Friday, November 20, 2009
This week marked the launch of Minnesota's largest online giving surge, bar none: this created all the buzz. Googling "Give MN max" provided 631,000 results, and raised $14 million for 3,434 Minnesota nonprofits in one - ONE- day. If you were under a rock this week, here's additional information.
Facebook updates continually zinged throughout my network - "I gave to the max, did you?" or "Get your donation matched by supporting our cause." The flurry in my email box was no different. Messages from 38 of my favorite nonprofits (read: 38 nonprofits to whom I subscribe by email). And of course with anything so public, mass media did its job with coverage from both supporters and critics. Clearly any campaign this public will have its fair share of critics, and a few reporters were working the beat.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/11/charitable_fallout.shtml#comments
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/11/charitable_fallout.shtml#comments
http://www.startribune.com/local/70323477.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
Critiques included the lack of clarity around the foundation matches, usability and transparency of the web-based platform, and the support of religiously-based organizations. Of course one can't expect consensus or perfection from such a public course of action, and I'd argue that these skeptics raise the public debate and help us do our work better. But my humble opinion is that Give MN is a gift to the nonprofit sector, at both the individual and community levels.
First, let's consider the individual benefit. It's a one-stop shot for nonprofit and philanthropic giving. The convenience for donors is irreplaceable. I would guess the majority of the population doesn't want an intimate engagement with every nonprofit it donates $50 to. Take for example "The Marketing Mama" who shared on Give to the Max day that she and her husband gave all their yearly giving and encouraged her network and blog followers to do the same. One click. No credit card fees, no administrative overhead, no phone call from the nonprofits. No hassle. Done. With convenience like this it can only encourage diversity of donors - particularly new ones - to give across Minnesota. 38,778 donors. One day.
Now consider the benefits to our nonprofit and philanthropic communities. Give MN equalized nonprofit messaging. Often small and mid-sized organizations have challenges competing with the extensive resources and multi-staffed communication and development departments at larger organizations. Here, everyone is equal. Everyone has a space and an opportunity to tell their story. Call it virtual equality?
Tuesday also made me feel like I was part of a movement--a tangible collective commitment to making the world a better place. Unlike in the political environment, I (and many others) often feel isolated in nonprofit work. It's my organization against the ills of the world. David vs. Goliath. But Tuesday provided me a sense of out joint accomplishment like "Yes, we can!" Rarely do I feel that in the nonprofit sector. But on Tuesday, yes. Yes, we did. And that's impact. It gives us power and voice. It's an artifact of our collective power.
Give MN is also a tool to democratize philanthropy - equalizing the power and decision making of the causes to be supported. Key foundations pledged an initial gift to generate buzz based on top number of donors and matched gifts. Foundation representatives trusted the will of the people (while providing incentive to decide where dollars should be spent). Sure, you might have issues with a specific nonprofit, but the critical mass decided. Philanthropic democracy in action.
All in all, Give MN is a relevant example of changing times within our sectors. I for one am proud of Give MN and for being ahead of the tide. We could all stand to learn more than a little from this visionary and impactful tool.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Earlier this week I attended an information session given by Pham Thi Hoa, Executive Director of CAPI. Founded in 1982, CAPI has historically been a social service organization working with 3,000 immigrants and refugees from the Asia-Pacific region and East Africa every year. Some of the services provided include housing and food assistance, youth violence prevention, workforce development and training, and health education to communities in transition.
Within the last year, CAPI has adopted a new strategic plan and is using the framework of "gender and health equality" to advance both the organization and social change. To ensure success, CAPI tackled program realignment, a reformed decision-making process, and a redesigned organizational structure. According to Pham Thi Hoa, this would be accomplished in three steps: 1) inspiring CAPI's organizational culture beyond social service delivery, 2) applying sustainable social justice programs through the building of staff capacity and 3) engineering new practices and processes to execute programs.
The restructuring has affected every part of the organization from the type of leadership to changing the way CAPI has worked with funders. One of the most interesting and innovative approaches has been the creation of Refugee and Immigrant Women for Change (RIWC). This is a coalition of Asian, African, and Latina women-focused and women-led organizations working together to achieve social change. The formation of this network allows members to pool their strengths and resources to achieve a shared goal. Its mission is to "build the capacity and leadership of RIWC organizations to plan, design, and implement programs to achieve gender equality for refugee and immigrant women." RIWC will conduct an analysis to uncover the ways gender inequality is perpetuated in these communities while dually attempting to raise public awareness of the rights of immigrant and refugee women.
Pham Thi Hoa has a passion for CAPI and its mission that is not seen often. I can only hope that the restructuring will be successful and CAPI will continue to positively affect so many lives.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Some might think this PubTalk posting belongs on the Humphrey's Smart Politics Blog. This entry has to do with honoring the public leadership side of our Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center here at Humphrey.
Mike Freeman and I were elected to the Minnesota Senate in 1982. When I met Mike, I recalled conversations I heard at our farm house kitchen table. In our house, Orville Freeman was considered a public hero - someone who understood farmers and ordinary people. When he lost his re-election bid for governor, our house was sad. When JFK picked him a few months later to be Agriculture Secretary, my dad jumped for joy.
My dad got to meet Mike Freeman when he and I shared an office at the Capitol. Public service sometimes offers those special moments. Like his father, Mike, "Orville's boy," has lived a life committed to public leadership, and we get to benefit.
Watch for two Public Affairs course offerings now posted for the coming Spring Semester. Through the lens of a law maker and now Hennepin County Attorney, Mike's "Law and the Making of Public Policy" (PA 5122) course will give students a practitioner's view of the history, logic, and analysis of the law necessary to help use law as a tool to impact public policy. I have served as a guest presenter in this class and watched how a cross-section of students traveled with Mike through the failures and victories of law-making that truly changed how we live in this world.
Humphrey Prof. Larry Jacobs helped us launch this next attraction. : How about that 2008 Senate Recount? Norm Coleman and Al Franken sat on the sidelines with us as Mike Freeman, his deputy Pat Diamond, and election officials from Hennepin County and across the state, step by step implement the laws governing the recount process. This one-credit offering (Saturday February 6 and 20, PA 5920), "Measuring the Fairness of the 2008 Minnesota Senate Recount," will bring us back to the 2008 Minnesota Senate election, one of the closest and most examined elections in Minnesota history. The election involved an administrative recount and an election contest that together took eight months to complete. Al Franken prevailed by 312 votes out of nearly 2.9 million cast. Mike and Pat ask: "But was it fair?"
The course will examine that question using international election standards as a starting point. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." Mike tells me that he has invited some special guest presenters - some of the "stars" of the recount.
For those of us who see public leadership as a calling, these two courses go beyond the politics of public service and give us an inside look at the role citizens play in our governance.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The dominant story about international nonprofit organizations is of large, transnational NGOs, and of organizations working from richer countries to improve poorer countries. Less widely known is the story of how so-called domestic nonprofit organizations, including relatively small organizations focused on serving their local communities, are becoming global actors. I am particularly interested in the opportunities for comparative learning that can come from peer connections between these local organizations across borders.
This summer I had the opportunity to travel to Japan (under the auspices of the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership and the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs), where I met with the leader of the Yokohama Community Bank for Women and Citizens, Eiko Mukaida. Her organization's work lending to women-run social enterprises, cooperatives, and nonprofits, is the Japanese equivalent of what some community development finance institutions (CDFIs) do in the U.S. I worked for four years at one such opportunity finance organization, the Chicago Community Loan Fund, and volunteered at another, the North Side Community Federal Credit Union, in Chicago before beginning grad school, so it was fascinating to hear about this work in the Japanese context.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I recently read an article in Newsweek by Johnnie L. Roberts titled "PeytonPlace.com." The article examined the recent surge of blogs covering small town news. Blogs like Patch.com and TheLocal, funded by the likes of AOL and the New York Times respectively, are focusing on what's news in towns the size of Maplewood, New Jersey, population 24,000. These "hyperlocal" blogs are largely run by unpaid student and citizen journalists.
The potential relationship to community organizing goes without saying, but what came to mind as I read the article is how hyperlocal blogs could be used to benefit nonprofits. I've been in many an event planning meeting where someone shouts, "We need some publicity!" Two hundred press releases and phone calls later, the event has a quarter-page write-up in the local college student newspaper, but nothing else.
I once worked at an organization where the executive director's favorite saying was, "The job's not done until the story is told." I'm sure lots of nonprofit workers have heard something along those lines; after all, "telling the story" is how people learn about an organization and ultimately decide whether or not to support it. But perhaps with the current state of the press - rapidly decreasing print media for starters - we need to start telling our story in different ways. Perhaps the most efficient way is through citizen journalism. Realistically, wouldn't you be more likely to support an organization if your mom or neighbor told you about it, rather than if you read about it in the Star Tribune?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Shortly after the announcement that President Obama would receive the Nobel Peace Prize, I had lunch with several English friends. One asked what I thought about the prize decision, but before I could answer, he pronounced, "I think Obama should give it back!"
I disagreed, noting the result would be President Obama's forfeiting a fine opportunity to use his acceptance speech to articulate anew the principles and aspirations that the Peace Prize committee had decided he embodied. Also, refusing the prize would smack of disrespect - a swipe at the judgment of the committee - or possibly of unwillingness to try living up to the committee's assessment.
Some time after the lunch conversation, I saw that Obama's Nobel Prize had become a topic on a leadership listserv in which I participate. Messages were being hurled back and forth at an unusually rapid rate and high volume. I decided to start reading them.
Basically, the leadership scholars, teachers, consultants, and others commenting on the listserv divided into two camps: those who argued that the awarding of the prize to President Obama was premature because he had not yet produced a major tangible breakthrough and those who argued that he did deserve the prize because he had radically shifted the stance of the U.S. in various world forums and opened the door to desirable changes.
The debate reminds me of two contrasting views, or schools of leadership thought, that my late colleague Bob Terry liked to play off each other. He noted that many leadership gurus identified "results" as the hallmark of an effective leader. Indeed, this view jibes with the expectation that we citizens often have of someone who is seeking election or who has a responsible position in our organizations. Accounts of outstanding political or corporate leaders' lives often highlight their great accomplishments.
The contrasting school of thought, however, emphasizes "engagement" as the hallmark of an effective leader. Advocates of this view argue that the most effective leaders are those who engage followers in solving complex organizational or societal problems, who help diverse groups see the value in rolling up their sleeves and joining in a common effort. This group argues that sustainable results are unlikely to happen unless this type of engagement occurs.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to have sided with the second group. As for me, I'm looking forward to President Obama's acceptance speech.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Have you ever thought about how the proposed federal climate change legislation, also known as cap and trade, might affect low- and moderate-income Minnesotans?
That's what I'm working on as a Climate Change Intern at the Minnesota Budget Project.
The Minnesota Budget Project is an initiative of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. With a mission "to provide interested citizens, elected officials and community leaders with timely and accurate information so that they can become more active and effective participants in the public policy debate," the Minnesota Budget Project focuses on the impact that budget and tax issues have on low- and moderate-income Minnesotans and the organizations that serve them. Right now, one of those issues is climate change.
I always thought about environmental justice in terms of the people who are disproportionately affected by environmental damage. Whether it's landfills being located near low-income communities, or the poor air quality in certain neighborhoods, not everyone has the time, money, or privilege that allows them a clean environment. As the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative puts it - people of color, low-income, and Indigenous communities "are the first to experience the negative impacts of climate change such as heat-related illness and death, respiratory illness, infectious diseases, unaffordable rises in energy costs, and extreme natural disasters." Quite simply, if/when Minnesota starts having record-breaking heat waves in the summer, who can afford to have air conditioning and who can't?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Julia Jackson is a first-year MPP student with a focus on Public and Nonprofit Leadership and Management. She graduated from Northland College in 2004 with a degree in Environmental Science. Julia just returned to St. Paul after living in Vermont working for a small municipality for three years where she worked on grantwriting, program development and coalition building. She is currently interning at the Minnesota Budget Project looking at how federal climate change legislation could impact low- and moderate-income Minnesotans.
Glad to be back in the Twin Cities amongst family and friends, Julia's favorite place to pubTalk - debate current issues and public affairs - is with her family over dinner.
Monday, November 2, 2009
I felt compelled to write this post after listening to an interview on NPR about Ximena Hartsock's confirmation hearing for director of Washington, D.C.'s parks and recreation department. Ms. Hartsock - a highly qualified individual - was not confirmed by the city council. Why? Well, during the confirmation hearing both her race and gender were called into question as affecting her ability to do the job. The fact that this kind of discussion was allowed to happen strikes at the heart of the struggle women face in gaining positions of leadership.
In the academic leadership literature, this is often referred to as the Leadership Problem, i.e. women's unequal status in leadership positions. I visited Catalyst and the Center for American Women and Politics for some statistics on this point:
- In management, women account for over one-third of MBA classes, but are only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs and hold only 15.7% of Fortune 500 Corporate Officer Positions
- In law, women are about half of new entrants into the field, but only 18.7% of law firm partners
- Over half of college graduates are women, but less than 25% are full professors and 20% are college presidents
- In the U.S. women are the majority of the electorate, but only hold 17 of 100 (17%) U.S. Senate seats and 73 of 435 (16.8%) U.S. House of Representatives seats
This problem isn't new and it doesn't seem to be going away. So why aren't we taking to the streets and shouting from the rooftops to change this?
I've recently been spending my evenings reading from the book, Women & Leadership (edited by Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode), and it offers up some pretty interesting reasons as to why.
First, we focus too much on thinking that this is strictly about women making different choices than men. Women's choices are not made in a vacuum; they are not sheltered from broader cultural constraints. If we focus only on women's preferences, then we understate the subtle, often unconscious biases that both shape and limit women's leadership opportunities.
At the risk of sounding too much like I'm outlining my doctoral dissertation, I would like to provide the reasons Kellerman & Rhode give for the Leadership Problem:
- There are gender biases in leadership opportunities. Gender stereotypes put a woman in a bind over appearing too feminine or not feminine enough.
- Women are still seen as the primary caregivers of the young and old. While most men support gender equality in the home, there is still a lack in restructuring one's work to promote gender equality.
- Inflexibility in workplace structures also affects an individual's ability to structure their lives to promote gender equality.
- At a societal level, we value caretaking as an individual rather than a social responsibility.
If we continue to let this Leadership Problem persist, then we are compromising our nation's fundamental principles of equal opportunity and social justice. The payoffs to achieving women's equality in leadership positions are too high to ignore. Women have distinct perspectives to contribute - and I don't mean to say that there is a single "woman's point of view" or leadership style - au contraire - people bring to decision making roles their life experiences, not simply their gender. But to leave out the diversity of women's leadership is to leave out an enormous pool of talent.
So, if you've read this far, I thank you and I invite you to join me on my soapbox. I want to see the next generation - my daughter's generation - put this Leadership Problem to rest.
Monday, October 26, 2009
As the third snow storm of the season hit Minnesota last week (three snows before Halloween!), I found myself contemplating a warm getaway. And due to the ever-growing voluntourism industry, there are now more travel options than ever. But is this boom in voluntourism a good thing?
Voluntourism combines travel with voluntary work through trips (oftentimes international) that usually last about a week or two. Instead of heading to a resort, a voluntourism trip sends people to Guatemala to build a house or to South Africa to teach English. While the specific objectives of these programs vary, an overarching goal is to cultivate global citizenship and cross-cultural understanding - noble goals indeed. Yet for some reason, the exploding popularity of these trips leaves me a little uneasy; this despite the fact that I have not only attended similar trips, but spent a couple years leading a variation of them.
My discomfort stems from concerns about the structure and impact of these programs:
• Informed Structures and Models: I often wonder how these organizations are structured. Specifically, are local people and local organizations involved in the decision-making processes of the voluntourism program, either as staff or board members? Are needs assessments done beforehand in conjunction with local people, and do the services provided align with what the community sees as a pressing need?
• Mutually Beneficial: Research on voluntourism often focuses on the affects it has on tourists - but what about the impact on the host communities? If the goal is to educate and enlighten people about global issues, at what expense does this newfound enlightenment come? What type of international development/community development skills are needed in creating programs that empower and work with host communities, ensuring that they too benefit from these programs? What program evaluation methods effectively gauge whether a program is mutually beneficial?
Beyond these structural questions, my most pressing concern with voluntourism is more philosophical in nature: Should volunteerism and tourism be melded together in the first place? Can voluntourism be a form of "poverty tourism" that objectifies people who live in abject poverty, even glamorizing unjust situations? Do these programs allow tourists to recognize the dignity, expertise and resiliency of the people they aim to serve? Moreover, is this a subtle form of cultural imperialism - whether intended or not?
These questions have broader implications for national and even locally-based alternative break programs offered at many high schools, universities, and religious groups. We owe it to the many people involved or touched by these trips to find the answers.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs or the University of Minnesota. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota or the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
