Tag Archives: clients

They’re on our team–Nonprofit(s) Vote!

I love it when I find awesome like-minded people doing great things that I think will be super-helpful and interesting to you all. This definitely falls into that category: Nonprofit Vote.

It’s a blog with information for people in the nonprofit sector interested in nonpartisan voter engagement. Right now, they have a lot of information about the Census and why it matters for future elections, upcoming primaries, and continuing fallout from the Supreme Court decision on money and politics.

They also just launched their 2010 election cycle resources, with state-by-state resources, an awesome voter engagement toolkit, and a FREE webinar series on how to do civic engagement through your nonprofit (can you tell why I love these people?)! They’re very broad-based, in terms of their view of the nonprofit sector–the issues that scroll in the background include hunger, arts, immigration, environment, housing, literacy, disabilities, human services, youth, families, job training…I think we can all find something there that speaks to our work.

In addition to this commentary and encouragement (friend them on Facebook; I did!), they have some concrete tools for nonprofits to do voter registration, Get-Out-the-Vote, and electoral reform work as a part of their overall operations. All of their information is very relevant for social work advocates committed to civic engagement with those we serve.

Check it out; I’d love to hear what you think, and please, if you know of other resources to help nonprofits this election year, share them in the comments. And someone, please, send a thank-you note to the Nonprofit Vote folks–this has to be my record shortest post ever!

Rethinking Agency Intake: The Voter Connection

photo credit, junrinon, via Flickr

I know I’m not the only social worker who has read over an agency’s intake form and thought, “why in the world are we asking that?” or “who would seriously fill all of this out?” Seriously.

Out of respect for our clients, we must ask ourselves, always, if we need to know everything that we’re asking them. Do we need to know their income level? Their marital status? Their Social Security Numbers (hint: that last one is most often ‘no’, at least for those of us in the nonprofit world!)? If we can’t explain how each piece of information is connected to our programming and evaluation agenda, then we should NOT ask it, period.

So, after we review our agency intake materials and eliminate the questions that are hanging on because some funder once upon a time asked for them or we just assumed that everyone else asked them, so we should too, we should have some extra space and time in that initial encounter.

What to do with it?

Well, besides the obvious: get to the work of helping the person who came to us more quickly, we need to consider the tremendous potential to ask a few very, very simple questions that can have a much more profound impact on our clients’ lives: “Are you registered to vote?” “Can I register you to vote today?”

Intake is a prime opportunity to register our clients to vote; we’re already asking them questions, so why not add two that matter so much? Then, all you need to do is collect their name, address, and a little more identifying information, and you’ve got a newly-registered voter.

But what else can we do to make the voter/intake connection?

I’d like to see every nonprofit organization ask clients how they prefer to be contacted for service-related matters (related to their client relationship), advocacy issues, and volunteer opportunities. Since we won’t be needlessly asking about number of sexual partners anymore (until Allison Fine shared a similar story in Momentum, I thought I was the only one who had discovered that randomly on an intake form!), we can ask for cell phone numbers, and whether they are open to receiving text messages from us, for example. We can ask if they have any social media profiles that they’d like to use to connect to our agency (emphasis on they authorize the connecting!).

And, then, we can use those connections, and that data, to encourage our clients to go vote at election time (and, of course, to share advocacy information in the meantime, that connects the issues they face in their lives to the policy and political agendas decided by elections).

Then, we’ll have an agency intake process that really works: that provides us with the essential information we need to initiate the services that clients are seeking and that we know how to (excellently!) provide, and that sets the stage for a transformational relationship that views clients as co-creators of social change and lays the foundation for how we’ll work together to achieve a more just tomorrow.

And you can still run it off on multicolored paper if you really want to. Just like old times.

“You have a driver’s license”: On the limits of empathy

Social workers talk a lot about ‘meeting clients where they are’. And, as a community organizer and a social worker who believes in the transformative power of radical solidarity alongside those with whom we have the honor to work, I talk with students and colleagues a lot about the importance of staying rooted in the lives of those whom we serve, about shaping policy with an understanding of their realities, about navigating the differences that divide us from those with whom we work, about elevating their voices in the political process.

And, yet, sometimes I’m reminded, poignantly, of the limits of these efforts to bring our professional selves into a fuller understanding of the realities of our clients’ lives, realities that, for them, are not ‘grassroots’ or ‘authentic’ or ‘compelling’, but just ‘life’–hard, sometimes sad, sometimes joyful, often complex, life.

I read Jacqueline Novogratz’s book The Blue Sweater last fall. (I recommend it; she tells a very moving and very human story about how we often fail our way to succeeding in working well with vulnerable populations very different than we are, and I appreciated her honesty and courage and vision in telling this story and in building the social enterprise that she has created to address poverty around the world). She has a couple of kind of ‘punched in the gut’ paragraphs relating to this idea of the impossibility of really “getting it” in terms of working in solidarity with people in poverty, particularly in the developing world.

One is when she’s reading about the erupting genocide in Rwanda, a place where she lived for several years. Reading the headlines from the safety of her subway train in New York City, she remembers a conversation with a Rwandan woman who commented on how expatriates come and never stay. I can imagine her smiling knowingly at Jacqueline’s protestations about the commitment of foreign aid workers (like herself) to the country. Yes, she would think, but you have the safety of those foreign passports. You’re here by choice. And you’ll never really know.

She deals with a similar moral quandry when buying food for a celebration; her friend selects two $60 bottles of champagne and Jacqueline hesitates, since that’s more than most Rwandans earned in a year at that time. She comes to realize, though, that she can’t deny the privilege that is a part of her mere existence, and that consumer decisions are only a superficial part of that. “Most precious of all were our passports that would allow us to leave the country whenever we wanted and our sense of empowerment that led us to believe we could accomplish the impossible. The challenge wasn’t whether to buy a couple of bottles of champagne; it was instead not to take our privilege for granted…” (p. 102)–for the record, I wouldn’t have bought the champagne!, but she makes an important point about the real work, which is confronting our own nature as outsiders, and figuring out how to be truly helpful to those we intend, from this vantage point outside, to help.

All of that reminded me of one of my own moments of realization. I was engaged in a fairly hot debate with immigrant leaders and some other advocates about whether or not to accept a proposal for driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants if they would be in some way distinguishable from the licenses available to U.S. citizens. In my indignation over this affront to the basic dignity of the community with which I work, and my legitimate fear about the profiling and harrassment that could stem from such a labeling, I was arguing fairly forcefully for a political response that would reject ‘second-class citizenship’ and insist on full rights to identification.

We went back and forth, all of us, talking about the alternatives and the strategies for moving forward, and I’d like to think that I made some impassioned pleas for solidarity and building a movement for social justice, and not settling for a non-solution.

And then.

One of the undocumented immigrant women leaders with whom I had worked closely for a few years already at that point put her arm very gently on my shoulder. She leaned in so that she could speak quietly. And she said,

“Melinda, ya tienes tu licencia.” Melinda, you already have a driver’s license.

That’s all she said. And she smiled, very slightly, when she said it, as if to say, “hija, I know that you mean well. But this is not your fight. You can’t walk our walk. And you can’t pretend to know what we know. So it’s not. your. call.”

That exchange (you can’t even call it a conversation; I was pretty much silenced immediately as I sat chastising myself) has stuck with me. It led me to take some positions, as an advocate, that I found strategically (although not ethically) objectionable or unwise. It led me to make some very politically unpopular statements and even to alienate some people in power whom I had previously considered friends. Because every time I felt a bit entitled, because, you know, I was sacrificing a lot of my time, and my personal life, and even my mental health at times, to fight these fights, and even though I was roundly embraced by the community as though I was one of them, ya tenía mi licencia.

And so I couldn’t really say.

Here’s to never forgetting what we don’t know.

Guest Post: Justice for all–including those with mental illness

Note from Melinda: This is a guest post from one of my all-time most awesome students, from whom I have learned, and continue to learn, a great deal about what it means to be a great social worker. I asked her to write something about an issue that should matter a great deal to all social workers, both in our quest for social justice, and in our efforts to build the political power of our organizations and those we serve. Thank you, Cookie, for all you do and all you are. I’m so very, very glad to know you.

My name is Janet Cook, or simply Cookie. I am a mental health consumer (dual diagnosed) and a convicted felon. Some of you may ask yourself why I am sharing this very personal information for all to see. Am I not opening myself up to judgmental attitudes, unfair labeling and just plain old, everyday common discrimination? Yes I am, but for good reasons.

First, I could not care less about what strangers may think of me. My family and friends know me and, to borrow the infamous statement by Sally Fields after her Oscar win, “They really, really like me.” It has always been my philosophy in life that if someone does not like me I am okay with that as long as they have made at least the most basic effort to get to know me. Also, I am neither naïve nor narcissistic enough to think that everyone will like me or afford me the opportunity to be who I am without judgment.

That being said, I now come to my second reason for sharing the above information. My felony conviction, a condition over which I had control, allowed me to resume my right to vote once my civil rights were restored by completing my sentence and probation. First thing I did was re-register to vote. No lie–that is how important my right to vote is to me.

On the other hand, my mental illnesses, lifelong conditions that I never asked for but have accepted as just one part of who I am, can deny me right to vote in one of 40 states that places voting restrictions on people with mental illness, including Kansas.

In Kansas, if I am under guardianship or have been found incompetent, my right to vote is assured because the Kansas Legislature removed references to these conditions in 1974. However, prohibitions for individuals who are insane, i.e. suffer from mental illness, and felons were left in the Constitution. Am I the only one who does not see the logic in this?

Kansas SCR 1622 is a concurrent resolution that would remove the references to mental illness and suffrage rights from the Kansas Constitution. The right to vote is our most fundamental duty and honor as citizens, and struggles throughout history have sought to extend it to all. Yet in recent committee meetings some State Senators voiced belief that people should have the capacity to make proper judgment or some level of capacity before being allowed to vote. I have to ask myself how election officials might go about “testing” every registered voter to make sure he/she will make a “proper judgment” before casting a vote. Any and all ideas are welcomed.

Fortunately, SCR 1622 was passed by the full Senate by a resounding majority-38 yeas and one nay. The fight in the Kansas House is going to be a bit more of a battle. The bottom line is that all Kansans need to contact their State Representative to ask them to support SCR 1622. If you don’t live in Kansas, find out what your state’s laws are regarding the suffrage rights of those with mental illness, and connect with consumer groups advocating to extend and protect this core right.

By all accounts, approximately one in four Americans suffer from a mental illness. Look around you right now, at your work place, at the mall, in the grocery store or wherever. Every fourth person you see or meet in all likelihood suffers from a mental illness. Do you or anyone else have the right to tell them that “Hey, you can’t vote. You’re just too crazy.” Sound silly? Guess not in at least 40 out of 50 states in the great country of ours. And at the same time, the social work profession tells consumers, including those with mental illness, that they need to take responsibility for their own services, engage in their communities, advocate to protect the services on which they depend. We can’t pay lip service to empowerment if we’re not willing to fight for the most basic power–that of the vote–and against discriminatory efforts to deny it.

Spread the word. To find out who your Kansas State Representative is and how to contact him or her, go to www.kslegislature.org. Tell your representative that you’re a voter, and that you think every Kansas citizen should be too.

Entering the false divide: social enterprise and ‘traditional’ nonprofits

A lot of the blogs that I follow (Tactical Philanthropy, Dan Pallotta, Acumen Fund, Social Velocity) deal with themes related to the changing nature of the nonprofit sector (there was even a rather heated discussion on another blog about what term to use in describing this sector–”community benefit organization”, anyone?), and about the power of social enterprise to change the world.

These conversations often take on a kind of back and forth. Those critical of the status quo in nonprofits argue that only market mechanisms have the power to produce real results, and that nonprofits’ failures are evidence that the ideologies that underlie them need to be scrapped (sometimes sounding straight from Wall Street); those who defend nonprofits point out (sometimes a bit self-righteously) that there are jobs that need to be done that markets don’t exactly embrace; and so it goes, on and on and on.

And I’ve been watching all of this, reading and thinking a lot about innovations in solving social problems, and finding myself swinging back and forth between the two pendulums.

And, then, some paragraphs in The Blue Sweater (written by the founder of the Acumen Fund, a very pro-social enterprise perspective) and a Facebook exchange with a former boss of mine have brought me to a point where I think that we’re really asking the wrong questions and focusing on the wrong variables in this debate.

Because, really, it’s not what your organization is called or even whether it makes a profit that matters most: it’s whether you solve problems, and, precisely, how well you solve the problems you set out to solve (which, to be fair, is really the premise behind Tactical Philanthropy). And both ‘traditional’ nonprofits and social businesses have proven that they can solve problems. And both have been proven not to be successful, too.

So, as my favorite part in The Blue Sweater highlights, we need to ask not whether we should employ X microlending or social marketing or social enterprise strategy; or whether a nonprofit is dedicating a high percentage of its revenues to programming or keeping costs down…but whether social justice is advancing, lives are being improved, problems are going away. And it’s not about what’s the best version of X program, either, because it just might be that what we need is Y. To the extent that social businesses can bring us these innovations, we should figure out ways to support their efforts–with what Acumen calls ‘patient capital’ and with a legal structure that accommodates their unique role. And to the extent that traditional nonprofits rally people around proven ways of helping, they should be celebrated.

And, ideally, we should focus this terrific energy among people who collectively care a lot about promoting justice and alleviating suffering to blending the best that both approaches have to offer: the built-in feedback of markets that make many social enterprises nimble and customer-focused, and the commitment to mission and spirit of solidarity that characterizes the best nonprofits.

As the author states in The Blue Sweater, “philanthropy alone lacks the feedback mechanisms of markets, which are the best listening devices we have; and yet markets alone too easily leave the more vulnerable behind” (p. 247).

For social workers, I see parallels in all this to the debate over whether to call those with whom we work “customers” or “clients”. More than just semantics, this language reflects a difference in how we see these folks, and how we see ourselves. And so, for our profession, as we contemplate the changing shape of the organizations and fields in which we work, our challenge is to think of our clients/consumers as our allies in a shared struggle, those with whom we have to, together, figure out the best way to get to our shared vision of a better tomorrow, in whatever vehicle is going to take us there. And be ready to jump ship if we find a better way. And not worry too much about what it’s called.

I guess this means I need a new phone?

I have smart phone envy, I’ll admit. My husband has an iPhone that I openly covet, trying to come up with excuses for why I need to borrow it. And my best friend just got one; when she sends me emails from it, I usually respond with “you suck” (and then an actual response–she is still my best friend).

What appeals to me so much about these smart phones is the idea that you really can do whatever you need to do with your computer, but from wherever you are, whatever else you’re doing. Yes, I know that there’s a danger of “iPhone orphans”, and I’ve heard the ‘crackberry’ jokes, too, but, seriously, is the idea of always thinking about your work, no matter what else you’re doing, really anything new for social workers?

What doesn’t appeal to me about these phones is the pretty steep cost for the monthly service agreements; an unrestricted data plan like my husband has, combined with relatively basic mobile service, costs more than $70/month (his company pays for it; I’d have to pay for it myself, hence–no iPhone for me).

So, when I saw this awesome (as usual) Heather Mansfield post about mobile technology and nonprofit organizations, it jumpstarted my smart phone envy again, but it also made me think about what this move to mobile technology will mean for social workers and social welfare agencies.

I don’t have the answers (I mean, I don’t even have the phone!), but here are my questions:

  • How will social service nonprofits make allocation decisions about who gets access to mobile technologies like these, in an era of perennially-scarce resources? Will we see the CEOs sporting iPhones and the case workers not? Will we rotate these kinds of devices among staff members, in an ‘on-call’ type of system? Or will organizations make an investment in mobile technology as the next wave of ‘must have’ for everyone (the way that a computer essentially is now)? In which case, I’ll have to go back to work full-time to get one (smile).
  • What will this mean for confidentiality? And for boundaries? And for social workers’ work loads? And for worker productivity? There is so much new territory here: workers using their smart phones for non-work uses (with an unlimited plan, not really a problem, except when you account for time); others potentially seeing emails, texts, or other communications from/about clients; workers feeling that they can’t ‘escape’ work at all, given their ubiquitious ‘availability; clients’ expectations of social workers’ availability…really, these are just escalations of the same kinds of questions we’ve been asking for a few years now, albeit with a mobile spin.
  • And, finally, since more and more of our clients have these smart phones now, what does this potentially mean for using mobile technology to connect with clients, and even to provide social services? We’re already seeing some grassroots advocacy organizations do a lot with texting (the type of communication that traditionally yields the very quickest response)–what about social workers who are reminding clients of an appointment, following up on something from a previous interaction, or requesting information? How can we use these technologies to work better with our clients, while not depending on them to the extent that we harm other aspects of our relationship?

    Is your organization fully mobile? Or on its way? How has it changed your work? For the better? Or not? And do you have an extra iPhone laying around that you just want to give me (joke)?

  • Successful Lobbying Visits with Clients

    Elected officials say it all the time. Reporters start and end every interview with it. And social work advocates sound like broken records repeating it over and over again. When it comes to public policy deliberation, what people really want are personal stories. You know, the pull-at-the-heartstrings, compelling, yet meticulously documented and concisely told story of how real people are impacted by the social problem, and how a certain policy approach would dramatically impact their lives for the better. As you begin an advocacy campaign, it makes sense to collect these stories from those with whom you work. Have a list of people who are willing to give interviews (more on preparing your clients to talk with media later) and maintain an archive of stories, categorized by policy area. Weave them into your publications, your legislative testimony, and nearly every conversation you have with your targets.

    As you probably know, though, there is no substitute, for equipping your clients to tell these stories themselves. There are several challenges, though, associated with facilitating direct encounters between the people you serve and the people who (theoretically) serve them in elected office. I have been part of legislative visits with clients where people became so emotional that the meeting had to be interrupted, where people felt completely unheard, where there were arguments among clients in front of the legislator, and where those who were not included in the meeting became very upset. And I have been part of legislative meetings with clients where the elected official cried (in a good way), where politicians gave firm commitments on issues (when I had never been able to pin them down), and where the whole thing flowed so smoothly that I barely said a word. Even when it goes badly, it can be great; once, a state legislator slammed the door on one of our immigrant students, screaming, “get out of my office and go to college in your own country!” The student stayed calm, smiled, and said to the closed door, “Thank you, ma’am. But I am in my country.” And thank goodness, there was a reporter there to witness the whole thing.

    So, what can you learn from what has gone wrong, and how can you make these visits empowering for your clients, enlightening for elected officials, and energizing for your advocacy campaigns? Some thoughts (of course, you knew this was coming!):

  • There needs to be a transparent process that determines who will be present at a particular meeting, especially if the idea is that this is a sort of ‘delegation’ meeting representing a larger community. You can’t, obviously, include everyone–in most cases you won’t want more than ~4 people at the most–but you also don’t want to arbitrarily decide who to include, because someone will question your roster.
  • Deal with all logistical issues early. Yes, I have been in a car accident, with clients, on the way to a meeting with a U.S. Senator. Himself. (at least I didn’t have the accident with him, right?) Plan to arrive at least 30 minutes early. Make sure you know if photo ID is required to get in the building, or if you have to leave your cell phone in the car. Have all of your materials ready. Make sure that everyone has transportation (or come together–just drive safely!). Have cell phone numbers for everyone who has one. Call the office the morning of your appointment to confirm. Make sure you know how much time you’ll have for the meeting. Have an interpreter if you need one. Make sure that there will be enough chairs for everyone you’re bringing. Etc, etc, etc…
  • You need an agenda. Of course, if you don’t know how the elected official (or his/her representative–prepare your folks for the likelihood that you might not actually meet with the legislator) will respond, you can’t predict exactly how the meeting will unfold, but you need to roleplay possible scenarios, and each person needs a specific role, carving up the overall message that your group wants to convey. This, of course, can help you in choosing the team, too, since you need people whose stories/skills/experiences complement each other.
  • Think through what could possibly go wrong, and prepare for how you’ll handle it–you might even need a sort of ‘code word’, if someone feels that he/she really needs rescuing, or really needs to exit; especially if people are telling their own stories, practice helps them to be able to get through them, but it’s still a very emotional exercise.
  • Have a timekeeper/facilitator. Someone (maybe you) needs to have little to do besides keep everyone else on time, diplomatically change the subject, transition to a new speaker, or just cut someone off, and close the meeting. This is a really tough task, actually, and should be given to someone with great communication skills and some authority in the group. And make sure that everyone understands this person’s role before you get started.
  • Know who is empowered to speak for whom, and on what. At some point in the meeting, you may be offered a compromise of sorts, or asked what your bottom line is. You need to know how you’ll respond to this so that you don’t have one person offering something that others find unacceptable.
  • This also requires clarity on your role as the advocate. The elected official may prefer to speak directly to you, because, for all that they claim to want to hear from ‘the people’, it’s still uncomfortable for some to be confronted with real hardship. Your role needs to be clear, in advance, to the policymaker, and also to the team coming with you.
  • Process the meeting afterwards with your folks. On more than one occasion, I have left a meeting feeling pretty disheartened–we got the runaround again, or I felt that a certain person didn’t get much chance to talk, or whatever. And then I’ve found the rest of my group feels very differently, often much more positively, about the encounter (at times, leaving me to wonder if it was the same meeting). Sometimes, this requires some gentle consciousness-raising, so that people aren’t placated by policymakers’ empty rhetoric, but oftentimes, it’s the case that they have a more realistic and healthy view of the process, and that they can see the benefits of the process more than we can, as advocates focused on the finish line.

    Okay, then, in closing, a story that really broke all of the above ‘rules’ and was still pretty phenomenal. Early on in my advocacy work, Sister Therese Bangert of the Kansas Catholic Conference asked me to facilitate a meeting with Senator Roberts’ office and some advocates and clients around the issue of reauthorization of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). By all accounts, this should have been a nightmare–we all arrived separately, had never met each other, had only a printed agenda in front of us, and had no time to prepare. Instead, it was fairly awesome. Sister Therese had given us all clear roles to play, and we had our facts ready. The TANF recipient who was there gave a brief and very eloquent introduction about just how hard it is to make it in the labor market without advanced education (one of our specific policy requests was to restore higher education as an allowable work activity in the reauthorization). A woman who worked in a childcare that primarily served low-income families talked about a few specific cases as well as some of the facts related to wages for families leaving TANF, the need for increased childcare subsidies, and the impact on child well-being. And I mainly asked our questions about Senator Roberts’ position and the timeline for reauthorization. Reauthorization ended up being put off entirely for that year, but I still feel really good about that meeting. We were a pretty impressive group, far stronger as a collection than we were individually, and, while we didn’t have a relationship base going into the meeting, we formed fairly lasting relationships during those 20 minutes of teamwork.

    If you have set up legislative visits with your clients, what have these experiences been like? What would you do differently? What other help do you, or they, need? What have the outcomes been?

  • Research Part II

    You made it through yesterday’s marathon post about participant-led research? And you still want to know what we learned throughout this whole process? Here are some thoughts that might be helpful to other organizations, whose primary task is not research but who want to layer a research agenda onto their practice and advocacy work. Below I’ve linked to the survey instrument we used (it’s in Spanish, of course), the 2006 survey report, and also a report from a youth survey that we did, also in 2006, at the request of some of the parents among our client leadership as well as our grassroots youth leaders.

  • Be accountable to your survey participants–for us, this meant continually trimming the survey so that it took as little of their time as possible, bringing the results back to them for feedback, and also taking the results into account in our own programming and advocacy decisions. We started citizenship classes because they were cited as a need, and we ranked our policy priorities as a direct outcome of the survey.
  • Be militant about confidentiality–I only allowed people to administer the surveys using standard color ink, for example; we locked the surveys in file cabinets; when it was time to shred the originals, I did it myself. People need to know that you are taking maximum precautions. We were also very clear that people had the right to refuse to participate, and that nonparticipation IN NO WAY impacted their eligibility for our services. This may have reduced our numbers, but it is the only way to ethically conduct research.
  • Use your data fully–once we had this rich resource, we used our results in our legislative testimony, grant applications, conversations with policymakers, even interviews with potential staff hires! Don’t overstate what the data tell you (be honest about its limitations), but acknowledge its full value, and be creative in its application.
  • Be timely–I worked like crazy in September and October to get the results ready, because, when you’re dealing with applied research, something is ‘old news’ after several months. The long lag between research and publication is one of the limitations of academic participation in policy debates, and we wanted to avoid it. It was funny, really, that by the time Families in Society went to press with the article, I had already left El Centro, Inc.!
  • Similarly, the context should drive some of your analysis, to make it relevant–we always added questions about how specific policies were impacting people’s lives, and also asked questions that we knew we could use for our policy campaigns (about goals to send children to college, for example, or having a driver’s license). In 2006 (see report below), the debate over immigration was raging, so we added some questions about people’s participation in the campaign and also their views on specific policy proposals being tossed around.

    Materials:
    Detrás del Debate–El Centro Survey Report 2006

    Youth Survey Report, 2006

    Survey Instrument, 2006