Category: For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

If I can make culture I must act responsibly

A while back I wrote about ranting vs. modelling, and how we can change the minds of others not just through protests and media, but through small actions.

Which is why I love the following quote

Far from despair, the idea that each of us recreates reality with each encounter fills me with a wondrous sense of hope, empowerment and community connection. If there is no absolute truth “out there” by which to create pristine “expert systems” which can somehow solve our problems mathematically; if I am who I am because you are who you are; both of us who we are because they are who they are; if we accept that when we enter into dialogue we both change; if its true we co-create reality, which in turn creates us, then we are called to a new kind of community. If I can make culture I must act responsibly and if I can only ever be part of the creation I must act humbly. (Maureen O’Hara, speaking about the potential of post-modern feminism)

If I can make culture I must act responsibly.

The words we use, the decisions we make, the thought and opinions we hold, the structures we create, the laws we enact, the people we vote for — these are all actions made by people, not amorphous non-human actors, and create our culture.

Our actions today, and tomorrow, as family members, as friends, as members of society, as fellow bus riders, sa fellow tourists, as fellow women, etc. — create our culture.

Creating a new, more just culture, and a new reality, might be a messy process, but an important and beautiful one.

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Test post

Indulge me interwebs.
I’m trying out posting via email, using the Post by email plugin on wordpress. 
<h2>Can I add headers?</h2>
What about links?
<blockquote>What about quotes?</blockquote>

This last line I have a space above. The other lines were all without spaces.

This bit is posted from by text editor. Is the font funny compared to the rest?

It’s actually a few lines. This one and the one above have no spaces.

This one has a space above.

End of test, thanks!

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Volunteer engagement frameworks or no?

There are two fantastic volunteer engagement spectrum/ladders that I have come to know and use in my strategizing for volunteer engagement, and another that looks more at the purpose/intent of volunteerism. I wanted to share them with you as potential frameworks with which to view how you engage volunteers, and for you to identify gaps in how volunteers might be engaged.

Framework 1: Spectrum of Volunteer Engagement (Volunteer Canada)

Spectrum of Volunteer Engagement
Source: Volunteer Canada. Canadian Code for Volunteer Involvement. p. 20. Available at http://volunteer.ca/content/canadian-code-volunteer-involvement-2012-edition 

I like this framework in its simplicity. It is easy to envision the types of roles volunteers and supporters can play for each colour of the rainbow. It recognizes that the value of giving in ways other than hands-on time (e.g. who share their social capital by sharing information about the organization/issue with people in their networks). It acknowledges that people might come to volunteering through less active support, meaning that volunteer engagement and marketing/social media folk should work together within an organization.

The weakpoint of this framework is the absence of more robust descriptions and assistance for the reader in implementing what the framework suggests. I suppose that is what strategists like me can do for organizations, but it would be great for organizations to play with it more in house. While there isn’t really a link to more info about this framework, members of Volunteer Canada can try out their audit tool to help gauge their volunteer engagement work.

Framework 2: Engagement Pyramid (Groundwire)

Engagement Pyramid
Source: Idealware / Groundwire. Engagement Pyramid. Available at http://www.idealware.org/articles/engagement-pyramid-six-levels-connecting-people-and-social-change.

The original source of this framework (Groundwire) has ceased to exist, but you can find a description of it at Idealware.

What I like about the framework, and especially the information supporting the framework, is its detail in what each level might look like, how to measure engagement at a specific level, and how to move people up levels. I highly suggest a read of blog post describing the Engagement Pyramid.

I spoke about this tool/framework in June 2013 at Social Media for Nonprofits conference in Vancouver. In that space I used it more as an idea generator. But those who have the capacity to conduct strategic planning around volunteer engagement, in conjunction with marketing/communications and fundraising can really benefit from what the framework offers.

The upside of this tool for some is a downfall for others – its complexity. For organizations with little time and resources to spend on volunteer engagement strategy, this might be too robust. At a minimum, however, it’s great for ideas.

Framework 3: Continuum of Service (Morton, 1995)

Continuum of Service
Source: Morton, K. 1995. The Irony of Service: Charity, Project and Social Change in Service Learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2 (1), 19-22.

This one is a little academicky, but it speaks to different motivations/intents of volunteers, and the types of work they can be engaged it. Organizations that only offer roles that connect to charity (often because the mission/service model of the organization is focussed on charity) will serve a very specific type of volunteer interested in hands-on work, that can be short term in nature (though some volunteers will continue longer term). Social change opportunities exist more frequently in advocacy and public education/policy oriented organizations, which again will attract a specific type of volunteer.

Each type of opportunity has its benefits and downfalls (e.g. feeling evidence of impact various) but each serves a purpose AND a specific type of volunteer.

Framework 4: No framework

Time limited? Want to think the least about volunteer engagement?

If you just want to start somewhere, I suggest continuuing with your work, sharing it publicly, saying YES to those that contact you with something important to offer, and focussing your efforts on those who often support you.

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators Personal and travel

What my master to-do list looks like – Workflowy and GTD

In previous posts on my to-do lists and how I organize my life, I’ve talked about my master to-do list. This, and many of my other productivity practices, come from a book called Getting Things Done by David Allen (also know as GTD…Allen’s productivity ways have a bit of a cult-like following). For people, like me, who organize themselves in a linear/logical way, I highly recommend the read. It’s been years since I read it back at SFU (thanks Chris Koch for the recommendation) but here are some of the principles that I still use:

  1. Brain dump. Every once in a while, give yourself time to write down everything that is on your mind that you have to do/want to do/have ideas about. The idea is to get things out of your head and free up the time you spend running things over and over again in your mind in order to remember. (From the GTD website: Your mind is for having ideas, not holding them”)
  2. Categorize your to-dos. For the things on your plate that you want to accomplish in this moment, identify the next action that needs to be taken. Be specific. The categories I use are: send #email, make #call, #read, #write, take action on the #web, take action #offline on my computer, #do something at home off my computer, run an #errand, and #waitingfor (things I don’t have to do, but are waiting for from others).

To keep this all organized, I use Workflowy. This is a website/app that allows you to create really long to-do lists, with multiple bullet levels that you can expand/contract/click on. You can use #hashtags (as above) to tag items on the list. And if you are working with others, you can @people for things to show up on their lists. It’s like the Twitter of to-do lists.

Here’s a glimpse of what it looks like:

Workflowy

And what it looks like when I click on a tag:

Workflowy tag

I love Workflowy because of how simple and clean it is. When you click on a tag or a list heading, everything unrelated disappears. It’s really beautiful.

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Vancouver Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force final report – a review

Engaged City Task Force cover

Late 2012 I was selected to serve on the Vancouver Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force (ECTF)…and promptly had to step down as I was heading to Spain and Morocco for 4 months.

But I remained interested in the work of the task force, following their “quick starts” released in mid 2013, and recently read the final report [PDF], which was approved at council last month.

About the ECTF and the report

The purpose of the final report was to “dig deeper into the roots of a disengaged and disconnected population,” specifically to

To examine innovative best practices for civic engagement, and seek to make progress on priority issues including improving the way the City communicates with citizens, engages newcomers, new immigrants and youth, consults on policy, increases voter turnout and enables community connection at a neighbourhood level.

City Council requested the ECTF to focus on potential improvements in three areas:

  1. Enabling neighbour-to-neighbour engagement
  2. Increasing civic literacy about, and opportunities for engaging
  3. Enhancing how the City engages with residents, and vice versa

City Council and the ECTF also decided to focus on certain demographics and areas of interest.

City Council requested recommendations that would be relevant to all age groups but asked the Task Force to put a special focus on residents between the ages of 18 and 35. … It also asked the Task Force to explore opportunities to expand engagement through the use of new technology. As well, since the Task Force had members from a number of cultural communities, we decided to also make special efforts to engage newcomers and new immigrants. (p. 15)

My reading lens

The lens I took when reading was: will the results lead to meaningful engagement of those underrepresented in or isolated from current ‘mainstream’ community engagement (who might well be engaged in ways that are not seen by dominant culture)? Or will it lead to more engagement of people that are already engaged?

The report

Firstly, thank you to all the volunteers who served on this committee. Such an endeavour takes time, expertise, compromise, courage for new ideas, and commitment. You had a big hill to climb.

The final recommendations fell under four valuable categories:

  1. Build knowledge
  2. Build capacity
  3. Build trust
  4. Build power

The recommendations run from the specifc (“Create a Public Space Action Association”) to the incredibly vague (“Develop specific strategies for engaging under-represented groups”).

A qualifier re: my thoughts. I admit I am a highly critical person. My instinct is to want to make things the best they can be, and my way of contributing to that is to play devil’s advocate, challenge thinking, and pointing out potential flaws or gaps.

 

My initial reaction: some gems, with overrepresentation of hipster/artsy/tech ideas, and lacking voices from underrepresented/marginalized populations.

 

Gems

There are a selection of observations and recommendations the report made that I wanted to highlight as being particularly valuable:

Observations/reflections (all direct quotes)

  • accurate information from a trusted source, in a convenient location, delivered graphically and/or in first languages is crucial to engaging community members
  • many organizations are struggling to find, access, and retain affordable (private) spaces in which to bring people together
  • To build trust, several stakeholders stressed the importance of providing extra time for complex planning issues
  • “food encourages people to come out when nothing else will draw them”
  • the need for smaller, localized opportunities for engagement to complement those that that are citywide
  • Many residents expressed an interest in becoming more invested in neighbourhood and citywide decisions, yet were concerned that some groups dominate consultations and can intimidate others with alternative views

Recommendations (all direct quotes, any emphasis mine)

  • “City Hall 101” that employs graphics and animation to describe City processes
  • seek opportunities to increase awareness of 3-1-1 (through civic facilities, but also community groups, churches, etc.), paying attention to its promotion in languages other than English.
  • all internal project briefs include a dedicated budget line for communications and engagement
  • develop an evaluation framework for the selection and monitoring of online tools
  • develop a condo toolkit that helps residents to determine their building’s assets and identify opportunities to promote social inclusion [I started a condo newsletter a few years ago and great things came out of it]
  • provide regular facilitation training opportunities for staff and work to develop guidelines on the elements of a productive meeting.
  • community bulletin board[s]
  • filming public addresses from all of the [election] candidates and then sharing those videos on YouTube
  • work with the local post-secondary institutions on a voting registration drive  to allow people as young as 16 to register to vote [LOVE this idea – register even if you can’t quite vote yet]
  • initiate a process to review whether or not to lobby the Province of BC to extend voting rights to permanent residents
  • take action on campaign finance reform [oh yes! my opinions here]

Hipster/arts emphasis

Oh hipsters. I suppose I could count myself among the margins of this amorphous “group”. Some recommendations include “Create a Public Space Action Association” and talk of potlucks and long table conversational meals. Various civic and community organizations arlready take action in these areas; yes, there is an opportunity to scale up some of these ideas, but the connection to the target demographics of the report was missing. I can’t see how these would further engage the unengaged except at a minute scale.

There was a surprising amount of focus on artist space/cultural venues in this report. Especially considering the lack of focus on other important areas (e.g. Aboriginal voices). While I firmly support the need to make accessible and protect cultural venues, the notes about this in the report seemed very tangential. Perhaps because I’m not a part of the artist community, I’m missing something here. Yes, artists are marginalized in many ways but wasn’t the report meant to focus on youth, newcomers and new immigrants?

Social media/tech

When I see  “social media” or “online community” in any recommendation, I twitch a little. Yes, social media is an important communication tool. Yes, some online communities are successful. However, these just two tools. Used by people with easy access to internet and/or smart phones. Who are statistically more likely to already be more civically engaged. Yes, these are tools that should not be excluded from civic engagement efforts by the city; social media especially is a given. I perceived that perhaps the report included tech-recommendations because the city originally asked for them, not because they are actually meaningful to the original intent of the task force. Especially as the final report acknowledges:

…we found that those who have language barriers or do not use computers and social media are particularly likely to be isolated from important issues and decision-making processes.

Missing voices

Finally, the report is honest in its lack of success in its progress re: underrepresented groups.

“We were limited in our ability to connect with people from traditionally under-represented demographics. … We feel it’s important for us to acknowledge the absence of voices from Aboriginal communities in this process. “

Very unfortunate. To me, this alone is the downfall of the report. The committee acknowledged the trust- and relationship-building that is required to do this work well, and within a ~1 year time frame, success seemed to have insurmountable barriers.

This gap reminds me of two different thoughts I’ve come across in my work. The first is from the infinite wisdom of Twitter, the second came from my interviews on “new ways to advance social good” for a 2013 HRSDC research project.

  1. If you want to involved more [insert marginalized population] in your work, make them the centre of your work. That way you don’t have to invite them in. They already are in.
  2. Plan with a focus on the most-barriered populations. If your work is inclusive to them, it will be inclusive to all.

Reading Appendix B, which lists the events they held, the people they spoke with, the reports they read, I feel there was a missed opportunity to outreach and to work with existing infrastructure to hear diverse voices (i.e. work with partners that engage people where, don’t ask people to come to you). The task force shouldn’t have been expected to build relationships with individuals from scratch, so connecting through others should have been vital.

Recommendation #2, “Develop specific strategies for engaging under-represented groups,” should have been what this report was about. Isn’t it what the city asked the ECTF to do in the first place? Moving forward, this is where the work should focus.

This year is the year of staff creating an implementation plan and benchmarks. I look forward to the outcomes.

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

Ideas for governance in all-volunteer organizations

I co-faciliate a board governance webinar for Vantage Point, and one of the questions that comes up is what governance looks like in an all-volunteer organization.

Most board governance resources stress the importance of separating governance from operations: board members are responsible for governance; staff are responsible for management and operations.

But what about when there are no staff? I propose that boards delegate operations largely to volunteers.

I’ve written a thought piece on possible structural models to do this. The three examples include:

  • Option 1: Full committee structure
  • Option 2: One operational committee
  • Option 3: Volunteer executive director

I go on to compare the three models with respect to features, benefits, drawback, meeting design, etc. You can download the resource here.

27 Shift Governance in all volunteer orgs

 

I chair an all-volunteer organization and I would say we vaguely follow Option 1, but I see the potential to shift towards Options 2 or 3, especially if we consider geographic expansion.

What do you think of the options presented? What is the reality in your all-volunteer organization?

Categories
For nonprofit leaders and social innovators

I spoke to city council at city hall today. Here’s what happened.

Today the Standing Committee of Council on Planning, Transportation and  Environment (basically city council, but a committee so public comments can be heard) met, and one of the agenda items was re: voluntary campaign finance measures.

Compared to other levels of government, municipal campaign spending is crazy in Vancouver. Last election in 2011, two parties each spent over $2 million during the campaign period. Other parties spent much less. All parties had a majority of their contributions come from corporations and unions (i.e. not individual voters). In comparison, candidates for federal elections have a budget of approximately $100,000 during the official election period.

Up for discussion

The issue today wasn’t so much whether municipal campaign financing needs to be changed. Council already supports changes to the legislation (controlled by the BC provincial government) to rein in spending. However, the BC government isn’t playing along. The question today was whether council should create an all-party committee to encourage voluntary adoption of the campaign finance regulations council has already agreed to lobby the BC government on. You can read the entire original motion here. Part A was already adopted. Part B was up for debate today.

My involvement

Last night I decided to sign up to speak in front of the committee. (This is quite easy to do – just send an email and you’re on the list. Read more here and here.) It was a last minute decision triggered by an email I got from the Green Party of Vancouver, as good governance and a healthy democracy are important values I hold. [In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a new member of the Green Party of Vancouver. I also support much of what Vision Vancouver stands for, and have attended some Vision events, but the way that partisan politics works it’s hard to actively support more than one party. I have voted a mixture of Vision Vancouver, NPA, Green and COPE in the past. I am connected to Andrea Reimer and Adriane Carr in a non-partisan way through my volunteer work with Canadian Women Voters Congress.]

Overall

Overall the experience was a positive one for me. It was my first time (it seems that the three other speakers were regular visitors to committee) and I think the questions I received were fair and nonconfrontational. It was clear by the line of questions by councillors that their decisions had already been made going into the meeting. However, I don’t feel that in order to feel “heard” that councillors should have changed their minds. It’s possible to listen, and still disagree. I believe the value in speakers is the raising of issues and ideas that otherwise councillors may not hear. I suspect that council would really appreciate other first timers or non-regulars at their meetings.

Learning about council(lors)

Sitting in on the meeting, in council chambers, and listening to councillor questions to city staff, presentations by other citizens (there were four of us on the agenda), questions to those presenters, and the final “debate” (each councillor speaking for five minutes) was very educational. One, it was great to see the public side of council debate.

Two, I got a bit of a better sense of who the individual politicians were. Questions came most frequently from Councillors Affleck (NPA), Carr (Green), Stevenson (Vision), and Reimer (Vision). Councillors Affleck and Ball (NPA) came across as sympathetic to the issue, but concerned about possible implications. Not spindoctored. Councillor Carr (who originally put forward the motion) asked engaging questions. Vision folks, wow. I was so not impressed generally. So much fear mongering. So much worst case scenario. Leading questions that were more about grandstanding than an actual question. Steveson was a jerk. No questions at all from Councillors Jang, Tang, and Louie (Vision). Councillors Meggs and Deal (Vision) each asked a few questions, but I couldn’t see them from where I was sitting. Councillor Reimer was tough but fair (i.e. better have your facts straight) though she belittled one presenter who spoke about campaign disclosure statements being tough to find on the city website by stating that she pulled them up in two minutes while he was talking. [I did the test myself, and I agree with the presenter. I did a vancouver.ca search for “2011 election spending” “2011 campaign spending” and “how much did political parties spend in 2011” with ZERO relevant results. After also trying to use website navigation to no luck, I tried “2011 campaign disclosure” and had success. However, the word disclosure is not a word an average citizen would know to use.]

My views

While I stand by my comments shared below, and spoke today to raise important issues in front of councillors, in reality I think the best method to get buy-in for voluntary measures is through a pledge drafted by a civil society organization that individual candidates, parties, and third parties can publicly sign on to. There might even be a role for negotiation (i.e. “we’ll sign on if they sign on”.) I don’t necessarily think that a committee of the City is the best venue for urging voluntary measures. However, I don’t think the world would fall apart (which, if you believed most councillors, it would) with voluntary measures. Most councillors (all NPA and Vision councillors voted against the motion) seemed interested in the answer to one question: “What is the worst that could happen if voluntary measures are urged by council?” I think three other important questions should also have been considered:

  • What is the best case scenario if voluntary measures are urged by council?
  • What is the worst case scenario if the status quo remains?
  • What is the best case scenario if the status quo remains?

These questions would get a much richer discussion.

My speaking notes

(Note: I fumbled a bit, so this may not exactly match what I actually said, but it’s pretty much the same.)

Thank you Madame Chair for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Trina Isakson, and I am here to speak in support of part B of the motion. I will speak to the alignment of voluntary measures with recognized best practices in campaign finance regulation.

I speak today as an individual citizen and resident of the City of Vancouver.

I believe that, in the absence of amendments to the Vancouver Charter, the committee should urge parties, candidates, and third parties to agree to voluntary campaign finance reform measures, for three main reasons:

  1. to create an informed voter base,
  2. to support the successful political participation of women, people of colour, and others who face barriers in the electoral process, and
  3. to uphold Vancouver’s image as one of a progressive city that leads rather than follows in its progressive activities.

Firstly, the 2004 Supreme Court majority decision of Harper v. Canada indicated that, quote “the overarching objective of the spending limits is electoral fairness” end quote.

The decision later goes on to read, quote “In the absence of spending limits, it is possible for the affluent or a number of persons pooling their resources and acting in concert to dominate the political discourse, depriving their opponents of a reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard, and undermining the voter’s ability to be adequately informed of all views.  Equality in the political discourse is thus necessary for meaningful participation in the electoral process and ultimately enhances the right to vote” end quote.

The Mayor’s own Engaged City Task Force final report describes the drawbacks of unlimited campaign spending in relation to citizens’ interactions with City Hall. Quote “the large sums of money raised and spent in civic elections fosters cynicism towards City Hall’s decision-making process and discourages or prevents new voices from getting involved, particularly youth, newcomers and new immigrants” end quote.

If members of the committee support informed electoral participation, it will vote in favour of this motion and urge parties, individuals and third parties to opt in.

Secondly, a large determining factor for individuals’ decisions to run for elected office is personal financial resources and ability to attract money. This also is often a determining factor in political party’s support of and selection of candidates for general election.

In the publication Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers, by the the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, author Richard Matland states that, quote “personal ambition is tempered by an assessment of the resources the candidate can generate to help in the campaign” end quote.

People opt out of running for office when they don’t feel they have the necessary resources, including financial ones.

When there are no campaign spending limits, even when a candidate is supported by a party, the amount of money a political aspirant sees as necessary to bring in or contribute to a campaign goes up, excluding people with lower incomes.

Because of the weaker political and financial networks and resources had by women, people of colour, and other historically marginalized populations, the people who seek office do not accurately represent the people they wish to serve.

While political parties in Vancouver can be commended for putting forward diverse slates, this diversity does not accurately indicate the otherwise qualified individuals who opt out before even joining the campaign conversation, because of their lesser financial resources.

If members of the committee support social justice and diverse participation in elected municipal councils, it will vote in favour of this motion.

Finally, if the Provincial government doesn’t amend Bill 20 as requested, don’t let that stop us. The City of Vancouver has been voluntarily progressive through initiatives such as Greenest City 2020 and the Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force.

If members of the committee wish to uphold the City’s image and their parties’ images as progressive and ethic leaders, especially in times when not required to by law, it will vote in favour of this motion.

Based on the questions asked by many council members, it would seem many will dismiss this motion because it is non-enforceable. It seems there is an assumption that parties and third parties might opt-in then opt-out, or opt-in but not report until after the election that they didn’t follow the voluntary measures. I’d like to think more highly of our candidates and their supporters. It would seem the harm of voluntary measures would be to self-interest, not to democracy.

Thank you for your time.