Category Archives: Tips and How-Tos

Social by Social, for social workers

Everyone likes free stuff, right?

And when it’s free stuff that

  • Inspires you with awesome examples of how people are using emerging technologies to do amazing things in the world
  • Gives you a glossary of all the terms you need to know to live, and advocate, in the high-tech world (would be great to share with a confused or skeptical CEO!)
  • Provides social organizations, working on social problems, from a foundation of social conscience, with a guide to shape their work with social technologies
  • Shares expert advice for those currently engaged in social change campaigns, on how to integrate technology into your work
  • And lives the transparency credo that “social” is all about

    Well, that’s my very most favorite kind of free stuff!

    Social by Social is a free ebook that believes, as I do, that we should use technology to do the things that matter–who wants to read on Twitter that ants are taking over my kitchen? But what about using text messages to remind people to vote in the primary election? They call for fewer ‘cool new tools’ and more thinking about what we need in order to improve our world. They see technology the way that our organizations should–as a trigger, something that equips us to do what we should, and want, to do anyway (get our clients engaged in politics, connect our donors to advocacy, mobilize grassroots action on legislation) but found harder to do without these applications.

    This is the most fun “book” on social media for social good that you’ll ever see–it has a ton of hyperlinks embedded right into it, and quotes from super-smart, super-savvy people who write whole books on this stuff themselves, and enough how-to suggestions (how to: get buy-in from your organization to experiment with social technologies, avoid gadget-chasing, set goals for your experiments, monitor conversations about your work, use video, events, and photos in your campaigns, give up the search for ‘control’ in order to let the relationships you’ll need for action flourish, measuring return on investment) to make it a real resource to keep by your computer. It’s also British, and you know how i feel about the UK.

    But, by far, the best part is the inspirations. I’ll have posts on a couple of these individually over the next few weeks (okay, maybe months!), but check them out–you’ll find not only inspiration for your own online advocacy, but probably some campaigns that you want to participate in, too.

    And then it has a section on what these new technologies will mean for different people, trying to improve the world from a different sector’s vantage point. My favorite section is on campaigners: how can you not love someone who advises activists for social justice to “be promiscuous”–go where people are, don’t assume that anyone is closed to your message, and connect with people so that they become part of your movement.

    And, finally, I love that this project used the very technologies, and the very same ideology, or approach to the work, that it advocates for others. By living what they recommend, the Social by Social team provides a model for what this new engagement might look like for organisations (um, I mean, organizations).

    Happy social-izing!

  • Crashing the party: smart mobs and candidate events

    No, I’m not talking about the Salahis.

    It’s public events that I think we should be ‘crashing’ this election season–the debates and forums and coffees and press conferences and dozens of other photo opportunities and hand-shakings that candidates for local, state, and federal office will hold between now and Election Day. And, because it’s 2010, we need to do it smarter.

    Here’s what I’m thinking: nonprofit advocates using social media (especially text messaging) to alert at least a core group of activists when there will be opportunities to get in front (literally, although, increasingly, these events are held online) of candidates, in order to raise your issues and bring immediate attention to your cause. You find out (because you’ve subscribed to the newsletters of all of the candidates in your area; they will be only too glad to add you) that Candidate XYZ, who’s running for Congress, is holding a town hall tomorrow night. You text that to 30 of your supporters, asking for those who will be able to go to raise your priority of (you fill in the blank: juvenile justice reform, special education, homelessness, immigration reform). Exchanging texts or messages, your group finds at least 1-2 people (2 is probably better; if the crowd is hostile, no one will feel totally alone) willing to go, split up, and ask a question to highlight the issue.

    The key is, you do this for the coffee the next morning, too, and the debate the following Saturday afternoon, and the press conference next Tuesday, and…you get the idea. Of course, no one has to attend all of those events themselves, because you’re using social media to divide up the work.

    You’ll get attention from the candidate and his/her staff, when the same issues are raised repeatedly, and you’ll likely get some media coverage, too, and you might even organize some support from among the other attendees, when they find that you have a common passion.

    And these things almost always come with some free refreshments, too, so, you know, there’s always that.

    Agenda-setting, Twitter-style

    TweetScoop graph the day President Clinton was hospitalized for chest pains in February 2010

    I have to be one of the world’s worst tweeters. I’ll admit it. I’m totally sporadic with it and, even though I really don’t follow many people, compared with the most active Twitter users (and I truly think that all of the people that I’m following are totally interesting and cool), the stream moves so quickly that, since there are long stretches each day when I’m away from my computer (and, we’ve established, I can’t follow Twitter on my phone!), I somewhat randomly pop back in when I can, send out a tweet (usually links from my RSS feed), check my @melindaklewis messages (including retweets of my blog posts from some kind and generous souls!), and scan back through the most recent tweets, a practice which means that I inevitably miss a lot. I know that I’m far from Twitter best practices, but, with three kids 3 and under running around, it’s about the best I can manage.

    That’s why I was glad to see some of Tamar Weinberg’s suggestions for Twitter in The New Community Rules, and to think through how Twitter can be used, in shorter bursts like the ones I can handle, for framing and issue strategy. Let me explain what I’m thinking here, and then share some of the tools that I learned from Tamar’s book and have since played around with, that I think could help with this.

    We know that a big part of the framing battle requires figuring out how to talk about the issues that we want to advance in order to make them resonate with our targets and the general public. We know that winning this battle of ideas and words can make our proposed public policy solutions seem quite commonsense, and go a long way towards having those same policy ideas accepted. There are more than 75 million Twitter users worldwide, and more than 50 million tweets are sent each day. While an estimated 25% of these accounts are inactive, a lot of Twitter users are ‘influencers’, those whose ideas on issues are likely to change the way that others see those same issues. Figuring out what they’re talking about, and how, lets Twitter help you insert your issues into the broader public agenda. You could also use these tools to do an impact evaluation, of sorts, to see whether your work to elevate the profile and/or change the conversation around a certain issue has been successful, although, unless you’re doing a really nationwide campaign, you’d have a hard time being able to isolate your work and audience enough for that to be very accurate (those of you in bigger cities can set your location to find local trends and all of us can at least specify the U.S. as our location).

    My favorite of these trending sites, and the one I use the most, is hashtags.org. You can search for any keyword (or combination–it helps if you use Twitter at least enough to know which hashtags are most commonly used for the issues you care about). For example, here’s what it shows for “public option”. You can search at particular points in time, and I found a really interesting spike right after President Obama announced his version of health care reform (on February 23, 2010). This application also gives you representative tweets sent that use this hashtag. The front screen also includes the top 10 or so hashtags, although, I’ll be honest, these are mostly celebrities or other references that I completely do not understand, leading me to believe that they relate to popular culture!

    Another cool program, although you have to pay to get its most optimum features, is Tweetscan. It works similarly to the above, except they’ll actually email you alerts when the hashtags you’re watching crop up.

    Twitter does its own analytics, of course, although, in my opinion, they’re not as helpful as some of the external applications. You can do real-time searches on Twitter, though, to see what’s trending–this is probably useful if your organization is in the news right now and you want to know what people are saying about it, but it doesn’t give you the time perspective that hashtags do (although they do search the body of the tweet, not just the hashtag, so this could be a good way of navigating the hashtags initially, if you’re not sure what they are).

    At the opposite end of the spectrum is Twitscoop, which you can use as your Twitter landing page, to send tweets, track trends, and monitor urls, too.

    Twitt(url)y–This tracks the top websites being tweeted, which, while not as helpful, in my opinion, as a keyword search, can give you a sense, on a given really hot topic, the particular sources or “takes” on an issue to which people are referring most, which gives you a sense of the most trusted sources/allies or, sometimes, your most potent adversaries. (Note: the link above takes you to the English filter; the first time I was on the site, it was off, and I couldn’t figure out why all of the top posts were in Chinese!)

    For me, finding these tools has kind of restored my faith in Twitter, helping me to see that there are ways for it to be meaningful and relevant even if I’m not checking it from my smart phone all the time. It helps me to get a sense of the pulse of the conversation (and a surprisingly high percentage of that conversation does deal with public policy!), and, you know, sometimes I even learn who this Justin Bieber is that my cousin Molly kept talking about.

    When you’re #@! angry, use Twitter petitions to get results!

    Nonprofit Tech 2.0 had a post highlighting the act.ly Twitter-based petitions and how different causes are using them to create significant impact.

    This stuff is seriously cool.

    Basically, the idea is that, since so many elected officials and corporations and government agencies are using Twitter to get their messages across, there is a whole new avenue for influencing them, too, via their Twitter accounts.

    So, advocates are starting these Twitter petition campaigns to send tweets to folks like President Obama, Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Grassley, CitiBank, and the Prime Minister of England, directly to their official Twitter accounts, to communicate a specific (obviously brief) message: end Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, advance the National Labor Relations Board nominees, stop blocking health care reform, support efforts to stop climate change, etc…

    To use the service, you can either create your own petition or “sign” someone else’s petition by sending one of the tweets directly to a target.

    I like that it’s free, it should (at least initially) grab some attention from the target because it’s a new media (and, in many cases, there’s someone relatively high-up within the organization monitoring the stream, unlike the person who usually answers the phone), it’s integrated into a technology that delivers it (rather than, say, using Twitter to ask people to make a phone call or send an email), there’s feedback regarding if/how the target has responded (and when), and it has the potential to not just mobilize this specific ‘ask’ from your known supporters but also bring in new supporters and attract their interest in your overall work (because they can see who started the petition, and make the decision to follow you–it’s a button right next to the “sign and tweet” button).

    I took action on a couple of petitions; it only took a few minutes, and, of course, those tweets go out to all of my followers, too, which builds my connection to those issues and potentially brings new folks on board, too.

    Who will you put in “the hot seat”?

    Where are your advocates? Geolocation and your nonprofit

    Not THAT Four Square--The Four Square World Championships in Bridgton, ME

    More technology time–I’ve had to learn about geolocation tools, like FourSquare, mainly from other bloggers, in order to think through how nonprofit advocates could use it effectively. Not only do I STILL NOT (hint, hint) have an iPhone (alas), but I really don’t go anywhere cool enough to be worth doing much geolocating myself (I mean, I love our neighborhood park and public library, but I don’t know that I could get too many ‘badges’ for visiting them as frequently as we do!). Still, this whole “bring the online down to street level” idea really seems to be catching on, and it seems that nonprofit advocates need to think about how we can make it resonate for our work. If you are a FourSquare Mayor or the like, I’d love to hear what you think!

    Nonprofit Tech 2.0 has a great post on the how-tos of adding your nonprofit to FourSquare–please check it out as a way to get started. The post linked above also has some of her screen captures that show what users will see when interfacing with your nonprofit on that particular geolocation application.

    Here are my advocacy and organizing-specific ideas for how to make this technology work for your organization, along with some cautions that could limit our ability to take advantage of these tools.

  • Making your nonprofit a venue on FourSquare This seems like the obvious first place to start; you add your nonprofit and then, when people are in the area, you will pop up on their FourSquare application, perhaps with a notification about an advocacy action alert. As Heather points, out, this can be a good way for organizations that primarily interface with supporters online to connect in a new way (“I didn’t know you had an office right by my kids’ childcare center!”), but, here’s my concern: how many of us are really well-prepared to welcome a potential donor, volunteer, or advocate who literally walks in off the street? Really? We’d like to think we are, obviously, but many times, we have a hard enough time dealing with walk-in clients and really very little capacity to immediately engage, affirm, and direct someone who comes in the door to help. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, though–think about how you could create take-away materials related to your advocacy, train your front-desk personnel to shepherd these new advocates, and capture email addresses and social media profiles so that you can build a stronger online relationship with this drop-in advocate.

  • Adding tips to your venue and/or to-dos to your profile This seems to be the easiest for nonprofit advocates to latch onto immediately; you can put fast facts about your organization and/or your cause or, even better, link to a mobile-friendly advocacy webpage, where people could take action immediately. It would be a great, and unexpected, way to break through information overload and register on people’s attention, so that they can take action on your cause. Even better, if they complete to-dos, they get badges (here are Heather’s), so they can get points, as well as the satisfaction of standing on the right side of justice, for sending your email or signing your petition or making a donation. Hurray!

  • Check-in at events I immediately started to think about rallies and mass mobilizations when I read about this. It has some potential for messaging and crowd-focusing, but not really for turnout. Think about it, when people ‘check-in’ to your protest, for example, they could receive guidance regarding messaging, dynamic logistical information, or other continually evolving communication. If this sounds other-worldly, let me tell you that at the last capitol rally I attended, about half the participants had their smart phones out, taking pictures, Tweeting, and (I know from at least a couple of them) updating their Facebook statuses. Seriously. Obviously, though, because people don’t check-in until they’re already there, FourSquare won’t draw as many people to an event as a tool like Facebook.

  • My favorite FourSquare feature for nonprofit advocacy is the Shout-Out. Basically, you (and all of your advocacy allies) can trumpet nonprofits’ great work everytime you check-in to a venue–a lot of possibility for coalition-building, network-strengthening, and general movement-generation. Think of how helpful it would be to have your advocates giving you virtual praise whenever they come to volunteer, stop by to pick up flyers, or attend a press conference. And how you could generate goodwill with allies by doing the same for them!

    In general, my sense with FourSquare is that it will, at least initially, challenge nonprofit advocates’ ability to bridge real-world and online connections with allies. It will require us to have our most welcoming, inclusive, on-message selves ready not just through our online social networks but also in our storefronts. It will take a new kind of transparency, then, as we open ourselves up in multiple venues to those committed to our same causes. And, therefore, it will bring new potential for deeper relationships with those same advocates. And, avid FourSquare users promise, it will be fun!

  • “But I thought we weren’t experts”? Online Q&A and your organizing

    We’re still in social media mode here, and I’ve spent HOURS exploring Yahoo and Linked In Answers to better understand how their communities use them and come up with some ideas about how they could play a role in your organizing and advocacy work. As always, I’d love to hear what you think!

    I had never used Yahoo! Answers before I read Tamar Weinberg’s The New Community Rules and started to think about how participation in these online question-and-answer forums could be a parallel component of social work advocates and community organizers’ social media strategies.

    I’m not going to argue that this should be your #1 strategy, or even your number #1 online component, but it’s pretty quick and easy to contribute to these forums, trust is built based on the quality of your answers and your transparent participation, and you may find (like I did) that it’s a helpful place to spend some time online, anyway, because you can learn quite a bit from the crowd that hangs out there.

    I was primarily surprised by the number of questions that relate to social policy priorities. On one day, I found questions that social justice advocates could have likely answered regarding (these were all in the politics & government category):

  • Workers’ rights in California
  • Immigration consequences of a juvenile offense
  • The rights of a homeless person to stay on a bus even if the driver complains about the passenger’s odor
  • Termination of parental rights in the state of Michigan
  • An abused wife’s rights to permanent resident over the objections of her ex-husband
  • Eligibility criteria for Medicaid for a family of 2

    There are other categories that could make a lot of sense for you, too, depending on your issue and your organization: Pregnancy and Parenting (Post-Partum Mood Disorders?), Health (a variety of disease-specific advocacy), Environment (conservation, climate change advocates), Family & Relationships (that covers most of social work!), News & Events (especially if your issue is hot on the agenda), and even Home & Garden or Business & Finance (there were some questions related to home financing, saving, and debt that could be relevant for a lot of community development organizations).

    The idea, of course, is to provide high-quality answers to these questions, AND, since we’re organizers and advocates, also to offer people a chance to get involved with campaigns to address the problems their problems reference. So, “the legislature and courts in XYZ state have not positively affirmed the rights of homeless individuals to be present in any place of their choice, but there’s an active campaign to push for ABC legislation to do just that…here’s how you can join.”

    In order to not alienate those who are turning to this forum to look for answers, it’s critical that you actually offer answers (not just, “come to my website to check it out”)–Yahoo Answers users vote on the submitted answers, and those users whose answers have received the most votes are prominently displayed in a bar on the right of the screen (and it would be good to have your profile there!).

    As the title suggests, much of this whole exercise is contrary to the spirit of “do nothing for people that they can’t do for themselves” that characterizes the best organizing. Just “giving people the answers” goes against organizing ideals of helping people to find their own solutions to their problems, although certainly the fact that people are seeking out this online community to find their answers suggests that they are actively seeking knowledge and tools. Still, to keep this from being “organizer as expert”, this is the perfect activity/forum for one or more of your most active volunteer leaders; they may already be using Yahoo Answers for their own purposes, and they can certainly become comfortable with the format and part of the community quite quickly, and then use their expertise in the issues on which you’re working to help others grapple with the same challenges.

    The New Community Rules also recommends Linked In’s question and answer forums, and, while I think that those could be a helpful tool for an organization looking for coalition partners or new employees or maybe even new investors/donors, the questions I found really seemed to center around professional advancement and networking. It would seem harder to authentically connect your advocacy issues in this format.

    If anyone has tried or decides to try this out, I’d love to hear how it goes–how much time does it take for you to develop answers and find relevant questions? How well do your answers rank? Are you able to build connections to the people whose questions you answer? What about submitting your own questions, particularly related to how to frame specific issues or how to structure certain strategies?

    And, um, if you find a question on there about how to entertain a 3.5-year-old for an afternoon so that a work-from-home Mommy can spend hours on Yahoo Answers…it’s totally a coincidence that that avatar looks so much like me.

  • Write your own story?: Wikipedia and nonprofit advocates

    It’s “technology week” at Classroom to Capitol! It’s summer time, and I’ve been using the time out of the classroom to play around with a variety of social media applications and think some about how they can be used by social workers engaged in policy advocacy, organizing, and all kinds of macro practice. I had the opportunity to work some of these ideas into a set of instructors’ resources to accompany a new edition of a great social policy textbook, and I’ll be including links to some of my favorite blogs and their content related to these ideas, too.

    Happy clicking, and happy advocating!


    I LOVE Wikipedia. I use it all the time, because I’ve got an almost-four-year-old who asks TONS of questions about everything, and I usually can’t answer them without asking Wikipedia (history of Valentine’s Day? Picture of a nonagon? Complete listing of Boxcar Children titles?). Thank you, community of volunteer Wikipedia contributors!

    I’ve been interested for quite awhile in how nonprofit organizers and advocates might be able to use Wikipedia, given that it is so phenomenally popular: it’s the fifth-most visited website in the United States and about 13% of Internet users visit it daily. At first, it seemed like reviewing and adding to your organization or cause’s own Wikipedia page would be the best place to start, but further research into Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policy exposed some ways in which this could be a bad idea, so after reading Tamar Weinberg’s New Community Rules and spending even more time than usual navigating around Wikipedia, here are some ideas for how you might use this incredible example of crowdsourcing to further your quest for social justice.

    First, here’s what Wikipedia terms the “nutshell” of its conflict of interest policy: “Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia.” Sounds eminently reasonable, no? Here’s an example of the kind of “flag” you’ll get if you submit content that others view as not consistent with that policy. There are obviously a lot of ways that nonprofit organizers and advocates can still use Wikipedia to advance your causes without running afoul of a policy that seems designed primarily to keep people from turning what is supposed to be an accurate, open, public resource into a series of self-promotional marketing clips.

  • Wikipedia as pulse of the policy landscape You can use Wikipedia’s trend statistics to find out which searches/pages are the most popular, and which are headed up or down in popularity. Checking out these trends would tell you, for example, that “Asperger’s” ranks pretty high on searches, indicating that people interested in the condition are rather likely to visit the Internet for information. While you might want to participate directly in adding content to that article or discussing it with other users (see below), you might just want to use that as an argument to enhance your own online presence, if that’s part of your target community. Similarly, an increase in search for “The Family” (a conservative Christian organization) might tell you that issues related to the role of religion in politics are resonating with at least a sizeable population of Wikipedia users, which could be useful in framing your electoral strategy. You can also use the history of each article to gauge how discussion and perception of a topic has changed, at least in this venue, over time.
  • Setting the record straight The National Council of La Raza is an organization that seems to have done an exemplary job using Wikipedia as a vehicle for presenting its work and clarifying lingering controversies about its conflicts with vocal anti-immigrant critics. I can’t tell who created the article, originally, because most Wikipedia users create pseudonyms, but the history page is fascinating–repeated attempts to insert racist language that were successfully policed by the Wikipedia community. There are some specific pieces that work well. First, it has ample citations from external sources and from NCLR’s own materials. Second, it is clear to distinguish NCLR from other organizations with which it may be confused. Third, it addresses the controversies NCLR has faced in a way that presents them honestly but also allows NCLR to fully refute the charges (again, in a different venue). And, fourth, it links users to NCLR’s website and those of related organizations, thus building NCLR’s network and its own online presence.
  • Monitor and contribute to cause-related content Obviously, we care not just what people know and think about our organizations, but, often, even more about what they know and think about the issues on which we’re working. For example, the article on mental health parity needs to be updated to include regulations written following the parity legislation passed in 2008 and the demonstrated impacts of that new law. While you, as someone who cares deeply about mental health parity (and may be working for an organization fighting to expand parity) need to be careful to source your content and include complete information, this is an issue where people knowing more about the full facts and the impact could bring greater awareness and support to the cause.
  • Collaborating and Discussing One of the features of Wikipedia that I’d never used before I read Tamar’s book was the Discussion/Talk pages. There are a couple of different opportunities here–users can engage in discussion about articles’ content, especially when there are disputes about particular entries–and/or you can find topics where people are requesting help to complete an article, and offer your assistance. Some examples that might resonate with social workers: a group looking to add content related to the political, social, and economic landscape of Missouri, and a discussion about how to best characterize both the use of racial quotas in education and the far-right John Birch Society. Each page has its own discussion section, and this is a good place to hash out disputes over contentious topics, find like-minded users, and sharpen your own debating. Again, NCLR’s page is instructive. Where else do we see content removed because the only source is Fox News? Hurray, Wikipedia!

    If you are a Wikipedia fan, and, especially if you use it for your nonprofit work, I’d love to hear about it! What has worked for you? What lessons have you learned? What ever would you do without it?

  • Community Organizers & Big Money

    photo credit: dgilder, via Flickr

    In my work with national coalitions on immigrant rights, I had the opportunity to work closely with several individuals from the Center for Community Change, a kind of capacity-building organization for community organizing efforts that convenes regional/national efforts, provides training, coordinates the efforts of affiliated organizers, and, through the Linchpin campaign, attempts to convince a larger swath of large donors to invest in community organizing.

    I really love the major premise of this guide, designed to help community organizers connect with (and fundraise from) major donors: that, since fundraising is really about building relationships to work together towards common goals, community organizers have tremendous potential to be really, really good at it. This is a critical assertion, because, all too often, nonprofit organizations that include community organizers have them segregated in an organizing department, away from fundraising, away from Board operations, even sometimes away from everything else that the organization does. Not only is this bad for morale and the reputation of the organizing profession, as well as bad for how organizations come to see organizing as somehow apart from direct service or other work, but it’s also bad for fundraising, because the organization can’t paint the fullest or most compelling picture for donors about what their work means (and they’re losing the participation of their often most effective communicators).

    On the whole, it’s a tremendously hopeful document, full of quotes from real, live, major donors who support community organizing as well as sample scenarios about how community organizers can go after that money. It also includes some good explanations of what community organizing is–kind of the ‘elevator speech’ that all of us need to be able to deliver to make our work make sense to those unfamiliar with it.

    I have only limited experience in approaching major donors for advocacy and organizing support, but, even through the lens of those memories, much of this resonated. The most significant learnings I took from the guide:

  • There is money to be found for community organizing among major donors: 94% of those surveyed give to community organizing, but 42% give fewer than 25% of their donations to organizing. Of particular interest are social venture donors, those entrepreneurial types who may be more willing to risk than others, naturally curious, and understanding about organizations’ needs for capacity building.
  • Community organizers are often our own worst enemies when it comes to cultivating major donors. We’re used to thinking about members and their financial capacity, so we often don’t ask major donors for enough. We’re often uncomfortable with wealthy people, but if we get over that and learn to see donors, too, as complex people with passions and fears, we can 1:1 organize them just as we would any prospect.
  • There are some real advantages to major donors as compared to foundations: no proposal to write (usually), quicker decisions, easier to build relationships and influence, can also contribute time/relationships with others, and give unrestricted funds! There is some evidence that they are less vulnerable to economic downturns, too, with many even planning to increase their giving in 2009-2010 to compensate for losses elsewhere.
  • We need to get over our hang ups about asking people for money. They make a great point: we have no problem asking poor people to give up their time, drive hours to the state capital, sit in for an action, but then we hesitate to ask rich people to give to our worthy cause? We need to stop apologizing for the ask and, instead, prepare as we would for any encounter with a target.
  • While it’s important to involve leaders in the cultivation meetings and, where appropriate, in the ‘ask’, organizers need to learn that cultivating major donors may not be a time when our backseat approach works. Donors want to build relationships with organizers, too, and we need to find ways to do that.
  • Major donors can be a positive force in the field of community organizing. They are pushing for better evaluation of the cost/benefit of organizing investments, funding projects that can assess short and long-term outcomes, and raising the importance of connecting organizing efforts into a broader progressive movement. They believe in organizing, connect it with hope, and articulate how it supports cooperative solutions to our society’s greatest problems. Combined with what the report cites as increasing awareness of community organizing and civic engagement (in part because of Obama’s election as a former community organizer), that all bodes very well for community organizers and, more importantly, those with whom they work.

    It’s an easy read. Please, read it, start a list of 5-10 people who could move into ‘major donor’ category for your organization, chart out a strategy for beginning and relationship with them, and practice your asks with a friend/colleague (I’d be happy to practice with you!). We can’t afford to leave any money on the table! And if you have successfully raised money from major donors to support your organizing, please share some of your experiences!

  • Jumping in with both feet: Nonprofit Board service for new social workers

    New Board members for Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey (http://www.kcfaa.org/about/board-of-directors/)--pretty much all guaranteed to be cooler than I am, but wouldn't that be fun?

    New Board members for Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey (http://www.kcfaa.org/about/board-of-directors/)--pretty much all guaranteed to be cooler than I am, but wouldn't that be fun?

    There are a lot of resources out there for young professionals who are interested in serving on a nonprofit Board of Directors, but they are mostly written from the “make your life more meaningful by applying your skills to the heart-warming work of nonprofits” perspective. For social work students, recent graduates, and young professionals, that doesn’t make much sense. I mean, we spend our 9-5 (OK, 9-7? 9-9?) lives ‘giving back’–why in the world would we volunteer for ANOTHER nonprofit organization in our (limited) free time?

    During the last several months, though, I’ve found myself making this suggestion to many of my students and former students: consider joining a nonprofit Board of Directors. And so I’ve done some thinking about why I think this makes sense for social workers, and also how I would suggest that a social worker and/or social work student get started. Some of the links above are still applicable, though, and could be helpful in preparing you for how some of your Board colleagues will approach their Board service, given that, for most nonprofit organizations, the majority of them will not be social workers!

    “I’m a social worker. Why Board service?”
    The rationale is unique to every Board member, and to every organization/member match, so you’ll have to find your particular reason for serving, but here are some that I have articulated in conversations with future, new, and relatively new social workers:

  • Get to know how Boards of Directors operate–this will help you as you approach your own agency’s Board as part of your organizational change strategies or as a social work executive within the organization. You’ll learn how Board meetings operate, how committees function, and what drives Board members’ decision-making. Obviously, each Board has its own nuances, but you’ll open the secret curtain and learn some insights that can guide your own work.
  • Build relationships with powerful figures in your community, which can also help you to leverage influence for your own causes. Obviously, you need to authentically care about the organization on whose Board you’re serving, not just be there to meet people who can help you with your full-time job, but the deep relationships that you can build on a Board of Directors can spill over into other work as well.
  • Build skills that will complement your social work skills–you can serve on personnel, finance, or fundraising committees (they’re, um, pretty much always looking for volunteers!). You’ll often serve alongside accountants, business people, managers–those who have some of the skills you may be looking to enhance. These skills can help you in your own work and/or professional advancement.
  • Relieve burnout by getting involved in a cause not directly related to your own work. I know that others might have a different idea of relaxation/recreation, but I find serving organizations that are doing valuable work that is not my own work lifts my spirits and recharges me for my daily commitments. When I was nearly drowning in immigration lobbying, for example, I volunteered at a domestic violence shelter, helping with an art therapy project (I know–art therapy, me? But it worked; all I had to do was manage the supplies and help with the promotion piece!). It centered me to be with clients and to be a bit outside my element. You can choose a Board that’s working on something close to your heart but not directly related to your main job.
  • Distinguish yourself from other candidates–here’s where you’re not so different from that business student looking to enhance his/her résumé. The job market is not good for social workers, especially in some fields/areas, and serving on a Board can set you a bit apart, help you make connections, and place you centerstage if that organization looks for permanent hires.

    “OK, so it might be a good idea. How do I get started? And how do I keep this from taking over my life?”

  • Start with organizations you admire and trust–maybe those with which you have served in coalition, or places you have referred a client and been pleased with the result? Every organization has its own conflict of interest policy for Board members, so you’ll need to be upfront about your affiliations with the organization, but you can usually find a way to make it work.
  • Find a good fit between the organization and what you want out of it–if you’re after skill enhancement, you probably want a smaller nonprofit where the Board is more hands-on; if you want to build relationships with powerful people, then a larger organization is probably for you. Ask about the time commitment, the committee structure, financial obligations, and other parameters. You want to know what you should expect!
  • Finally, be prepared to ‘sell’ your social work background to organizations. Because most nonprofits are much more familiar with social workers as employees rather than Board members, you will likely need to explain how your particular skill and knowledge set will be an asset to their organization’s leadership: your understanding of their client base, perhaps; your ability to represent some of the concerns of workers; your facilitation and conflict resolution experience; your data analysis or presentation skills; your understanding of grant guidelines or federal/state regulations…think about what you know, and what you can do, and how those abilities connect to what organizations need to accomplish.

    I’d love to hear from new social workers who serve on Boards of Directors–what benefits did I overlook? What have your experiences been as Board members? And what advice would you like to share? Do you have resources to help other social work Board members?

  • Advocacy within Deep Online Relationships: Strategy for Discussion Boards

    One of my favorite blogs, Community Organizer 2.0 (which I like not just for the content but because the author is totally genuine and generous and fun) had a feature a few months ago on free monitoring tools that nonprofit organizations can use to keep track of online conversations. One of those she mentioned was BoardTracker, a tool for monitoring conversations in a variety of discussion forum threads. She and I “talked” back and forth a bit about advocacy in discussion boards, and how a tool like this could help, and then I spent some time playing around with BoardTracker and thinking about organizing and advocacy within the discussion board context.

    So, here are some thoughts on how you might get started in using these powerful relationships to mobilize for advocacy, and a story that might give you some inspiration. I’d love to hear from you: are you currently participating in a discussion board/forum? If so, do advocacy issues ever come up there? Do your clients use discussion boards as part of their support network? How might you incorporate advocacy into those formats?

    My first thought, which I think will resonate with you if you’ve participated in discussion boards before, is that you need to understand the ‘culture’ of the board before thinking about how you’d interject an advocacy or organizing ‘ask’ into it. In some cases, using BoardTracker to monitor conversations and then jumping on to guide participants to advocacy opportunities, would be appropriate, and it’s certainly an easier way to keep track of what’s happening on those multiple channels. BoardTracker allows you to choose specific threads to monitor, or to choose those within certain categories, so you could start by “lurking”/listening to these threads, not just for content (what’s being said), but also for some of the norms around posts and some of the parameters of the relationships among participants. In some forums, particularly those dealing with certain diagnoses, or with family/relationship issues, someone dropping in out of ‘nowhere’ to link people to an advocacy initiative would be not just ineffective (because people tend to disregard posts from those they don’t know) but, worse, intrusive and even kind of creepy (people often forget that discussion boards are public and become quite intimate in their disclosures and, indeed, some discussion boards, while nominally open to the public, do require registration to view or post).

    This means that, depending on your issue and how you want to connect advocacy to discussion boards, you may want to invest in really becoming a participant in a couple of boards where the content or orientation of the participants is closely linked to your message. Be transparent in who you are and why you’re there, but also (just as in face-to-face organizing) be willing to provide some of the support that brings people to discussion boards in the first place. Online, we sometimes forget that coming out of the blue with a request for action is off-putting; we need to build relationships here, first, too.

    For many social work organizers/advocates, it makes sense for you to figure out where your clients/constituents/leaders are already engaged in discussion boards, and how you might build on those relationships as part of your advocacy strategy. Even better, cultivate the leadership of one of those participants to handle the discussion board work him/herself, so that, then, the advocacy piece is coming directly from someone who is already a bonafide member of that tightly-knit community.

    And, finally, I think discussion boards have some features that make them particularly well-suited to advocacy work online. They often have people at different points of their ‘process’ (be it related to addictions, parenting, mental illness, physical illness, unemployment…), which provides a sort of built-in mentoring and ensures that at least some participants are no longer in such dire crisis that they can’t see beyond today. They provide fairly intense support, in many cases, which can help people to take steps with which they might not otherwise be comfortable, and facilitates reflection after taking action. And, while relationships are deep, they’re also fluid. On most boards, anyone whose circumstances meet those of the other members and is open and honest about his/her participation is welcome, making discussion boards not only a place to start but also a place to send and groom new and emerging leaders, too.

    So, now, a story: For several years, as my husband and I struggled with infertility, I spent A LOT of time on infertility-related discussion boards. I got to know many of the women (they’re almost all women) on those boards, and there were certainly days whenthey understood me better than anyone else. It was a dark and very difficult time of my life, and their experiences and support were crucial to my survival. Still, I was still an organizer, and an advocate, and so I often thought about how to harness some of the power of those women, their knowledge, their passion, and their relationships, but in a way that would help them to heal and grow, not exploit what they had worked so hard to create–a safe space. That’s critical, I believe, to advocacy within discussion boards: we have to honor the participants and their community.

    I’ll never forget the day when I sat down to the forum and found that one of the members had delivered, after several years of struggle with infertility, a stillborn child. Even today, it makes me cry to write about it. We were all devastated for her and scared for ourselves: after coming so close to bringing home her baby, she had suffered a horrible tragedy. And the same thing could happen to us. A week or so after her first post, she began to express her anger at a system that denied her the regular ultrasounds that would have detected the umbilical cord wrapped around her child’s neck and that didn’t tell her about counting kicks until it was too late. She wanted to do something so that the death didn’t seem so unbearably senseless; she wanted to come together with this community to make some good out of tragedy.

    And, so, gently, I asked if she wanted some help putting together an advocacy campaign to push for state legislation that would require health care professionals to provide patients with information about fetal death and to create standards for insurance reimbursement for additional ultrasounds. She had found a lot of information, in frantic late-night Internet searches, and she pulled it together. I helped her plot a strategy, and other participants came forward to express willingness to take up the cause where they lived, too. She connected with experts in the field who gave us guidance on model legislation and clinical best practices. And many of us also reached out offline to our friends and colleagues who, while not a part of this infertility community, cared about this issue, too.

    I can’t say that we experienced across-the-board success, honestly; one of the challenges with legislative advocacy in this venue is that, while the legislative changes require considerable work within each state (and a fairly long time trajectory), the participants in this group moved in and out as their own situations changed (I, myself, didn’t stay active with the boards after I had my oldest son), and we didn’t have a critical mass in any one state. But we did see some bills introduced, some additional provider education, and, perhaps most importantly, a new tool for our collective healing, and a new sense of our common capacity, alongside people with whom our relationships were as ‘real’ as could be, even though they were always virtual.