Pull Focus Open House
April 26, 2011 | 7pm

In the spirit of grassroots social change, Pull Focus Film School brings together emerging filmmakers, activists, non-profit practitioners, and media innovators in an environment that encourages conversation, collaboration and creative engagement in social change.

The goal of Pull Focus is to empower students to tell stories they care about while raising awareness about many of the amazing and ambitious efforts that are currently being undertaken within the non-profit community.

Pull Focus celebrates its spring program with an Open House on April 26th at 306 Abbott Street in Gastown. Come experience the ‘social change’ spirit, in tandem with the exciting evolution of the local mediascape.

——

Change Through Food Systems
May 3, 2011 | 6pm

From producer to intermediaries to consumers, how can positive change happen through our food systems? We all play a part – let’s talk it out!

Join us as three unique individuals spark a conversation about food systems and have your turn to make connections to new ideas, people, and passions.

Moderator: Anthony Nicalo @tonynicolo – chef; entrepreneur; building first global map of local food @foodtree

Speakers:

• Arzeena Hamir @arzeena – agrologist; coordinator for the Richmond Food Security Society; engaging diverse communities in the food security conversation
• Herb Barbolet – food activist; researcher; author
• Mijune Pak @followmefoodie – food blogger at Follow Me Foodie; facilitating producers and consumers in conscious engagement with food

In my travels last year to West and Central Asia, I found that for many countries IWD ranks in the top 10 of big holidays, along with Nooruz (Persian/regional New Year) and Independence Days (from the Soviet Union).

On one of my van trips in Uzbekistan, I sat in the back row with a young man keen on practicing any and all English he knew. Here is my IWD gift from him to you (and our mothers)…

Mother, mother, mother
I love you very much.
I hope you’re very happy
On the 8th of March.

Hot and sticky in the Uzbek desert

NLN Curriculum Development: Part 2
Hosted by Vantage Point
Monday, January 10th, 2011
5:00 pm – 7:00 pm
FREE

Part two of a participatory meeting that will guide the Next Leaders Network future curriculum.  You will also have the chance to meet and network with others in the not-for-profit sector through collaborative activities. (If you’re not a member, look into it!)

Hosted by Ashoka Canada, SIG, Plan Institute, and Causeway
Monday, January 10th, 2011
5:30 pm – 7:00 pm
Pay What You Can

Learn more about the world of social innovation and social finance from 4 distinguished leaders in the social innovation arena. Meet and network with other passionate and driven individuals involved in the social innovation space.

How to Get the Media’s Attention
Hosted by SFU Continuing Studies
Saturday, February 5, 2011
1:00pm – 2:30pm, 2011
FREE

Even the smallest amount of media coverage can be a huge advantage. But getting the attention of busy journalists and editors isn’t easy. Discover what it really takes to get mentioned in print, broadcast, or online.

Image Credit: ephotography

I believe social change happens on three main levels.

1. It includes actions that fill immediate needs. Food banks. Shelters. Child care. Chaining yourself to an old growth tree.
2. It includes projects that provide ongoing support or awareness raising. Groups for single mothers and survivors of abuse. Employment programs. Bike to work weeks. Farmers markets.
3. It also involves changing legislation, infrastructure, and societal norms that are barriers to some balanced utopia where people, animals, and environments are free from persecution and exploitation.

The first two are where nonprofits and charities thrive. But for all the money, effort and talent that is poured into these actions, I feel that little progress beyond the anectodal has been made.

I believe that real progress, real change, happens because of the third. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) agrees:

Through their dedicated delivery of essential programs, many charities have acquired a wealth of knowledge about how government policies affect people’s lives. Charities are well placed to study, assess, and comment on those government policies. Canadians benefit from the efforts of charities and the practical, innovative ways they use to resolve complex issues related to delivering social services. Beyond service delivery, their expertise is also a vital source of information for governments to help guide policy decisions. It is therefore essential that charities continue to offer their direct knowledge of social issues to public policy debates.

But this is where the voice of charities and nonprofits are restrained.

Lobbying – an action used by industries and companies to advocate for self-serving policies, programs, tax incentives, etc  - is fairly unrestricted by government. Save registration requirement for lobbyists which acts to increase the transparency of lobbying efforts, industry organizations and individual companies can lobby to their hearts desire if they can get the ear of a minister, elected official, or other senior public servants.

However, this does not hold true for those advocating for charitable efforts (defined in Canada as the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, or other purposes that benefit the community, a definition that comes from a 1891 British legal ruling with roots even 300 years earlier). Registered charities in Canada are only able to spend 10% of their resources on political activities, which include “explicitly communicat[ing] to the public that the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country should be retained…, opposed, or changed.” Charities with less than a $200,000 operating budget can dedicate more resources, on a sliding scale to 20%. Note that the percentage isn’t just $, it’s also people (including volunteers), space and other physical resources.

The CRA states that one main reason applications for charitable registration may be rejected is that “the organization seems to be devoting too many resources to political activities.”

It should be noted, however, that nonprofit organizations (those that are not registered as a charity, but as a society – e.g. under the BC Society Act) are able to dedicate as many resources as desired to political activities. However, these organizations do not receive the same tax benefits as charities (e.g. the ability to provide tax receipts for donations) and are not eligible to apply for a majority of foundation and government grants (which often require charitable registration numbers).

Overall, while lip service is given to the value nonprofits and charities can provide in policy change, the voice is restrained. We wouldn’t want the sounds of progressive social change to get too loud.

IMPACS, an organization that lasted briefly over the turn of the millennium, was working hard to analyze the law, dialogue with charities and nonprofits across Canada, and suggest alternatives to the current regulatory system. At a recent event in Vancouver, I met with a variety of individuals interested in this topic, and I decided to dig a bit further to get as much IMPACS documentation as possible. Thanks to Justin Ho over at United Community Services Co-op in Vancouver, here are the results for you to review if you are interested. Of particular practical use is the Election Took Kit. Si vous voudriez les documents en francais, envoyer-moi.

• The Law of Advocacy by Charitable Organizations: The Case for Change
• The Law of Advocacy by Charitable Organizations: Options For Change
• Let Charities Speak: Report of the Charities and Advocacy Dialogue
• Charities: Enhancing Democracy in Canada
• Helping Charities Speak Out: What Funders Can Do
• Charities and Democracies: Election Kit
• Charities and the Federal Lobbyists Registration Act
• Tax Policy, Charities and Democracy in Canada: A Summary of the Problem and Remedy

Impacts of the regulations on ethnocultural organizations:

• The Law on Charity and Advocacy: Current Issues and Possible Solutions (AMSSA)
• Ethnocultural/Ethnoracial Advocacy Groups, State Funding, and Charitable Tax Status (Luther, 2001)
• How the Law of Charities and Advocacy Can Be Changed To Better Serve Immigrants and Refugees (OCASI, 2001)

Letters to government ministers and committees:

• Letter to Minister of National Revenue re CCRA draft on political activities (Feb 2003)
• Letter to Minister of National Revenue re CRA decision on political activities (Oct 2003) (English)
• Brief to the Standing Committee on Finance (Sept 2005)

I’m trying to find out what current action (if any) is being taken on this issue. I sent a message to Michelle Gauthier, Vice-President, Public Policy & Outreach at Imagine Canada on December 5 to find out it it’s on their radar, but I haven’t heard back. If you are a charity wanting clarity, contact me or visit the CRA website. If you are interested in digger further with me, let me know.

Register for this bridge-building conference and you’ll get to see my lovely mug checking you in and taking session notes throughout the day. I was at the final organizing meeting tonight and I’m pumped!! The list of attendees is looking diverse and fantastic.

Wiring the Social Economy
Saturday, December 4, 2010
W2 Storyeum, 151 W Cordova, Vancouver
$20 sliding scale registration online or at the door

Wiring the Social Economy is a day for discovery and connection. For tapping into the energy of social entrepreneurs and sharing the wisdom of experienced change agents. For getting out of our silos and our comfort zones. Are you up for it?

There are two main goals of the conference that support community economic development. The first is to help the social media and technology community understand the challenges, needs and constraints of social change agents along with the issues they face. The second major goal of the day is to help the social enterprise and community economic development communities understand the possibilities and potentials of using technology in their work.

Each of these groups has organizations, events, and conferences to offer support within their communities. The goal of Wiring the Social Economy is to cross-pollinate ideas on challenges, solutions, and best practices between these communities of practice.

Can’t attend? Watch the website and wiki for live streaming and session notes.

Image credit: Chris Devers and Banksy

Dan Pallotta, author of Uncharitable, recently spoke to a sold-out crowd in Vancouver, hosted by Vantage Point and sponsored by TELUS. I wasn’t sure at first if his speaking style could sustain the hour+ talk, but he won me (and the audience) over early with his humour and his substance. I had the pleasure of watching the presentation twice – I listened the first time, and tweeted the second.

The basis of Pallotta’s talk was based around two ingratiating issues that face the nonprofit sector. I’ll outline them briefly here, but I also recommend reading the book.

Be like business, without all the benefits of business

Nonprofit organizations are often told they should “be more business-like” or “become more professionalized”. However, the tools that business use to succeed are not available to nonprofit organizations (or perhaps are available, but organizations are harshly judged when they use them). Hence the subtitle of Dan’s book: how restraints on nonprofits undermine their potential. Charities must respond to the great inequities that the powerful tools of capitalism have created, but without using those same powerful tools.

What percentage of my donation is going to the cause and how much to overhead?

This is just a less educated way of asking “are you effective at advancing your mission?” Because evaluation of programs is difficult to do and to share effectively, and the only way that charities officially report on progress is through CRA reports and return, the easiest (but not the most valid) way of measuring charities’ effectiveness at advancing their missions is through financial ratios that show how much money goes to programming (aka “the cause”) vs other costs, like administration and fundraising (also “the cause” but somehow not understood as so).

Constraints

Dan deals with these two issues with describing the constraints they put on nonprofits.

1. Compensation: “Nonprofit salaries should be low.”So, apparently it’s OK for people to get paid well if they play football, or refine oil, or create magic weight loss pills. But if they are doing good, attempting to rebalance the inequities of our world, getting paid well is taboo. Because of the feel good “psychic benefit” we’re told.The nonprofit compensation debate in Canada came to a head recently when Liberal MP Albina Guarnieri proposed Bill C-470 (which Dan rebutted in an op-ed piece), which seeks to limit nonprofit compensation. However, I would like to note that financial incentives indeed are important for furthering the good in the world. There is a reason that we offer tax receipts for donations to charities. The feeling of doing good doesn’t do it all. And if we truly want hunger eradicated, our rivers protected, and our diseases cured, should we be attracting the best and the brightest to do it?Someone I met recently attacked the salary (not even the level of salary, just the fact that there was a salary) of the SPCA CEO. “A volunteer could do that,” he said. Umm, a volunteer could run an organization with a budget of over $10 million dollars and a staff in the hundreds? We wouldn’t imagine asking that of a private sector CEO.
2. Marketing. “Nonprofits shouldn’t pay for advertising.”Dan argues that it would be irresponsible to put a new product out on the market and not advertise. But somehow nonprofits are held to a different standard, even though nonprofits are fighting for a market share of consumer spending like any other business.
3. Risktaking. “Nonprofits should not take risks when fundraising.”If an event or campaign isn’t profitable in its first year, it will likely be squashed. However, success is built on experience, which means that new, innovative and perhaps risky fundraising opportunities are not sought out. Many businesses are not profitable in their first year(s), but again, nonprofits in general and fundraising campaigns more specifically are held to a different standard.
4. Long term investments. “Nonprofits results have to happen now or else.”Nonprofit funding from large proportions of their revenue bases (government, foundations, corporate giving) is often done on a yearly basis. Which means that any outcomes of the program have to happen within 12 months. However, the private sector benefits from huge investments over years in research and development before final products go to market. Nonprofits lack that advantage.
5. Profit incentives. “Nonprofits can’t offer profit incentives in order to grow.”Private and public companies benefit from being able to offer the opportunity for financial profit over time in exchange for an influx of growth capital. Small examples of this exist in Canada (CDCs, or community development corporations) but a whole new corporate model needed to be created for these types of organizations. Revenue generating arms of nonprofit organizations miss out on this opportunity.

Dan asks: if organizations with purposes of community benefit aren’t able to do these five things, how can they be expected to succeed?

Perhaps we should remark upon was has been done to date in spite of all of these expectations and constraints existing since the beginning of charity.

So what about the issues with “overhead”? The CBC infused fear into the public’s perception of nonprofits when it ran a series on nonprofit overhead and costs of fundraising. This has been responded to (fairly pathetically, I might add, but hey, nonprofits aren’t supposed to pay for advertising at therefore have weak relationships with news agencies, so it’s OK that the alternative voice was heard so weakly, right?) by many, including Vantage Point and Imagine Canada. Sure, there are crooked organizations in the nonprofit sector, but these are crooks, not nonprofits.

Dan takes issue with three factors.

1. A focus on overhead leads to overhead being taken to be separate from “the cause”. Overhead is part of the cause. The fundraiser, the accountant, the HR manager, the receptionist, the maintenance staff – these are all important roles that make an organization function. Without them, the programs (aka “the cause”) wouldn’t exist, or would function less effectively. Just as in the private sector, a product is more that just the sum of its parts.
2. A focus on overhead leads nonprofits to forgo things that are needed to advance causes. In an effort to keep overhead low, nonprofits may be unable to hire experienced, strategic staff that are going to advance a cause more effectively. They may cut out professional development, which means the nonprofit would lose out on enhanced skills, productivity, and likely high staff retention. They cut out marketing costs, which may decrease awareness of the cause and donations to the cause.Dan counters, “Fundraising isn’t sexy but it’s where the hope lies. If we want to ramp up impact, we need to invest in fundraising.”
3. A focus on overhead gives donors bad information. The problem with looking at overhead is that overhead only addresses efficiency, but not effectiveness. Would you buy a pair of uncomfortable shoes littered with holes and made from toxic materials if the overhead of the shoe company was low? “Sure, the shoes are shit, but man, that overhead, wow is it ever low!”Yet somehow, we measure the value of our nonprofits based on overhead, not how well they are advancing their missions. Even Charity Navigator, one of the most often referred to charity evaluator in the US, says that evaluating the effectiveness of charities’ programs is out of their scope. They measure some sort of efficiency, which does not give the full picture to donors.

Dan offered a variety of humourous anecdotes to shed light on these issues, but what was missing was how to tangibly change the public discourse around these issues. He was speaking to a room of converts, and the room was overflowing with self-reassurance and pats on the back. However, how do we respond to questions and criticisms about our practices and our overhead? Dan covered the “what?” and “so what?”, but missing was the “now what?”

But, as this post is going on way longer than I expected (really, if you’ve got as far as this, you should probably just read Dan’s book), I’ll propose some “now what?” in a future post.

So in the meantime, I want suggestions. How would you respond to these questions and comments?

1. Wow, I heard how much your CEO makes. That’s ridiculous. She’s siphoning off money that should be going to the <insert disadvantaged population>.
2. I’m not sure about donating to your cause. How much of my donation is going to actually go to the cause instead of overhead?
3. I saw your ad in the front of Vancouver Sun. How can you justify those sorts of costs?
4. You shouldn’t be expecting a high salary if you work for charity, because doing good makes you feel good.

Credit: pursuethepassion

Pompous*: (adjective)

• affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn or self-important
• characterized by pomp or splendor (archaic use)

*according to my Macbook Dashboard dictionary

Attending Net Tuesday Vancouver’s event last week on the use of video on the web left me with two impressions.

1. Web video can be a highly valuable and splendid way for nonprofits to engage with their audience and spread their messages.
2. People that create video for the web can be irritatingly self-important (see “HOWEVER” below)

The experienced panel offered great practical tips, the highlights being:

• if you’re not a pro, free tools such as iMovie and Windows Movie Maker are fine (Final Cut Pro was the choice for the pros)
• assuming you have a good story, video/editing quality doesn’t have to be great for a video to go viral, but sound quality is much more important
• things going viral is hit or miss; quantity of output is as important as what you think quality is
• other tools include Jamendo (free music), Mobygratis (free Moby music), freesound (free music), other Creative Commons audio sites, Tech Soup Canada (free or discounted software for nonprofits), pixlr.com (a free, web-based alternative to Photoshop for non-pros), qik (webstreaming tool), Craigslist (finding people willing to work on your project as a volunteer or for an honourarium)
• Pull Focus Film School is a great Vancouver-based resource, as it  ”partners aspiring film makers with non-profit organizations that are in need of film content”

For a great summary of Net Tuesday Toronto’s recent event on video, with even more specific tips, click here.

However

One story told by a panelist was of a video that was peddled to and turned down by two related advocacy groups because the video didn’t fit their values. Which means that the video makers either:

1. made assumptions of what was needed and made a video without consultation and didn’t choose the right audience; OR
2. consulted the client and yet somehow still subverted some of the values core to the client.

Don’t get me wrong. I thought the video quality itself was great. Well edited, good story line, emotional tension. I laughed, I cringed. The people behind the video production are obviously technically and creatively talented…

…but completely off the mark when it came to the core principles of the group the video was “made for”. And yet, the reaction was that of disbelief. They wanted cred for something they were trying to give away for free. The phrase “biting the hand that feeds you” was used. You’ve got to be kidding me. This is just a new age bourgeois version of pat-on-your-back charity.

The thing is, you’re not of service if you’re not wanted.

This is huge news. Politicians across this country should pay close attention. So often, complaints are made about the disengagement of the Canadian public in politics, how youth don’t get out to vote, but I have always believed that it’s the politicians, not the public that is the problem. The pettiness and negativity that exists in Parliament and out, and the self-censorship that seems to be required for towing the party line but that disallows intelligent, engaged conversation, drives me crazy. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Most of the news on Nenshi is about the fact that he is – gasp! – the first Muslim be elected mayor of a major Canadian city. However, I think the bigger news is that Obama-style excitement and politics from the ground up happened right here in Canada. People got engaged. People voted. And this is possibly the first time an article with the word “Muslim” in it drew a majority of positive comments on the Globe and Mail’s website.

Somehow though, what the media has missed completely is the fact that Naheed was part of the inspiration for my very first blog post, back in June of 2009. We were both at the Association for Nonprofit and Social Economy conference at Carleton. Naheed is the first tenured professor of nonprofit management in Canada. (And has an abundance of other exciting experience – check him out; he’s cool.) At one workshop, we had a side chat about the pros and cons of various Twitter plugins, we soon came to the realization that he was the same Naheed Nenshi I had referenced when building a wikipedia page on Nonprofit Studies. Though while I’d like to say that we go way back, in reality this post looks way back, but Nenshi is looking to the future.

Congratulations.

Industry collapses? Reeducate workers.

Want democracy? Let girls learn.

Want to ward off terrorism? Keep young men in school.

etc. etc. etc.

=========

Lack of knowing creates fear, intolerance, ignorance, bad decision making, oppression.

More known = more good.

Discuss.

The Incomplete Thought Series is, well, a series of incomplete thoughts. These are thoughts I have not researched, but which have popped into my head and am interested in discussing. Your incomplete or complete thoughts are encouraged.

Ships by the former Aral Sea shore

It’s that time of year again - Blog Action Day – and the theme this year is water.

I could spout about facts relating to the importance of water to sustainable development, to the environment, to health, etc. and how much is wasted. But I won’t. I prefer to model, not rant. Instead, I’m going to share a bit about my personal relationships with water, highlighting some experiences from my travels.

On my recent trip through West and Central Asia, I made a visit to Moynak, Uzbekistan, to witness one of the greatest planned ecological disasters related to water EVER. Moynak used to be a bustling town supported by a vibrant fishing industry, as it sat on the shores of the great Aral Sea. That was over 50 years ago. Now, the depleted community sits over 180km from the current shore. There are old, rusted boats, sitting in the surrounding desert. Water was diverted from major sources to irrigate huge cotton plantations. Soviet engineers expected the sea to dry up. It’s really all unbelievable. (*cough* sustainable development and environment *cough*)

Water was probably the cause of all the sicknesses that I went through the latter two months of my trip. (*cough* health *cough)

I was a huge fan of the bucket baths in much of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Not only because they usually involved an almost sauna-like experience, with a bucket of cold water and a rusty tank of hot water sitting over a fire, all in a little wooden shed, but also because I was amazed how little water is actually required to clean one’s self. (*cough* wasting water *cough*)

And on a completely different trip, I wanted to give a shout out to the Yoga Farm, a hostel/retreat in southern Costa Rica at which I thoroughly enjoyed their compost toilets and rainwater showers.

Back in Canada I wouldn’t say I try consciously to minimize my water use, as I instead just generally try to minimize. I reduce first, then reuse and recycle.

So today, on Blog Action Day, I am consciously thinking about the ways I currently minimize my water use, and areas for improvement.

Minimizing water use

• Washing clothes and dishes only when the washers are full
• Drinking tap water (it takes a lot more water to produce bottled water, other bottled drinks, and other goods such as coffee beans)
• Keeping an old Brita jug handy (sans filter) to collect water from washing vegetables etc. to use to water my plants
• Covering the bases of my outdoor potted plants with leaves so water from rain/watering doesn’t evaporate as quickly (though I’m only guessing it does this, I don’t actually know for sure)
• Replacing my old toilet with a low water usage one (that thing is amazing!)
• Replacing my old bathroom faucet with an aerated one
• Eating fairly vegan, as beans and nuts take way less water to produce than meat and animal products
• Buying most of my clothes at consignment stores, therefore not buying new cotton products (remember the Aral Sea disaster?)

Areas for improvement

Showers. I love showers. Nice, hot showers. I think I’m pretty efficient with them in terms of length, but I don’t know if I could ever turn off the shower while I suds up. Of all the things I change, this would probably be my last. I’m allowed a modicum of gluttony, aren’t I?

Rain water collection. I’m wondering if there’s a way to tap into my condo’s gutters to help water my plants?

Wait, am I water-saving hero? Why can’t I think of more right now? Surely I’m not a saint.

Your turn

I calculated my water footprint at www.waterfootprint.org and found that I use 1217 cubic metres of water per year. I have no idea what that exactly means, but I’m open to a competition.

========

What other Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers are saying on Blog Action Day

• What’s The Furthest You’ve Walked For Clean Water?
• Can We Change Our Water Behaviors?
• What’s Your Water Footprint?
• Why Water?
• Women’s Rights — What’s Water Got to Do with It?
• Blog Action Day: Chesapeake
• Blog action day: What’s your relationship with water?
  

========