Tag Archives: advocacy

Social workers as policymakers

Social workers are not, as a general rule, very comfortable with power.

Listen to a group of social workers, or social work students, talking amongst themselves for any period of time, and this will usually become quite apparent. “You know, I wanted to make the big bucks; that’s why I became a social worker!” (facetiously, of course) “They don’t tell me anything; I’m just the social worker!” You get the idea.

The reality, of course, is not only that such self-effacing attitudes are quite self-defeating (more on this later, since I just realized I’ve never written up my whole “power speech” for students!), but also inaccurate.

Social workers have tremendous power. Ask any client who has ever been rejected for services, been made to feel ‘less than’, had her children removed from her home, been required to attend condescending classes, or been scheduled for an appointment at a terribly inconvenient time.

In fact, every day in many ways large and small, WE are what our clients most directly experience as power, and as policy.

And when we deny this, or when we fail to recognize it, we don’t win any points for our martyrdom. We don’t empower anyone by pretending that we have less power than we do. When we fail to adequately account for and ethically employ the power we have, we, instead, fail our profession, our institutions, and, most importantly, those we serve.

This is an often uncomfortable realization for social work students who, after all, got into this business to help people, not to wield power over them. But power, and the way that power works in relationships, is really at the heart of any clinical relationship–how would we, as social workers, ever help anyone to change his/her life if not for the power granted to us by virtue of that mutual relationship? And it’s an integral part of administrative and advocacy practice, too, particularly when it comes to the discretion that social workers at all levels enjoy–to apply eligibility rules, to interpret ambiguous rules, to selectively apply certain incentives or sanctions. The literature and history of our profession recognize this–skim any introductory social work text for “social control and social assistance”–and we know that, if we were honest, our job descriptions would also include words like “gatekeeper”, “rule-maker”, and “policy police”.

This discretion is a core part of what what makes social workers (and other, similar professions) professionals, and it’s a big part of what makes social work a feasible proposition. Think about it: there is no way that an organization could create policies to account for every possibility, and there are dozens of ways, every day, in which policies as enacted are unworkable as implemented.

The challenge for social workers, then, is to acknowledge the policies we make through our decisions, and through our inaction, too. It is to accept the ethical ambiguity of this policymaking and seek consultation and engage in deliberation to approach it with the utmost caution. It is to build mechanisms that incorporate the perspectives of those served in this decision making, and to share power meaningfully so that these clients experience our discretion as a thoughtful exercise of professional authority, not an arbitrary or capricious exercise of personal fiat.

The brief scenarios below come from my own social work practice. I’d love to hear from other social workers grappling with this whole idea of professional discretion and of the iterations of social work policy making within our organizations. How and when have you confronted this realization of your power? As a supervisor, how do you manage discretion for your direct reports? How do you build transparency and accountability into the policies made by your actions, the same way we seek to build these measures into policy we create in other contexts? How do we create a truly empowering relationship with clients, knowing that it is only through an embrace of our own power that we can hope to empower others?

  • As an Adult Protective Services worker, I was regularly humbled and rather stunned by the tremendous discretion that I and other APS workers had to make determinations about what constitutes abuse, neglect, or exploitation, who should be held responsible, and what the appropriate corrective actions are. When social workers go into someone’s home to ask these uncomfortable questions, we are exercising huge authority and serving as an arm of government power. And, most of the time, no one’s watching over our shoulders to be sure that we use this power “correctly”.
  • My work has often required interpreting for clients. Every single time, I am cognizant of the power that comes with this role–I am literally putting words in their mouths, and I’m filtering everything that they know about a situation that is often of real importance to them. While few social workers serve as multilingual interpreters, we all play roles in helping clients to navigate the social service delivery system, bridging gaps, and “translating” their circumstances for those unfamiliar with them. This makes us creators of reality, a gigantic power.

    We spend a lot more time talking about how others do policy to us–state legislatures, Congress, federal agencies–than about how we make policy. I think that’s because the latter is a lot more uncomfortable for us; it requires confronting our power and the often ‘sticky’ nature of our policy decisions. We owe it to our clients, though, to do this confronting. We are, for many of them at many points in time, the embodiment of policy’s potential to oppress or to empower, whether we like it or not.

  • Is a Feminist Uprising the Traditional Ninth Anniversary Gift, or the Modern?

    Today is my wedding anniversary.

    Which, in retrospect, is perhaps not the best time to finally get around to reading Susan Faludi’s Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women.

    Anyway, the combination of the anniversary and the book, and my continued thinking about motherhood and women’s struggles for equality and justice and health and peace…have me thinking about what a truly pro-women policy agenda would look like, and what such a movement would mean for families, the nation, and our social work profession.

    Women’s experiences in our society are distinct, and we need political power that recognizes that, demands policies that support us, and changes the expectations that we have internalized, which, after all, is what the backlash is really about: making women police ourselves, so that no one else even needs to consciously repress us.

    And I think that all of that is tremendously important, which I why I read blogs like MomsRising and Feministing, why I include content in my policy classes about “gendered budgets” and how social welfare policy has oppressed women, and why I think that we need policy reforms that give women real options and real equity and real authority. Absolutely.

    But, on this day, my thoughts are really more on my own journey as a woman, how the personal is always political and, for me, the political is personal now, too. I’m thinking about how I couldn’t see how sexism and proscribed gender roles impacted my life until I was a married woman, largely because I had bought into the conceit of exceptionalism. I’m thinking about how many people have nodded sympathetically (approvingly?) when I said that I quit my full-time job because I missed my kids too much when I was traveling, and how their reactions affirm the backlash at work: “see, another woman who tried to have it all and thought better of it.” I’m thinking about how my wonderful husband, who had to actually show me where we get things dry cleaned when I first went to part-time work (because I never, ever got off work in time to go to a dry cleaners before!) has only made dinner a few times in the past three years. I’m thinking about how nice it would be, at least sometimes, to be the one to rush off to work in the morning, and about how much I miss the recognition and respect that came with a more prominent job. I’m thinking about how many mothers at the park say “lucky” when I tell them that I work part-time, and how many of my full-time employed friends say the same. I’m thinking about how our own social service organizations fail in creating the kinds of jobs that work for working mothers, and about how many times I asked for more help so that I could cut my hours back, before I quit. I’m thinking about how glad I am that my son told me, “when I’m older, sometimes I’ll have to get off work early to pick up my kids because my wife will be at work,” and how to make sure that he sees all of me, not just the Mommy side. I’m thinking about how many people told me to “work less” when I couldn’t get pregnant, and how no one told my husband that. I’m thinking that many of the same groups that attack women’s right to an abortion attack the technologies that helped us build our family, too, and about how my grief cemented my commitment to women’s full spectrum of reproductive freedoms. I’m thinking about the kind of example that I may have inadvertently set for the young immigrant women with whom I organized when I stepped back from that work…and about how missing my kids can be construed as a statement about something entirely different.

    And, because I’m an organizer and a policy geek, I’m also thinking that I bet most of those moms at the park would agree that they do more than their fair share at home, want better options in the labor market, and reject being labeled as “just stay-at-home moms”, and I’m wondering how many would self-identify as feminists. I’m thinking about how to build a movement that can change the frames that constrain women’s lives, because “pro-family” shouldn’t mean “turn the clock back”, “gender-neutral” almost never is, and no one ever nods knowingly at working fathers who “try to have it all”. And I’m thinking personally, too, about how my wedding vows included the phrase “work with you for justice and peace in our home and in our world”, and about what building a truly equitable partnership looks like, every day. I’m thinking about that agenda: equal pay and equal education and some things that must be distinctly unequal–reproductive choice and affirmative action and economic support for single mothers. And I’m thinking about how to make sure that my kids, especially my daughter, grow up in a society that supports women in a multitude of roles, having broken through the backlash for good.

    And I’m thinking, too, happy anniversary, honey. I swear.

    Your very own MoveOn

    CitizenSpeak is a free email advocacy service for grassroots organizations (or, really, judging from current campaigns, also for individuals with a passion for a particular cause) that allows you to create a unique web address for your campaign, which you can then email as a link to your list of supporters. Obviously, you might have the ability to do some of these functions through your own agency website. But, if you’re a very small organization without much independent website capacity (like a neighborhood organization or a group of parents or a youth group) or, conversely, a very large, bureaucratic organization where getting approval to make a change to the agency’s website is an advocacy campaign in itself, then CitizenSpeak could be very helpful to you. Some of the features that I particularly like:

  • You can create sites in English o en español. Nice.
  • It comes with reports, so that you can collect personal statements from your supporters (to figure out their own connections to the issue and/or further refine your appeal) and track participation rates, both as an internal evaluation tool and to motivate additional action.
  • CitizenSpeak also has a blog, that includes highlights of successful campaigns using the technology and some tips. It’s awesome to see connectors connecting themselves. There’s a whole list of case studies, too, many of which are really, super inspiring.
  • There’s a list of active campaigns on the site, so you can make sure that no one has a campaign exactly like yours underway (or connect with them if they do!)
  • Did I mention that it’s free?

    I’d love to hear from anyone who has used CitizenSpeak for advocacy, to get your take on it. And I’ll be expecting some emails from some of you, too!

  • A Millennial Social Policy Agenda for the Millennium

    Last week I had a post about the Millennials, their tremendous potential for good in this country, and how advocates for social justice can build on their promise. I’ve been doing some more research, both about the characteristics and conditions of this generation, and about their public opinion preferences, and I’ve been thinking about what a social policy agenda for this “Millennial Era” (as it’s called in Millenial Makeover) would look like.

    What excites me the most? How much potential for overlap there is with My Top 10 Things we Should be Thinking about in 2010 list. Maybe there’s hope for me being an ‘honorary Millennial’ after all!

    But the greatest lesson for this whole exercise, I think, is how we can learn to talk and think like Millennials regardless of our particular policy priorities, in order to both gain new perspectives on our issues and also to increase the likelihood that they’ll gain support from this large and increasingly influential cohort. Below are some of the values and concerns that the authors identified in Millennial Makeover, with my take on how to frame social work policy priorities to align with them:

  • Concern about debt and fiscal sustainability: Millennials will deal with record personal and national debt as they age, and they’re right to be concerned with how it may weigh down their pursuit of their goals, and our collective pursuit of national well-being. Social work advocates can talk about tax reform as a step towards a stronger fiscal foundation, and should also have ideas for how stronger education investments (see below), prevention programs, immigration reform, and other social work priorities will also reduce costs and, ultimately, shrink the federal deficit. This doesn’t mean that we back away from priorities that have significant costs, but it should add another tool with which we can make our case. It also means that we need to address the rising economic insecurity even among highly-skilled workers, for whom the economic recession and increasingly ‘temporary’ attachments to employers have resulted in tenuous and very leveraged lives.

  • Commitment to equitable health care policies: Millennials are more likely than any other cohort to be without health insurance coverage, and their employment histories (and, likely, futures) make an exclusively employment-based health care system untenable. Advocates for social justice need to organize and mobilize this population in pursuit of continual health care reform, connecting it not just to their own vulnerability but also to their concerns about equity, security, and fiscal solvency. Again, similar arguments can be used to shift risk from individuals to the federal government and other collective entities, not just in the area of health care, but more broadly across people’s lives.

  • Belief in the importance of education: There are two key points here: first, that Millennials will be a very highly educated generation, and one that knows first-hand the value of an education and, second, that some of the values and tools of this generation are well-suited to reforming our educational institutions in ways that have significant promise to improve outcomes for all kids–transparency, relationship, accountability, networking, anti-orthodoxy.

  • Commitment to public service: If our nonprofit organizations aren’t structuring volunteer opportunities specifically to appeal to young adult volunteers, we are totally missing the boat here. Over 80% of Millennials volunteer, so get busy and figure out how to connect them to your work. In public policy, we can build on this belief in shared fate, responsibility to others, and the value of altruism to promote policies that, while not directly related to Millennials’ individual well-being, appeal to their sense of civic-mindedness; this is where support for older adults and those with disabilities could fall.

  • Environmental protection: Millennials care about my kids’ future, too, even though they’re too young to belong to the same generation, and, in addition to being the generation that will (hopefully) stop climate change and reduce our footprint, the Millennials’ focus on future generations is a good argument for supporting investments like universal preschool, stronger supports for working families, commitment to juvenile justice reform, and other policies for a better tomorrow.

    The Millennial Makeover ends like this (I couldn’t fall asleep for hours later!):
    “The tectonic plates undergirding America’s political landscape are beginning to shift. The resulting cataclysm will wash away the current politics of polarization and ideological deadlock, putting in place a new landscape of collective purpose and national consensus that involved individuals and communities in solving the nation’s problems” (p. 267).

    I don’t know about you, but this is one wave I really want to ride. I apologize in advance to my kids’ babysitters for the dozens of questions I will ask you about your political beliefs when you’re just trying to get out the door, to my neighbors’ kids for asking them which issue frame most appeals to them, and to the random young people on campus I stop to ask you how you think the Obama Administration is handling xyz issue. It’s just that, well, I think you’re kind of a big deal. And so should we all.

    I’d love to see examples of how these issues and perspectives of Millennials are (or are not) reflected in this 2010 election season. A special treat awaits those who comment with links to political advertisements or other analysis of how candidates, parties, and/or nonpartisan groups are framing their priorities along these lines, and/or actively reaching out to Millennials in pursuit of their common policy agendas!

  • Philanthrocapitalism, Part II

    So you read yesterday that I might be coming around, at least a little, to this idea of the role that philanthropy, at least that which is strategic, focused on solving serious social problems, and embedded in a truly progressive tax code, can play in our quest for social justice.

    So you knew that there was a “but”. And here it is. The ironic thing, though, is that some of these very same ‘philanthrocapitalists’ are offering the same cautions, the same caveats, to which I now turn. Maybe there’s hope for me to be a billionaire someday after all. Or not.

    I love it that Bono told the authors of Philanthrocapitalism, “as great as some of the philanthropists in your book are, the real change comes from social movements” (p. 12). And it appears that he’s not alone. “A growing number of philanthrocapitalists are realizing that one of the most effective ways to leverage their money to change the world is to use it to shape how political power is exercised” (p. 240). Exactly. And that’s the point about this new emphasis on the new philanthropy that advocates of social justice cannot afford to forget; there is no way that people in poverty, those who have been excluded and marginalized around the world, will ever get what they truly deserve as a voluntary donation from those who have so much. AND, there’s no way that we’ll solve the serious social problems facing our planet (or even just our community) with just a collaboration between people in need and even the most enlightened rich person; we need the resources of our public structures on our side too.

    And only movements move those mountains. The kind of movements that a reliance on philanthropy will subvert.

    Social work has to acknowledge our own less than pristine history in this area: The Charity Organization Society, part of the heritage of our great profession, worked in Victorian England to keep government out of the business of helping the poor, arguing that such work was best done by philanthropy (and, of course, them). Even today, social workers can be guilty of that attitude–discouraging the kinds of universal approaches that seek to prevent social injustices because they may erode the need for our professional intervention. And we are willing to overlook the unscrupulous business practices of companies that write checks for our fundraisers, play up to the foundations who make us jump through unreasonable hoops, and rationalize spending way more time applying for grants than trying to change the world…because that’s the way that the system works now.

    So the part of the discussion about this new philanthropy that excites me the most is that, increasingly, philanthropists and foundations seem to get this, seem to know that they can’t do it alone, and seem willing to invest in trying to seed the kind of social change that can set the stage for real transformation. The Gates Foundation partnered with other donors to build the Ed in ’08 Campaign, an effort to put nationwide education reform at the center of the 2008 presidential campaign. They largely didn’t succeed, but, then, that’s sometimes how agenda setting starts. They’re not backing away from it, though, claiming that advocacy on several issues will be an increasingly critical part of their strategy in the coming years. The Omidyar Network’s (my husband thanks you for eBay, by the way) investment portfolio includes strengthening governments, in the belief that “effective government is crucial to social impact”. It even gave up tax advantages in exchange for the ability to engage in political campaigning to advance its goals. The Skoll Foundation has taken a more indirect route, making movies with a social message to change the public debate.

    I’m not worked up about this philanthropic engagement in politics and governmental reform being “an age of plutocracy”. Seriously–isn’t there ample evidence of the far more malicious role that money is playing in our political system today? It probably goes without saying, however, that this does not a movement make.

    An effort like DATA comes closer, since its work centers around using popular culture to bring people (mostly Millennials) to the anti-poverty cause. And it had significant impact, winning historic debt cancellation and raising the consciousness of a generation. After all, building a movement requires changing people’s hearts, and it’s indisputable that rock stars have easier initial access there than do social workers or community organizers or even charismatic politicians. They can put things on the agenda just by opening their mouths, and sometimes that’s an opening that can spark something far greater than they.

    We still have the make the road by walking. There are no real shortcuts that I’ve ever seen. But if philanthropy is increasingly willing to stock the rest stops along the way, and pack our backpacks with some of the provisions we’ll need, and buy us a really good map, well, then, we just might get there a little more quickly.

    Or, what, am I just going soft?

    photo credit, wobblycity, via Flickr

    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”?

    Plancast and authentic invitations

    photo credit, Anna Malie Design, via Flickr

    Okay, so it’s turning into “technology two weeks”–there are just too many exciting tools to fit into one week’s posts, so I’ve got a few more to throw out for this week. Today’s relates to an application with which I really wasn’t familiar until a few months ago, when I read about it on Beth’s Blog. Playing around with it got me thinking about how we don’t usually ‘invite’ people to ‘participate’ (both words intentionally in quotes) in our work until we’ve really already decided what it’s going to look like and what the parameters for involvement will be, and about how social media hasn’t really changed that yet, but certainly could, and about how a tool like this might help. I’d love to know what you think.

    Essentially, Plancast works a bit like Facebook or Twitter (except you use it primarily just for things that you’re working on and events that you’re planning to attend). You subscribe to other users’ plans, and they can subscribe to yours, and then you can interface with each other as those plans develop. It interfaces with Facebook and Twitter, which is nice, but it doesn’t penetrate nearly as well as those applications; only 5 of the people I follow on Twitter were on Plancast the last time I checked. To add a plan, you enter what you’re working on, when, and where. To me, that’s where the invitation piece comes in.

    Too often, whether we’re online or offline, we tend to think that just broadcasting what we’re doing amounts to organizing–now people know what fabulous things we’re up to, and so naturally they’ll want to get on board, right?

    Um, do you respond well to that kind of non-invitation?

    The best organizing, of course, happens when participants feel real ownership, have a chance to influence where this ‘bus’ they’re supposed to ‘get on’ is going to actually go, and know that they are valued for more than just their +1 added to your turnout totals.

    And that’s what kind of intrigues me about Plancast (and Google Wave)–the idea that we use it not to share what we’re already doing, with the expecation that people are going to be immediately psyched about that, but instead to share our plans and hopes and ideas, to invite some authentic conversation about how we might work together, even if that means that our plans end up changing in the process.

    To be sure, there is broadcasting going on in Plancast, too, but I have also seen considerable give-and-take, like someone posting that she’s been invited to give a workshop at an upcoming conference, and asking for suggestions about what should be included, and someone else asking for fundraising suggestions when a needed program faced possible elimination.

    If social media can deepen our connections to others so that we remember to be more wedded to them than to our prior vision of how this whole thing was supposed to work/look/run, that will be key to its potential to truly invigorate our organizing. Real invitations, that give people a chance to put their stamp on the work…those are the kind people love to accept.

    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?