC and why there’s not a member of the chamber or business. I think – I was typing and missed both the question and answer. Sorry. 

CPAC seems to not yet be meeting regularly. They haven’t set a regular meeting. It sounds like they’ve had only one meeting. 

Question someone has submitted, similar to what I have submitted, still not answered: “Do you know if any of your police officers are involved in domestic terrorist groups in their personal lives such as proud boys etc
And what are you doing to check this?” 

councilmembers are now lauding the CPAC & the interim chief instead of answering the questions submitted. This has gone on for several minutes, celebrating Forest Grove CPAC instead of addressing questions. 

Now again answering questions on diversity training. Interim chief is again talking about systemic bias in society but not systemic racism in police departments, specifically. No questions related to this have been addressed (I am making a list of them). 

Comment and discussion regarding hiring and diversity. No specifics, just general comments about turnover and recruitment. 

A question in regarding food banks and how the city is supporting them. I’m not going to tweet the response. Sorry, my fingers are getting tired. 

Reading through the Q & A. Someone, maybe more than one person, is posting racist comments, attacks on the “political left.” His/her comments are all anonymous, of course. So disturbing. But absolutely representative of some people in Forest Grove, Oregon. 

Someone asked how to volunteer during the pandemic. You have to freakin’ be kidding me. Did anyone reference me? No. Do they know about me? Yes. So, frustrating. What I posted on the Q & A “volunteering during the pandemic? If only there was someone in the community was an expert in volunteering, including virtual volunteering (sigh). Who writes and blogs extensively on this subject specifically. (sigh).”

They are asking my question – might be the last one. Here it is: “Research is showing that a lot of police departments have members that are white supremacists and/or identify as “sovereign citizens.” Does either (fire or police) department have screening, interview…” 

“… social media and supervision practices and policies in place that would help prevent such people from becoming a part of the ranks and would help identify such people who may already be a part of either department?” 

Interim chief says only that the they look at social media activity. Did not address the question at all. 

Mayor says the city has “taken a stand” regarding “hate.” Says they need to have that attitude all the time. Feels good that they’ve had conversations with groups. But still hasn’t answered the question regarding how white supremacists are identified in the ranks. 

Council woman Ewing is now making statements about these difficult times. 

Me speaking now: I encourage all of you who asked questions about identifying members of the proud boys, sovereign citizens, etc. in the police department to attend the next Forest Grove city council meeting and ask them AGAIN. & to write them directly, again, to the city. 

Chair is trying to get the participants to please address the questions regarding membership in proud boys, sovereign citizens, etc.

Interim chief says social media review & interviews of new hires addresses this. Interim chief is implying that social media monitoring of police officers is ongoing. Now Council Wenzel is celebrating how well the town meeting has gone, staff that helped, etc. 

Meeting over. Survey at the end. Hope lots took it. With all my problems with how some questions were not answered, I have to give kudos to Forest Grove, Oregon for doing this meeting. Lowell Greathouse was a terrific MC – WELL DONE, sir! & now, to walk my dog. 





Does Your Org’s Practices Reflect Its Own Mission?

Leave a reply

I recently joined the board of a brand new nonprofit. I am helping with the content of its first ever web site. I decided to look at the web sites of some other similar organizations to get some ideas.

I found nonprofit associations that have classes on how to prepare an annual report – but they don’t have any of their annual reports posted on their web site. I found foundations that demand copies of the latest 990 from nonprofit applicants, but they don’t have their 990s on Guidestar. I found a nonprofit that has its board of directors listed on its web site, and always has, but has a different board listed on their 990s for those same years on Guidestar.

Why aren’t these organizations walking their talk, doing what they want other organizations to be doing?

And then there is the nonprofit organization that I consider famous, that you have probably heard of. Were I to say its name, which I’m not, and its name would probably bring to mind images of innovation, of bucking the status quo, of direct confrontation, and lots and lots of action. You would think of it as an organization that doesn’t recognize any tradition or rule as absolute. You would think of it as an agency embraces new ideas and experimentation, and works in a flexible, pro-active manner, putting its mission goals before bureaucratic ones. So imagine my astonishment when talking with this organization to receive such a hostile reaction to the idea of employee telecommuting / cloud commuting. The human resources manager sounded as though she couldn’t breathe at the thought of such a radical idea, and once she did find her words, said that this organization’s HR policy absolutely forbids any such practice. When I suggested that it would be a good idea to modernize that policy, another staffer jumped in, reminding me that doing something so “substantial” as changing a policy takes “a lot of time” and “much reflection” and “a great deal of research about legal issues.”

Here’s an organization that prides itself on not playing by the rules, and even sometimes asks its volunteers to violate the law in pursuit of its goals – no kidding! But revise its human resources policies to allow employee telecommuting? Why, that’s crazy talk!

There’s another organization you probably would not have heard of, but you would be familiar with its work: trying to address conditions and practices that lead to global climate change. But while this agency is writing guidelines, holding conferences and lobbying corporations and governments, the overwhelming majority of its staff, even those who live less than half a mile from the organization, are driving to work, despite the outstanding mass transit system available in its city. The organization has no policies regarding recycling its own office waste, and there’s no emphasis on any energy-saving practices within its offices.

Can you imagine if the press, or a group working counter to this organization, identified these practices and detailed them publicly, and the enormous public relations fallout that would occur?

These are real-life examples of organizations promoting practices or an image that isn’t actually reflected in their practices or culture, of organizations not truly “walking their talk.” And there’s more:

  • there are organizations that say they have a commitment to fighting for human rights and inclusion that have web sites and online resources (apps, videos, etc.) that aren’t accessible for people with disabilities – and they balk at the idea of making that commitment to digital inclusion
  • organizations that encourage corporations to allow their employees to volunteer on company time, while not allowing their own employees to do so.
  • organizations that advocate for feminism and women’s rights, but have antiquated dress codes and business practices regarding women that work and volunteer for them.
  • companies holding seminars on innovation and efficiency in the workplace who have antiquated computers, software and other devices that inhibit their staff productivity.
  • initiatives that tout the importance of local control of local activities, local decision-making,  but ignore the feedback of clients, volunteers and frontline staff, even imposing requirements of them with no discussion from them.

Take a look at your organization, particularly your mission statement, and ask yourself, “Is what we promote to others being practiced by ourselves?” Look at the behavior you encourage or talk about in your programs – do you exude that behavior yourself, as an organization? Survey your staff and volunteers, allowing them to anonymously provide feedback on where they see disconnect in the organization’s mission and the organization’s own internal practices.

Not only will you avoid a public relations nightmare, your own practices will become marketing tools for your organization’s mission.

If you have benefited from this blog or other parts of my web site and would like to support the time that went into researching information, developing material, preparing articles, updating pages, etc. (I receive no funding for this work), here is how you can help.

See also:

Growing misconceptions about the role of nonprofits in the USA

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

These statements are not true.

The truth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our futures depend on it.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What causes homelessness, downloaded Nov. 2, 2018

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

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

Also see:

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:

What should be on a political web site

Leave a reply

I’m a stickler for nonprofit organizations being as transparent as possible, well beyond what is required by law, regarding their financing, spending and staffing. As mission-based organizations, with missions that are supposed to benefit people and/or our environment, being accountable not only to donors but to all the public at large is crucial in showing credibility and ethics. Many in the for-profit/corporate and political sphere are threatened by the work of such organizations – nonprofits, NGOs, community-based organizations, etc. – and they can use an organization’s perceived lack of transparency about certain information to feed the public’s distrust of such organizations. Nonprofits can head this office by sharing as much info as possible on their web site about who they are and what they do.

I think a nonprofit, NGO, etc. should have on its web site:

  • a list of its board of directors
  • a list of its staff, at least senior staff, and their credentials
  • a statement of when the organization was founded and why
  • a list of key activities and accomplishments since the organization was founded
  • a statement regarding how much money it raised or earned in the last fiscal year and how much it spent, and at least a general idea on what it spent that money on

There have been nonprofits that I have seriously thought about giving a donation to, but when I go to their web site, they don’t have this basic info, so I don’t donate. I wonder how many other donations these nonprofits have missed out on because of this lack of info? There’s even more I think should be on a nonprofit’s web site, like complete information about volunteering, but that’s another blog.

I apply this rule about mandatory information that must be on a web site to political organizations and political candidates I’m interested in as well. No matter how passionately I feel in support of a candidate or a viewpoint, I want to know who is running things and how the money will be spent, even a general idea. You want me to donate to so-and-so so they can win an election? What are you going to spend the money on? In particular, how much will go to paying for TV time, radio time, flyers, web site development, etc., and how much is going to be paid to consultants for their ideas? What percentage of your staffing is by paid consultants and what percentage is by unpaid volunteers? And if you are a political organization, when were you founded, who is staffing the organization, and how did you pick the candidates you have suggested in your voter guide?

Another tip for political organizations: when someone comes to my door and says they are from such-and-such organization, and they want me to sign a petition about judicial reform or some new law or whatever, I am more likely to listen to that person if he or she says, “I am a volunteer with so-and-so.” Knowing someone is a volunteer, not a paid political person, gives whatever that person says much more weight with me. A volunteer is giving up precious time, often on a weekend, to reach out to me about a person or a cause – that’s how passionate that person feels about that candidate or ballot measure or whatever. And that carries a huge amount of weight with me. A paid person is the same as an ad on TV, and I just shrug, take the info and usually cut them off – I’d prefer to look up the candidate or issue myself in my own time.

Also see:

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

Use Your Web Site to Show Your Accountability and To Teach Others About the Nonprofit / NGO / Charity Sector!

REQUIRED Volunteer Information on Your Web Site

Gossip’s toll in your workplace

Leave a reply

gossipBack in March 2010, an article (registration may be required for access) in Workplace.com highlighted a study in the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography regarding workplace gossip. It reviewed how rumors among employees about a company can dilute authority, can poison workplace congeniality and contribute to staff turnover, all of which can cause harm an organization without ever becoming public (external to the organization). The study is focused on paid employees, but, of course, its findings are important to nonprofits and volunteers as well. The study’s author, sociologist Tim Hallett, calls such gossip “reputational warfare,” and says that once a bad reputation has been solidified, justified or not, it usually sticks — often with negative consequences for the entire organization.

Employees and volunteers will always talk internally about how things are going at an organization, what they think the future holds, what obstacles they see facing the country, etc. There’s nothing wrong with that. But a misunderstanding, a small fear, an unanswered question or an observation by someone uninformed about a situation can turn conversations into negative gossip, layout the foundation for mistrust, conflict, and negative public relations.

Don’t try to stop conversations about the internal workings of an organization – those conversations can be important informal training for new staff and help you discover and address issues before they become full-blown problems. But do work to make sure conversations by staff – employees, consultants and volunteers – are fact-based and within the bounds of your confidentiality policies, and work continually to create a culture where employees and volunteers share their fears, questions and suppositions early with supervisors, without fear of retribution for merely expressing a fear or asking a question.

Gossip tends to crop up when there are voids in communication. Therefore, address fears, questions and suppositions quickly and regularly. Filling the void with information — about possible office relocation, promotions, layoffs, firings, conflicts with funders or partners, budget shortfalls, etc. If a situation must be kept confidential and can’t be shared with employees, consultants and/or volunteers — for instance, the reasons why a staff person was fired — then explain why such information is kept confidential, in such a way that employees realize that you will honor their personnel issues, positive or negative, in a confidential manner as well. If the information could be damaging to the organization if released too early, then say so, explicitly. If you should have released the information sooner internally, apologize to staff and talk about what you will be doing to ensure that information is not withheld again — or ask them how they would have liked the situation to have been handled.

If you don’t want to commit anything or everything to writing, such as in a company-wide memo, then meet individually with staff and volunteers, have the executive director or a senior manager address individual department meetings, and have all-staff meetings. Give employees multiple opportunities to ask questions and voice concerns about rumors that they have heard.

But how do you know gossip is happening? By having trusting relationships across the organization – including across an organization’s hierarchy. That comes from regular conversations, formal and informal, and by showing explicitly how feedback from staff is heard, how suggestions from volunteers does influence the organization, etc. And building trust would take several more blogs to explore…

In short, you must create a culture of faith and trust among your paid staff and volunteers in each other and in the organizational leadership in order to prevent damaging gossip. It’s much easier to create and sustain such a culture than it is to try to overcome “reputational warfare.”

Also see

For Nonprofit Organizations: How to Handle Online Criticism.

Feuds in the nonprofit/NGO/charity world

Citizens academy – intensive community engagement

Leave a reply

WA Co Oregon sheriff logoLast year, I wrote a blog in defense of police departments involving volunteers while also affirming that many police departments need drastic overhauls to be more transparent, better serve their communities and to cultivate trust with the communities they serve.

Since moving back to the USA in 2009, I’ve seen several notices from various police agencies offering a citizens academy. These aren’t mere open houses, where members of the public come in to meet a few officers, take a tour of a station, have some snacks and take a selfie with a uniformed officer. These academies take place over several weeks, with citizens receiving detailed presentations about individual programs within the department – tactical teams, narcotics investigation teams, crisis response teams, patrol, robotics, incarceration, arrests processing, etc. – and these presentations aren’t by interns or admin assistants but the officers running those programs and working on the front lines. Attendees ask questions, sometimes contentious questions (yeah, me, as usual), and officers are on-the-spot to respond.

I signed up for such a citizen’s academy by the Washington County, Oregon sheriff’s department. It’s 14 sessions, over more than two months – every Tuesday night, and also all day on three Saturdays. There are almost 30 people in the academy; by my estimation, about a third in my academy are young people wanting to be police officers, more than half are retired people interested in how the police work and who have lots of time on their hands, and the rest of us, probably just six or so people, are what I would characterize as people who want to learn more because of both or professional work and our personal politics: a mental health professional, an advocate for the mentally ill, an employee at a school, a counselor in training and… me! We’re more than halfway through the academy.

I’m taking the academy for two specific reasons: first, as a consultant and researcher regarding volunteer engagement and communications, I’m talking to organizations about community engagement. While these academies are not volunteer engagement, they are most certainly community engagement, and I wanted to see such a model up close, first hand, to see how it works and to think about ways the idea might be exported to other, non-law enforcement agencies and even overseas. I think this model of community engagement forces a level of transparency across an agency, something in which many programs are great need. It’s not something that could be instituted overnight – it would require a cultural change at most agencies to institute something like this. I also would like to see police departments in transitional countries in particular, with reputations for police corruption and abuses, instituting their own citizen academies, jail tours, job shadows and ridealongs, but I can’t advocate for that in my work overseas if I haven’t experienced it myself.

Secondly, I’m a human rights advocate, and when I look at what happened in Ferguson, Missouri in particular, I am outraged. And I think about, and sometimes see, police abuses worldwide – corruption in police departments, under the guise of fees, fines, and law enforcement (like forfeiture), happens in many places globally. Reflecting a theme I said in a blog earlier, I would love to see Black Lives Matter advocates and police reform advocates signing up for these citizen academies at police and sheriff’s departments across the USA, as well signing up for jail tours and job shadows and ride alongs with patrol officers – I think it could create more understanding and change for both the police and the community.

I am really enjoying this academy, but there are two things missing: first, there should have been a survey of participants at the very first session about their perceptions of both the sheriff’s department and police and jails in general. Then, at our last class, they should give us that survey again. It would be fascinating to see if perceptions are changed. Secondly, the problems with the sheriff’s department regarding its own officers and other staff, such as this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this or this, or this – all happening in the last three years – have not been mentioned – just a comment about “We’ve taken a beating in the media.” We really should have heard from someone in charge of internal investigations and about efforts to create a culture of respect within the department for women, teens, immigrants, etc.

Presenters should also keep in mind that they are talking to a diverse group in terms of feelings about the police and government. For instance, a few people in the class have had incarcerated family members and others on the other side of the criminal justice system; jokes about people in the throes of a drug aren’t always appreciated by such. Presenters are certainly entitled to share their opinions – I really like knowing where they stand – but they might not want to assume the silence of some people in the room means agreement.

I’d also like to see a similar academy for officers and jail staff themselves, done by various nonprofit and government agencies that serve crime victims (and those frequently targeted by criminals), such as domestic violence shelters, mental health providers, rape counseling centers, nonprofits working with immigrants, etc., that serve those that have been arrested and incarcerated, such as nonprofits working with gang members, programs serving people with alcohol and drug abuse problems, etc., and those that are engaged in local human rights and racial justice issues  That would force a level of face-to-face detail and discussion and even debate that’s very much needed in many communities.

All that said – HUGE kudos to the Washington County, Oregon’s Sheriff’s Department for doing this academy. It’s very well done, it’s a model for other police departments looking to do something like this, I’ve really enjoyed it so far, I’m really looking forward to the rest of the presentations and experiences, and I highly recommend it.

In case you are wondering, yes, I did a ride along with a deputy. I went on a shift from 6 p.m. to 4 a.m. It was fascinating. I hope I wasn’t too annoying with my many, many questions.

Update April 10, 2016: The Oregonian today published a profile of the death in 2014 of an inmate in the Washington County jail.

Update August 10, 2016: The first known citizen’s police academy held in the USA was established in Orlando in 1985, according to a report from the Criminal Justice Institute. Last year, the International Association for Chiefs of Police listed such academies as an integral way to improve community relations. Establishing these courses was also named as an action item in the final report from the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The National Citizens Police Academy Association explains the importance of the courses on its website.

Also see this info and resources regarding police corruption in other countries:

Handbook on police accountability, oversight and integrity from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Policy Briefing Paper: Gender Sensitive Police Reform in Post Conflict Societies from United Nations Women.

Ukraine replaces entire police force to beat corruption

Corrupt Mexico Police Concentrated in 10 States

Bulgaria Launches Ambitious Plan to Curb Police Corruption

Nigeria Police Extortion: Buhari Warns Against Corruption In National Force

Don’t shoot the questioner

2 Replies

logoGovernment agencies and nonprofits HATE my questions on social media. I ask them publicly because, often, I don’t get a response via email – or because I want my exchange with the organization to be public. Questions like:

  • Where is the list on your web site of your board of directors?
  • Where is the bio on your web site of your executive director/program director, etc.?
  • Where is your latest annual report of finances (income and expenditures) on your web site?
  • I saw your quote in the newspaper, and wondered: where is the evaluation that says your program lead to a 30% drop in juvenile crime? Is there a link on your web site to this study?
  • You have a form on your web site for people who want to volunteer to fill out/an email address for people that want to volunteer, but you never say what volunteers actually do. What do volunteers at your organization do?

Responses, if they come at all, rarely thank me for pointing out missing information on the web site, or apologize for not having such. Rather, most responses are one of these:

  • We’re not required by law to provide that. 
  • Our web site is being redesigned. It will be a part of the new web site. (no date is provided on when the web site will be re-launched)
  • That information is confidential. 
  • That information is on our web site (with no link to where it is).
  • Why are you asking?

I admit that I sometimes ask a question because I’m annoyed that the organization isn’t being transparent, or because a newspaper reporter wrote a glowing story I read about the organization or program didn’t ask these questions – just took every quote from the representative as fact. But I also ask the questions because I’ve sometimes considered donating to an organization, or volunteering with such – and I’m then stunned at the lack of transparency.

None of these questions should bother any organization or agency. None. They are all legitimate questions. Often, they are questions you yourself invite, by talking at civic groups or in the press about the quality of your leadership, the impact your organization is having, the services your organization provides and your value to the community.

If you say you don’t have time to provide this basic information on your web site, one has to ask: what is it that you are spending your time on?

Also see:

Use Tech to Show Your Accountability and To Teach Others About the Nonprofit Sector!
Mission-Based groups are under growing scrutiny. What you put on your web site can help counter the onslaught of “news” stories regarding mission-based organizations and how they spent charitable contributions.

Which nonprofits serving military veterans are worthwhile?

Leave a reply

logoI get asked this question now and again, and I see this question posted in various places:

I want to donate money to help USA military veterans and their families. Which nonprofits are really worthwhile?

Sadly, I have trouble answering the question, because there are just too many news articles about very shady happenings by organizations claiming to help military veterans, such as this story from CNN’s Anderson Cooper, another one from Cooper, this one from the Daily Beast, this one from Veterans Today, and this from the Tampa Bay Times. I also find the TV commercials of several of these organizations emotionally-manipulative, as though donating to their organization proves your patriotism.

I’m not going to name any of the organizations in question, but it’s worth it to click on those previously-mentioned links and see the organization names yourself – some will be very recognizable.

Here are some questions you can use as you look at a web site to help you evaluate an organization that claims to help military veterans and their families:

  • Does this organization have a prominent link right on the home page for veterans or families of such in need of services – a link as prominent as its links for financial donors? If not, then it’s a red flag: how can an organization say it serves veterans or families of such but not have an obvious way for people to seek services? If it does have a link, click on it. Does the organization have just one page that talks about vague benefits – events, discounts, camaraderie, etc. – rather than concrete service information like mental health services / counseling, rehabilitation resources, accommodation adjustments in housing, debt management, help with government paperwork, job re-training, etc.? In short: pretend you are a veteran or family member in need and look at the web site from that perspective, then ask yourself this question: are you able to find information about services you urgently need?
  • Does the organization list its services as, primarily, directing veterans and their families to other agencies to help with health services, rehabilitation, job placement, etc. – or does the organization actually provide those services directly? If the former, your donation might be better going directly to those organizations that actually provide the services, since the organization is just referring people other organizations.
  • Does the organization say, right on the home page, that it involves volunteers? If no, that’s a red flag – why would a nonprofit not involve volunteers? Are they hiding something? If they do have such a link to volunteering information, do volunteers help in direct service, or do volunteers help just with fundraising? If the former, that’s a good sign that this is a legitimate organization, as they have a commitment to members of the public seeing their work firsthand – they value that kind of investment in their work. If the latter, then that’s a red flag: this organization sees volunteers only as fundraisers, as money-makers. There’s nothing wrong with volunteers being fundraisers, but if that’s the ONLY way the organization involves volunteers, it may mean the organization is concerned only with raising large amounts of money.
  • Does the organization provide an accounting of how it spends money, beyond saying, “80% of money raised goes to services”? For instance, what percentage of the organization’s staff is working in direct support to veterans and their families, versus staff working to raise funds, manage volunteers that raise funds, marketing staff, etc.?

Those are my suggestions of questions to ask before you donate financially to an organization that claims to help veterans and their families.

So, can I recommend any organization myself as one I would donate to (and maybe I have donated to)? Yes. I recommend the USO.

Campaign to End the Overhead Myth

1 Reply

Guidestar CEO, Jacob Harold, published a letter condemning the use of administrative expenses as a measure of nonprofit performance. You can read the entire message at www.overheadmyth.com.

The letter was co-signed by Art Taylor, president and CEO of BBB Wise Giving Alliance, and Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator—making it the first time the three leading nonprofit information providers joined together to share the same message: the percentage of a charity’s expenses that go to administrative costs, the “overhead” ratio, is not appropriate to consider when determining if the nonprofit is effective or efficient.

You can get involved!

For nonprofits: visit www.overheadmyth.com to print the letter, and include it in your postal mailing to supporters. Include a summary and link on your web site, your blog, on your Facebook page, on Twitter, and in any email newsletters.

Publicly commit to ending the focus on overhead by signing the pledge at www.overheadmyth.com.

Spread the word about the Overhead Myth campaign to your own networks online. Guidestar has created a communications and social media tool kit with turn-key content that you’re welcome to use: www.overheadmyth.com/press. But don’t just send out canned messages – say why you are particularly interested in this campaign.

Get your supporters, including volunteers, involved. Encourage them to share info about the campaign via their social media networks, and to blog about it, as well.

Nonprofits: Share your data and information with Guidestar. “We need nonprofit leaders to provide more public information about their missions, programs, and results so we can move past the overhead ratio once and for all. Our GuideStar Exchange program allows nonprofits to share data with stakeholders for free!”

And here’s the freaky part: I whined about the misplaced focus on overhead costs at nonprofits just a few hours ago on TechSoup.

This is an issue that’s very near and dear to me.

Also see: Survival Strategies for Nonprofits , a guide for nonprofits facing critical budget shortfalls.