Все менше білорусів говорять рідною мовою

Мінськ – У Білорусі оприлюднені підсумки перепису населення 2009 року. Вони свідчать про загальне зменшення населення в країні та скорочення частки тих, хто говорить білоруською мовою.

Водночас, частка білорусів зросла із 81 до 84 відсотків, представників національних меншин стало менше. Зокрема частка росіян знизилася з 11 до 8 відсотків. Менше стало і українців, їхня частка в загальній кількості населення Білорусі впала з 2,4 до 2 відсотків, якщо раніше в Білорусі жило 237 тисяч українців, то тепер українська діаспора тут нараховує близько 190 тисяч осіб.

Лише 23 відсотка осіб заявили, що спілкуються білоруською.

Більшість населення вважає рідною білоруську мову – 53 відсотка, але це значно менше, ніж було 10 років тому – майже 74 відсотка. Лише 23 відсотка білорусів тепер заявили, що спілкуються вдома білоруською мовою, 10 років тому таких було 37 відсотків. Більшість населення Білорусі розмовляє російською.

Представники Товариства білоруської мови називають цю тенденцію негативною, вона може призвести до виведення з обігу білоруської мови за 20-30 років. Товариство пояснює це активною політикою русифікації, яку проводить влада Олександра Лукашенка протягом 16 років, скороченням шкіл, а також книг та ЗМІ на білоруській мові, і взагалі виведенням її на периферію громадського життя, переведенням до розряду непрестижних, як це було в часи СРСР.

Той невеликий відсоток білоруськомовних, який залишається, існує дякуючи сільському населенню, в Мінську рідною білоруську мову назвали лише 35 відсотків громадян.

Незалежна мінська газета «Наша ніва», оцінюючі підсумки перепису 2009 року, з сумом констатувала, що і кількість мешканців Білорусі і частка білоруськомовних скорочується.

«Але це загальна тенденція для Східної Європи. Зменшується не лише населення Білорусі, але й Росії, України, Литви, Латвії. А ось рідну мову втрачають лише білоруси. В інших країнах, навпаки, відбувається національна консолідація», – пише газета.

Джерело - Радіо Свобода

Facebook як інструмент громадської активності

Кеті Чан, наукова асистентка Harvard Family Research Project, розмірковує про зростання та додаткові виклики соціальної мережі Facebook як важливого засобу поширення інформації для неприбуткових організацій.

Що таке Facebook?

Facebook – сайт соціальної мережі, який дозволяє користувачам приєднатись до віртуальної громади та спілкуватись з іншими користувачами, маючи спільні інтереси. Даний веб-сайт є прикладом принципово іншого підходу у користуванні Інтернетом. Замість того, щоб бути одностороннім джерелом отримання інформації, сайти соціальних мереж є «своєрідними містками», що сприяють широкому колу взаємодії онлайн: налагодження дружби, підтримка відносин на відстані, зміцнення професійних зв’язків, мобілізація підтримки для благодійних справ тощо. Соціальні мережі надають можливість користувачам бути активними учасниками подій Інтернету.

Чому Facebook підходить саме НУО?

Facebook виявився корисним сайтом для громадських організацій, завдяки тому, що функція «Сторінки» надає можливість створювати швидку та безкоштовну присутність в Інтернеті. Сторінка схожа на профіль, за винятком того, що сторінка презентує організацію – НУО, місцевий бізнес, бренд, якусь продукцію або ж відому особу – а не окрему, пересічну людину. Користувачі Facebook можуть «ставати фанатами» сторінки, таким чином ототожнюючи себе з даною організацією та виказуючи їй суспільну підтримку. Сторінки є корисними, оскільки сприяють взаємодії між великими організаціями та громадськістю. Facebook особливо корисний для НУО в реалізації таких видів діяльності:

Фандрайзинг. Завдяки Facebook, організації можуть здійснювати фандрайзинг через функцію, що дозволяє їм отримувати щомісячну оплату від користувачів цієї мережі. Facebook містить віртуальну «звітну картку», що дозволяє громадськості стежити за процесом фандрайзингу; також користувачі можуть виставляти на власних профілях інформацію про благодійні справи, які вони підтримують. Основна мета – отримати ефект «снігової кулі», залучаючи віртуальних Facebook-друзів зі спільними інтересами, що лежать у площині місій різних неурядових організацій.

Поширення інформації. Сторінки Facebook мають функції, які дозволяють організаціям рекламувати свою роботу через розміщення місії, новин, контактів, анонсів запланованих подій та інших речей, що мають відношення до їхньої роботи. Швидке та масове поширення інформації серед користувачів Facebook є корисним при оголошенні подій, для збільшення учасників конференцій та семінарів, а також щодо можливостей для волонтерів. До того ж, прийнятність мережі Facebook та її глобальна доступність надають можливість НУО збільшити кількість завантажувань публікацій чи замовлень власних послуг. Окрім того, Facebook заощаджує витрати неурядових організацій на пошту, надаючи змогу здійснювати масову комунікацію онлайн.

Мобілізація зацікавлених сторін та громадськості. Facebook може слугувати платформою для згуртування публічної підтримки. Віртуальна мобілізація може стимулювати велику кількість людей до написання державним посадовим особам, представникам бызнесу чи ЗМІ про благодійну справу тієї чи іншої НУО. Facebook забезпечує віртуальну доріжку для громадськості та зацікавлених сторін, надаючи змогу особисто налагодити відносини із НУО і створюючи відчуття відкритості та прозорості. До того ж, соціальна природа Facebook дозволяє неприбутковим організаціям будувати взаємовідносини з потенційними прихильниками, а не суто просувати фандрайзинг. Наприклад, користувачі Facebook можуть брати активну участь у наповненні Сторінки, а саме публікувати свої повідомлення та залучатися до дискусій. За словами одного громадського експерта із соціальних медіа, особливістю фандрайзингу в цій соцмережі «є не просто збір коштів, а й збільшення друзів та підвищення рівня поінформованості; і в довгостроковій перспективі зміцнення слабких соціальних зв’язків заради справи може бути важливішим, ніж одноразова допомога у $10-20 просто зараз». Інші експерти в цій галузі зазначають, що функція фандрайзингу у Facebook є скоріш «інструментом отримання друзів, а не грошей».

Збір даних. Facebook пропонує неурядовим організаціям як традиційні, так і творчі методи збору даних для відстеження внутрішніх процесів, звітності та інформування про прийняте рішення. До методів збору даних у Facebook входять:

Онлайн-опитування. НУО можуть використовувати Facebook для рекламування, залучення людей та адміністрування онлайн-опитувань. Такий метод збору даних можна використовувати для оцінки будь-якої кількості тем: як громадськість дізнається про НУО, чому донори постійно дають гроші, які зміни у ставленні чи поінформованості щодо організації тощо.

Онлайн-відстеження внутрішніх процесів. НУО мають можливість використовувати Facebook, аби відслідковувати фінансові внески, кількість активістів (включаючи їхню кількість впродовж тижня), демографічну динаміку (тобто дані про гендерний розподіл та географічне розміщення) та види взаємодії активістів зі Сторінкою організації на Facebook.

Моніторинг репутації (англ. «Social Listening», що включає в себе моніторинг соціальних медіа на кшталт Facebook, Twitter та блогів, задля розуміння, що люди кажуть про вас і/або ваш бренд – прим.перекладача). Дуже часто коментарі чи запитання розміщуються на теренах Facebook, пов’язаних з НУО, як-то дошка оголошень чи блоги. Таким чином, переглядаючи переписку з громадськістю на Facebook, НУО має можливість прислуховуватись до потенційних волонтерів, донорів, клієнтів та дізнатись про те, хто вони і чим цікавляться.

Обмеження Facebook та інших сайтів соціальних мереж

Facebook та інші сайти соціальних мереж можуть бути допоміжними засобами для некомерційних організацій у комунікації з цільовою аудиторією, проте вони не мають замінити наочне спілкування та інші способи залучення зацікавлених сторін. Тоді як присутність громадської організації у мережі Facebook може досягти великої аудиторії, вона, тим не менш, виключає людей, які не мають там облікового запису (та й не зацікавлені в його отриманні).

Природа Інтернет-спільнот показує додаткові обмеження та виклики щодо переходу від самопрезентації в мережі до прямих дій поза нею. Між ними не існує прямого співвідношення. Приєднатись до Сторінок у Facebook можна лише одним кліком. Для людей це є можливістю відчути, що вони «роблять добру справу» лише клікнувши та приєднавшись до благодійної кампанії, хоча насправді вони до неї не включаються. Тому завдання полягає у використанні мережі Facebook як каталізатора та плацдарму задля реальних дій.

Переклад - "Громадський Простір", Антон Альошин.

В Україні з'явився новий освітній інтернет-ресурс

Почав працювати перший в Україні навчально-методичний ресурс, розроблений спеціалістами Інституту передових технологій. На думку авторів проекту, сьогодні Україна, її географія та історія недостатньо представлені в Інтернет-просторі. Сучасні комунікаційні технології недостатньо використовуються не лише в освітніх цілях, але і для презентації нашої держави в цілому. Саме з цією метою створено ресурс www.osvitanet.com.ua.

За словами голови правління ЗАТ "Інститут передових технологій" Олени Бойко, наповнення ресурсу подано по кожному класу - від підручника з географії або історії з ілюстраціями до окремих (стінних) карт, ілюстрацій, атласів, методичних рекомендацій, розробок уроків. Додаткова інформація знаходиться в розділах: бібліотека ресурсів, демоверсії наявних та запланованих електронних ресурсів (підручників, атласів тощо), інтерактивних карт, тестування, публікацій та гостьової книги зі зворотнім зв'язком. Практично всі підручники мають грифи МОН України. Представлені інтернет-версії підручників є повноцінними навчальними посібниками з текстами, картами, ілюстраціями, контрольними запитаннями, термінами та поняттями. Забезпечується доступ до аналогів стінних карт з географії та історії, які можуть використовуватися в класі з проектором або мультимедійним обладнанням за традиційними методиками викладання.

Атласи з географії та історії, представлені на сайті, розроблені Інститутом передових технологій, також мають відповідні грифи МОН України та насичені багатою добіркою картографічних та ілюстративних матеріалів. Так, тільки з географії це понад 300 карт і понад 350 карт зі всесвітньої історії та історії України, а добірка ілюстрацій перевищує 1500 зображень. З першого вересня 2010 року повноцінні електронні версії підручників з історії та географії для 10-х класів за новою програмою. Всього на сьогодні на сайті розміщено 18 електронних підручників та атласів.

Створений навчально-методичний Інтернет-сайт є першим систематизованим інноваційним ресурсом, що забезпечує нагальні потреби сучасної освіти. За це він був відзначений дипломом на виставці "Інноватика в освіті України" (2-4 грудня 2009 року).

У 2009-2010 роках Інтернет-ресурс osvitanet.com.ua працював у відкритому тестовому режимі, і сьогодні його використовують понад 100 000 користувачів із 40 країн світу, в тому числі діти української діаспори. Для багатьох закордонних українців це єдина можливість отримати доступ до сучасних навчальних посібників.

Розробка програмного забезпечення науково-методичного ресурсу та його наповнення здійснювалася за рахунок власних коштів Інституту. Доступ до нього у вересні 2010 року безкоштовний для всіх зареєстрованих користувачів.

Інститут передових технологій має власні інноваційні розробки у сфері інформаційних технологій та технічні можливості для їх супроводу, а також упровадження у широке використання. За підсумками роботи Міжнародної картографічної торговельної асоціації (IMTA), заклад визнано кращим картографічним підприємством Європи 2004 року.

Джерело : День

Still a Land of Possibilities

Ukraine may be rolling back some of the civic gains it made this decade, but it’s hardly ripe for authoritarianism. From openDemocracy.

by Ingo Petz

31 August 2010

Mykola Riabchuk is one of Ukraine’s leading intellectuals. In an interview with Ingo Petz he outlines his views on the failure of the Orange Revolution and the early stages of the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych.

Ingo Petz: Mr. Riabchuk, how is Yanukovych doing as president?

He’s carrying on the old post-Soviet tradition of playing with, rather than by, the rules. What distinguishes him from his predecessors, however, is that his “blue” coalition is far more monolithic and unscrupulous than the “orange” coalition was. The new team is trying to roll out the system they established long ago in the Donetsk region through the whole of Ukraine. They are striving to monopolize all power completely and eliminate any pluralism, be it political, economic or even religious, cultural and linguistic. They will probably not succeed but tensions are likely to grow and violence, even bloodshed, may follow. I’d like to emphasize that the new team is much more unscrupulous (“the end justifies the means”) and authoritarian (“might makes right”) than even Kuchma’s team was.

Mykola Riabchuk: That sounds very dramatic. So are democracy and Western values once more lost to Ukraine? Or will Ukrainians kickYanukovych out when they’ve had enough of his post-post-Soviet politics?

They may not be completely lost, but they are under really serious threat. Ukrainian society was as disappointed by Yushchenko’s chaotic democracy as the Russians were by Yeltsin’s feckless pluralism. They express a similar longing for a “strong hand,” which means primarily they are really fed up with dysfunctional institutions and yearn for some law and order. But, as opinion surveys reveal, Ukrainians are much less ready than Russians to sacrifice, or restrict, their civic liberties for a promise of prosperity. This may result from a different historical legacy. I don’t mean only the western part of Ukraine that, until World War II, had never been part of Russia or the Soviet Union. I mean also central Ukraine, which was historically part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was only fully incorporated into the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th century.

But there might be also a structural reason for this attitude. In Russia, authoritarianism may have a broad popular appeal because it is associated with empire, with great-power ambitions, with traditional, deep-rooted anti-Westernism and chauvinism. In Ukraine, it might be attractive only for a small, Sovietophile/Russophile fragment of society. But even they understand that this would definitely be unacceptable for the other, Ukrainophile part of society. And nobody wants bloody conflicts here. So Ukrainians are very cautious about any nationalism, as it could explode the divided country.

Actually, Yushchenko lost not because he was a nationalist, but because he was perceived and portrayed as one. And that was enough. So even if you were to get a strong pro-authoritarian majority in Ukraine, it would inevitably be radically split by a simple question: “What kind of a ‘strong hand’ should it be – Ukrainian or Russian, Ukrainophone or Russophone, ‘aboriginal’ or ‘Creole’?” And, please note, there is also a strong group – maybe not a majority, but a strong pro-democratic minority – that rejects any authoritarianism, Russian or Ukrainian. So in the event of an authoritarian threat, this minority would find situational allies in the pro-authoritarian camp – from that part of the camp who reject not any, but this specific, ethno-cultural brand of authoritarianism.

And, of course, it’s not only Ukrainian society that is divided, but Ukrainian elites, too. The real threat may come from the fact that Yanukovych and his group simply don’t understand the subtlety of the political issues in Ukraine and the complex role of its multiple identities. Yanukovych and his associates come mostly from the Donbas – the most Russified and Sovietized region, which had always been ruled by this group in a virtually totalitarian, mafialike style. They may labor under the delusion that all Ukraine is more or less like the Donbas. And may feel strong temptation to roll out over the whole country the same methods that proved so effective,.

So far, the Western governments have tacitly accepted the parliamentary coup d’etat – probably frustrated by the political instability, internecine wars between the president and the prime minister, and the permanent fruitless elections. They appear to give Yanukovych carte blanche for future reforms, which may be misread by his team as a license for further violations of the law and curtailing civic freedoms. In sum, I don’t think democracy in Ukraine will be successfully eliminated, as it has been in Russia or Belarus. But I’m afraid Yanukovych and his cronies may try it on – and the cost of resistance can be very high.

As a “fan” of the Orange Revolution you must be shattered that Yanukovych won the election.

Yes, of course, it’s a bitter pill. But not totally unexpected. Yanukovych didn’t really win: he received less than 50 percent of votes, and numerically 400,000 fewer than in 2004. But the Orange leaders definitely lost. They fully deserved the defeat and, in fact, did everything possible to facilitate his comeback.

How is he regarded by Ukrainian-speaking intellectuals? Any change in opinions toward him?

Actually, it’s not only Ukrainian-speaking intellectuals. All intellectuals regard him with skepticism. This can, for example, be seen from comments by Mikhail Beletskiy [in Russian]. He is a Russophone activist and ardent critic of Yushchenko’s policies of alleged “Ukrainization,” but he’s not very enthusiastic about the new government either. Yanukovych is a rough, uncultured, autocratic man, with a very narrow, provincial mindset and virtually no strategic vision for the country. His first steps realized our worst fears.

Firstly, he and his team completely disregard the law and defiantly ignore the constitution when politically expedient. Suffice it to say, they have indefinitely postponed the local elections due in May, even though the constitution contains no provision for this. They created a parliamentary coalition and formed the government in an absolutely unconstitutional way, a kind of parliamentary coup d’etat. (The Constitutional Court declared this way of coalition-building unconstitutional in 2008. Now the judges have decided the opposite, reportedly under heavy bribery and intimidation).

Secondly, Yanukovych and his team pursue a vengeful, confrontational policy line that intensifies divisions within the country. One of his ministers, Mr. Tabachnyk, the minister of education, has made extremely Ukrainophobic statements. He has never apologized for them, claiming that his political views have nothing to do with his professional activities in the ministry. Mr. Mogilev, the interior minister, said that Stalin rightly deported all the Crimean Tatars to Siberia because they were Nazi collaborators. Yanukovych’s Russian/Russophone team is pretty xenophobic and very unlikely to bring interethnic accord and consent to the country.

And thirdly, most members of his new team have at various times had serious accusations of corruption brought against them. There are well-substantiated reasons to believe that their skills and will for reforms fall far behind their appetite for looting the economy.

In the West a lot of people think the victory of Yanukovych marks the defeat of the Orange Revolution. Is their view correct?

Yes and no. The Orange Revolution was actually defeated in 2005, when the Orange leaders refused to reform the institutions and society failed to force them to deliver on their promises. All that followed was just the death throes of the revolution, which eventually resulted in Yanukovych’s comeback. At the same time, the legacy of the revolution is much deeper and more durable. This can be seen in the emergence of civil society in Ukraine: it’s not mature enough to bring about fundamental changes in the system, but vibrant enough to resist authoritarian pressure and to protect basic civic rights and liberties in a peaceful, nonviolent way. If we believe in the theory of path dependence, we may say that the revolution failed because in the past we had too little experience of constitutionalism and democracy, and too much lawlessness and autocracy. But, by the same token, we may argue that next time Ukrainians will succeed because now their past contains also some important, albeit short, experience of civic behavior, of mutual trust and solidarity during the revolution.

It seems that the mentality of the homo sovieticus (authoritarian etc.) still dominates the political culture in Ukraine. Is the end of that species in sight? Is there a younger generation of politicians who give you hope for the democratic development of Ukraine?

Homo sovieticus, I believe, is gradually disappearing. Actually, this has been proved by sociological studies: people are becoming more self-confident, less paternalistic and they have more initiative. But the problem of a low social capital still remains, as well as a problem of what George Schopflin calls the “East European political culture.” In this regard, Ukraine (maybe with exception of the western, Catholic part) is not very different from the Balkan states that belong to the same civilizational milieu of Eastern Christianity. If you take a look at our political infighting from this perspective, you would not find much difference between Yushchenko-Tymoshenko, on one hand, and, say, Iliescu-Basescu or any other bad East European politicians, on the other. An ugly rivalry within the Orange camp was actually not very different from political rivalries in most other post-communist countries. The main difference, however, was that in all those countries there was no “third force,” represented in Ukraine by the profoundly anti-national, anti-European Party of the Regions and the Communists. This also means that in all those countries Russia could not play the spoiler role as effectively as it did in Ukraine.

I feel both the Ukrainian elites and society in general are pretty tired with all the lawlessness and institutional dysfunctionality. The popular vote for Tyhypko and Yatsenyuk, who came third and fourth in the first round of the last elections, largely reflects society’s need for (relatively) new faces and, even more importantly, for politicians who position themselves less ideologically – as pragmatists and technocrats. (Actually, Yushchenko won the 2004 elections primarily because he had a popular image, which was eventually eroded by his astounding fecklessness). But the main problem is how to change the rules of game without an external arbiter – what academics call “third-party enforcement.” Popular consent is not enough. Just remember the final scene of Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs. Three gangsters point their guns at one another’s heads and nobody will put his gun down because he may be the first to die. In the Balkans, the EU and NATO played the role of external arbiter with an even bigger gun. And this helped to change the paradigm.

So the way out will not be easy. But I believe that if Ukrainians can prove good will, consent, and a critical mass for change, the EU would help. We (I mean both Ukraine and the EU) lost this chance immediately after the Orange revolution, but I hope we won’t lose the next. We just need to work hard to create it again.

What about a cultural vision for a future Ukraine? Being part of the EU? The West? Or finding its own way, a channel of communication between West and East?

I don’t believe in any “third way,” “channels,” “bridging,” “neutrality.” Or any other hollow rhetoric that is at best naïve, at worst hypocritical, and suits the geopolitical manipulations of the Kremlin. Russians may deceive themselves with “thirdwayism” – as long as they have oil and gas – but Ukraine can’t afford it. Either we make a tremendous effort to join the First World, the “golden billion,” the core of the world economy (in Wallerstein’s terms), or we remain on its periphery (or, like China or Russia, the semi-periphery). For Ukraine, the third way leads directly into the Third World. I’d like our politicians to state this clearly rather than flirt with unviable ideas. True, Ukrainians are divided in their orientations between the West and Russia (or, more precisely, the mythical East Slavonic/Orthodox Christian “umma”). But this choice is not just about politics or geopolitics or even identity. It’s about values, about both level and way of life, about a secure and decent future. This should be clearly stated. Ukrainian divisions don’t mean we should avoid clear choices. It only means that we have to have better explanations, to work more persistently and, perhaps, to move more smoothly and carefully.

In Belarus, for example, a lot of people say: Thank God we don’t live in a chaotic, corrupt Mafia-style country like Ukraine. What would you reply?

If Belarusians, or Russians, are happy with their idea of happiness, then I’m not going to try and persuade them they’re wrong. Personally, I don’t think their countries are less corrupt. Informal censorship merely means they have less information about corruption. And the control of corruption exercised by their authoritarian rulers is more centralized and hierarchical. So if you want me to reply, I would say: well, you have a single mafia headed by your president as the godfather. While we, so far (unless Yanukovych introduces the Belarusian system in Ukraine), have many competing mafias, which creates a kind of pluralism in the country. This is not democracy yet but it could evolve from this pluralism – as it has in Western Europe since the Middle Ages. Ukraine might be more chaotic, but it has some chance for a breakthrough. They don’t. Actually, I like Boris Nemtsov’s comparison of Ukrainian politics to a lunatic asylum, and Russian politics to a cemetery. “In the lunatic asylum, theoretically, you can be cured. In the cemetery, you can’t.”

Ingo Petz is a German freelance journalist. This interview originally appeared on openDemocracy.net.

What Britain could learn from Portugal's drugs policy

A decade ago Portugal took a radical new approach to illegal drugs by treating users as people with social problems rather than as criminals. Could it work in the UK?

Susannah is being treated in the physiotherapy unit of the Centro das Taipas, a vast, pink former mental institutution close to Lisbon's airport, where she is having hot towels pressed on to her lower back. Built during the second world war, the wards of wing 21B are these days committed to the treatment of drug addiction.

Susannah is a long-term drug user and is intelligent but troubled. She first smoked cannabis at 13. At 17, she began taking heroin with the father of her children. Now 37, she has been dependent on drugs – mostly heroin – for almost two decades.

"I lived in Spain for a while," she tells me. "And London for a year, working in the restaurants with a friend. I went there to try to get off drugs but ended up on crack." These days, however, Susannah, who also suffers from a bipolar disorder, is one of the beneficiaries of Europe's most tolerant drug regime. For in Portugal, where Susannah lives, drugs have not only been decriminalised for almost a decade, but users are treated as though they have a health and social problem. Addicts such as Susannah are helped by the law, not penalised and stigmatised by it.

In the midst of the recently resurgent debate in Britain about whether our drug laws are working – or require a major overhaul – the experience of Portugal has become a crucial piece of evidence in favour of a radical approach that has confounded the expectations of even its conservative critics, so much so that in the last month British officials have asked their Portuguese counterparts for advice, with the only caveat being that they avoid mentioning the word "decriminalise".

It is, perhaps, an unnecessary sensitivity. For the reality is that, despite liberalising how it regards drug possession – now largely an administrative problem rather than a criminal offence – Portugal has not become a magnet for drug tourists like Amsterdam, as some had predicted.

British officials are not the only ones who have made the pilgrimage to Portugal in recent years – health specialists, officials and journalists from around the world have all made the journey to see what Portugal is doing right, even as their own countries are still struggling.

Nor has it seen its addict population markedly increase. Rather it has stabilised in a nation that, along with the UK and Luxembourg, once had the worst heroin problem in Europe.

For Susannah – as for the many long-term addicts now on methadone replacement and other programmes, and for the country's health professionals – the country's recent social history is divided into what the world of addiction and drug use was like before Law 30 was approved in November 2000, and what it is like now.

Before the law, which decriminalised (or depenalised) possession of drugs but still prohibited their use, the story of drug addiction in Portugal was a familiar one. More than 50% of those infected with HIV in Portugal were drug addicts, with new diagnoses of HIV among addicts running at about 3,000 a year. These days, addicts account for only 20% of those who are HIV infected, while the number of new HIV diagnoses of addicts has fallen to fewer than 2,000 a year.

Other measures have been equally encouraging. Deaths of street users from accidental overdoses also appear to have declined, as – anecdotal evidence strongly suggests – has petty crime associated with addicts who were stealing to maintain their habits. Recent surveys in schools also suggest an overall decrease in drug experimentation.

At the same time, the number of those in treatment for their addiction problems has risen by about a third

from 23,500 in 1998 to 35,000 today – helped by a substantial increase in available beds, facilities and medical support – with many going on to methadone replacement programmes. The consequence is that perhaps as much as €400m (£334m) has been taken out of the illegal drugs market.

But decriminalisation, as Portuguese officials and others who have observed the country's experience are at pains to point out, was only the most obvious part of what happened 10 years ago in the midst of a similar debate on drugs to the one now going on in the UK.

Then, in a moment of grand vision powered by an inquiry which recommended a wholesale overhaul of Portugal's anti-drugs policy in 1998, the government opted to make wholesale changes to the way Portugal dealt with the issue, giving a huge boost in resources to everything from prevention to harm reduction, treatment and reintegration – creating an entirely joined-up approach to drug abuse under the auspices of a single unit in the ministry of health.

It marked an acceptance that for many, living drug-free was neither realistic nor possible and that what society needed to do was mitigate the risk individuals posed to themselves and a wider population at large by helping them manage their problems.

Susannah's doctor, the head of treatment at the Centro das Taipas, is Dr Miguel Vasconcelos. He frames Portuguese drug laws in a way that I hear repeated several times. Within certain clearly defined limits – an amount equivalent to 10 days' normal use of any particular drug, ranging from amphetamines and cannabis to heroin – possession, he explains, is now considered similar to a traffic offence. It is a notion I find later described in the Portuguese drug strategy document as a "humanistic" approach.

Vasconcelos, 51, is old enough to remember what it was like before, in a country which, two decades ago, barely had a methadone replacement programme at all. In his office, decorated with artworks by his clients, Vasconcelos says: "Critics from the conservative parties were concerned that the new law would make Portugal a place like Amsterdam, but that did not happen.

"You have to remember," he says, "that the substances are still illegal; it is the consequences that are different." And for those arrested in possession of drugs for personal use, that means not a court appearance but an invitation to attend a "dissuasion board" that can request – but not insist upon – attendance at facilities such as the Centro das Taipas for assessment and treatment. "They evaluate if someone is ill or a recreational user, if a person uses sporadically," says Vasconselos. "Even then people have a choice. People can refuse to attend the dissuasion board."

For many, he believes, the experience can be cathartic and he admits being surprised by how open many of the clients who have come to his facility via that system have been .

If there has been a problem with the Portuguese experiment, he believes that it has been one largely of perception – outside Portugal – where decriminalisation has been misunderstood by some as legalisation or a step on the road to it.

Rather, Vasconcelos believes that decriminalisation is a natural consequence of a gradual shift from regarding addicts as social delinquents to regarding them as people in need of help, a view reiterated by Dr Manuel Cardoso, a board member at the Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência at Portugal's health ministry, which now co-ordinates the country's approach to drug abuse.

At the centre of Portugal's deeply pragmatic approach are the dissuasion boards. Lisbon's board – which deals with 2,000 cases a year – sits in a modest office on the second floor of a block above a pretty park. There are no lawyers (although they can attend) and no clerks in robes. No uniforms at all.

Last Friday, on one side of the table were Nadia Simoes and Nuno Portugal Capaz, both members of the commission. On the other was a 19-year-old barman in a white T-shirt who allowed the Observer to observe the confidential process but asked not to be named.

Stopped by police with 5.2 grams of cannabis, he is marginally over the limit of what can be dealt with by the dissuasion board alone and has had to appear in court as well. It is the young man's first offence. He looks nervous. But it quickly becomes clear that this is a non-confrontational process, as Simoes explains that while possession of drugs for personal use is not a criminal offence, it is still forbidden.

The man nods his understanding. Simoes explains the risks of smoking cannabis, including schizophrenia, and the sanctions the board can impose for second offences, including a fine or community service. Licences crucial to employment can also be revoked. As the process concludes, the barman looks relieved and promises to stop smoking. As he leaves, Capaz stands up and shakes his hand. The whole thing has lasted less than 10 minutes.

A sociologist by training, Capaz is a vice-president on the board. He believes that far from Portugal becoming more lenient, the reality is that the state intervenes far more than it did before Law 30 and the other associated legislation was introduced. Before, he explains, police would often not pursue drug users they had arrested, interested only in the dealers. "People outside Portugal believe we had a tougher approach under the old law, but in reality it is far tougher now."

Now everyone who is caught with drugs must go before one of the 20 boards in the country to be categorised as either a recreational user, someone with a developing problem, or an addict. And while some 30% choose to refuse to appear at the first summons, most – when threatened with a fine for disobedience – eventually attend.

Capaz has been involved since the very beginning and is struck by two things. The first is how Portuguese society has come to accept that addicts and drug users should be treated as a social rather than a criminal problem. The second, he explains, is that under the old criminal system all of those caught were supposed to be equal before the law. "With this system," he explains, "We do it the other way. We can apply the law in a way that fits the individual."

Indeed, the law recognises that for addicts certain sanctions are not appropriate. While recreational users can be fined, the law prevents addicts from having a financial penalty imposed for fear that in trying to raise the fine they might be driven to commit a crime.

But not everyone is totally convinced. Not even among the people who have dedicated their lives to assisting addicts. Francisco Chaves runs a modern shelter for street addicts close to Casal Vendoso, a place once notorious for its drug problems. "I want to explain first that this is not my profession but a vocation," he explains by way of introduction. He wants, however, to pose a "rhetorical question" which turns out to be more passionate intervention than a debating point.

He is concerned that under the "humanistic approach" enshrined in Portugal's decade-old laws – in its concern for the human rights of the addict – perhaps too much pressure to change may have been taken off addicts. "I worry that it has become too easy being an addict now," he says. "They can say: 'I've got clean clothes. I've got food. Support. So why should I change?'"

He says this sadly, because he agrees that addicts should be treated properly but cannot avoid "the paradox of the situation". "I say it is a rhetorical question because places like this are required. It is a personal, philosophical question." But it is one without any obvious answer.

Outside his office in the large, bright space where addicts are lolling on the sofa, eating or watching television, I encounter Fernando Almeida, 31, who has been a heroin addict since he was 19. A thief – who stole to support his habit – he was recently released from prison and found a place at this centre.

When he arrived six months ago, he weighed 55 kilos. These days he weighs 73kg and appears both lucid and motivated. "In the old days I used to get hassled by the police. Now the police don't interfere with me," he says. "I used to steal. Now I'm not going to steal anymore. For me the solution is to stop. I've discovered food and small things like taking a walk and having a coffee. I'm learning how to work."

Source - Guardian

Starting a Nonprofit Group: What You Need to Know

Starting a nonprofit organization requires much more than identifying a worthwhile cause. Organizations need to identify potential sources of money, craft a mission statement, draft bylaws, find board members, and seek tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service.

What are the best ways to accomplish those tasks? What is the best way to ensure your fledgling group will be able to sustain itself over the long run? What are the potential pitfalls of starting a nonprofit group, and how can you avoid them?

The Guests

Marty Martin is a lawyer whose law practice focuses on advising and training nonprofit groups. Mr. Martin has chaired the boards of several nonprofit organizations.

Josh Sommer is executive director of the Chordoma Foundation, which he co-founded with his mother, Simone Sommer, after he was diagnosed with bone cancer in 2006. A freshman at Duke University when he was diagnosed, Mr. Sommer joined the lab of Michael Kelley, a Duke oncologist studying the disease. Mr. Sommer is also a fellow in strategic philanthropy and health at Duke's program on global health and technology access.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

Welcome to the Chronicle of Philanthropy's weekly live discussion series. Typically, we focus these discussions on issues that are relevant to existing nonprofit organizations. But today, we're tackling a different topic -- starting a new nonprofit group.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

Both of today's guest experts have quite a bit of experience in this area. Marty Martin is a lawyer whose law practice focuses on advising and training nonprofit groups. As part of his practice, Mr. Martin helps clients through the legal process of starting nonprofit organizations. Our other guest is Josh Sommer, who started his own organization three years ago. Mr. Sonner is executive director of the Chordoma Foundation, in Greensboro, N.C., which he co-founded with his mother, Simone Sommer, in 2006. He can provide first-hand lessons based on his experience starting the foundation.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

They will be available for the next hour to take your questions. To submit a question, please click on the "ask a question" link on this page and type in your query. This is a text-based discussion and our guests will type responses to your questions. This page will refresh every minute with the latest answers.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

Ok, let's begin ...

Question from Georgemarc, Sec. of "Catalyst" a startup NPO:

We are an established, but dormant NPO (educational) We are in the process of modifying our articles of incorporation to become a international funds transfer organization in order to help an orphanage in Guatemala receive US funds through an educational organization in Canada.

My question is this: "Do other organizations need this service and if so, how do I find them."

Marty Martin:

If you have been dormant tax exempt entity and are now changing what you are doing, I suggest you seek a new opinion from the IRS that what you are doing will still qualify as tax exempt.

I don't know whether organizations may need this type of service. Have you done an environmental scan and/or competitor analysis to find out who may need or already be providing this service. You may want to seek other organizations through marketing on the Internet, as well as seeking out the type of organizations you want to fund and then work backwards from their networks.

Question from Ben, arts professional:

Is there a formula to determine salaries for the founder and other potential staff members? What grants could I, as the founder, apply for which would provide me with a salary during the initial phase of the nonprofit, as many grants are for specific programs which will not be implemented until the first cycle of forming a nonprofit is completed (getting 501(c)3 status etc.). Or what other sources other than grants would there be to fund salaries?

Marty Martin:

Ben, first as a founder and executive, you will want to avoid issues related to inurement and private benefit in establishing a salary for yourself. Your board of directors should do a salary survey to establish an appropriate salary range for your type of organization and locality and contemporaneously document their findings and determinations.

If you do not yet have your tax exempt status, you likely are limited in the grants for which you may apply directly. However, when writing your grants you should be able to include a portion of your salary and benefits as a component of the grant. You should look at the grant guidelines carefully and if you have questions, talk to the funder.

Question from Laurie, small non-profit:

Is it beneficial to join an "umbrella" or "adoption" organization for fiscal sponsorship where a percentage of the funds raised go towards administration (legal, accounting, IRS filings, etc) of the nonprofit?

Marty Martin:

Laurie, the short answer is "it depends." If it is a short term sponsorship while you are seeking a determination of your tax exempt status, that is one situation. If you are looking at it as a long term solution as a cost sharing situation, then your board will need to look at its pros and cons as to what will be most effective for your organization.

Question from Lee, small nonprofit:

What's the correct way to solicit financial support from businesses and companies?

Josh Sommer:

I don't know if there is necessarily a correct way, and I think the approach will depend on your organization and the company you are soliciting from.

That said here are some tips that we've found helpful:

1. Target organizations that have some connection to your mission. This connection might be personal - i.e. a cause that one of the employees or executives cares deeply about, or it might be related to the industry that the company operates.

2. Keep in mind that some companies have two different budgets for philanthropy - one in the marketing department, and one in the corporate giving, or corporate social responsibility office.

3. Try to find ways in which a partnership with your organization can be beneficial for the company. The best example that I've seen is United Airlines partnership with Conservation International. United donates to CI and advertises for CI in their magazine and in-flight entertainment. These advertisements make the point that rain forest destruction contributes more to global warming than all of the plains, trains, and cars in the world. I cannot think of a better organization for United to support to boost it's corporate image and allay people's potential guilt about flying.

4. Identify the decision makers, and develop a relationship with them before you make an ask. If you're not just after a quick donation and want to establish a major partnership with more significant giving, you'll need to do even more relationship building and due diligence. Determine if the company's values match yours, and how you get along with the staff.

5. Finally, ASK - even if they can't give much, it seems that most companies will give something if you just ask - this is more true when the economy is performing better than it is now.

Finally, I qualify all of this by saying that we are new at corporate fund raising, and I'm still learning a lot myself. I'd recommend reading books on this subject.

Question from Christine Lindquist:

Do either of the panelists know of any innovative models for financial sustainability?

Marty Martin:

Christine, that's the Holy Grail for nonprofits. The key to a financially successful and sustainable nonprofit begins and ends with your board of directors to manage the affairs of the corporation by making certain the funding model and strategies for financial sustainability works given your resources and environment in which your nonprofit operates.

Question from Hervey and Joyce for Metro Youth:

I would like to start a youth program that is designed to help distressed teens improve their life start. Where do I get the start up information that is needed for the program. Yes I do have a program outline.

Marty Martin:

Hervey and Joyce, the first questions to ask is whether anyone else is doing a similar program in your community. If so, then how do you intend to differentiate yourself in such a way as to be sustainable over the long run. Sometimes it may be better to go to an established program that already has established infrastructure rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. Funders increasingly are looking for scale and impact rather than "another program".

If you still want to try starting the program, then you may want to contact an attorney who works in nonprofit law to advise you on the legal issues and to assist with the IRS tax filings. Liability will be a key issue for you with the need to look at risk management issues close.

In addition, you may obtain information from the IRS website and from your state nonprofit association that may prove helpful. Finally, there is a wealth of information from other organizations that work with nonprofits that will help to guide you.

Finally, if there isn't a program in your area, look to find others doing similar work in other regions. Call them and ask about their experience.

Question from Bryan, startup non-profit:

My organization will seek a small grant for a proof-of-concept exercise, then will apply for larger funding once we've proven ourselves and the concept. Where do you suggest we look for donors interested in unproven and higher-risk non-profit opportunities?

Josh Sommer:

I think this is highly dependent on the problem the exercise is meant to solve. I've found that the best donors are the ones who want personally to solve the problems that you are tackling. The more passionate and impatient a donor is about solving your problem, the more likely they will be to take a risk on you.

In general there is a subset of foundations that specifically like to fund high risk, high reward projects. Usually they will say so on their website or materials. I would suggest browsing the Foundation Center database for granters in your space that fund proof-of-concept or pilot projects.

Question from Kelly, Philanthropy and Nonprofit consultant:

1.) If I have an idea for a nonprofit and want to pitch the idea to other nonprofits who could serve as a fiscal sponsor, is there a way to "protect" my idea, perhaps having them sign some sort of confidentiality clause before I do a presentation, so they do not take my idea for the program themselves and then hire another person to do the job?

2.) I believe one part of starting a nonprofit involves forming a board. How many people must be on the board and are they liable for the financial activities of the organization, as would the board of a for profit organization?

3.) Can one "incorporate" a nonprofit and if so, are there any advantages to doing this?

4.) Are giving circles, such as the NYC Venture Philanthropy Fund, considered nonprofit organizations? And what is the difference between a giving circle and donor advised fund as I find some organizations use this term interchangeably?

5.) Is there any kind of funding one would be eligible for in the meantime or a salary one could collect while still in process of forming a nonprofit (for example, while researching the potential viability of the organization, whether its services do serve a strong enough need which donors would support etc.)?

Thank you.

Marty Martin:

Kelly, your questions could take a day long seminar. 1). Yes you can and perhaps should try to protect yourself with a confidentiality agreement. Seek legal counsel to help you. 2). There is no magic number for the number of board members. While I believe a smaller board that actually governs and manages the nonprofit is a better model, there are organizations that function with larger numbers. Use an advisory board for fund raising.

All board members are equally liable for the corporation if they serve on the board of directors. Often the standard of care for service on a NPO board is the same as business board. This is an area of the law that is changing with increasing visibility and accountability for those who serve on the governing board.

3). Incorporation is generally the better option in most instances. Liability is one key consideration here.

4). Depending upon state law, a giving circle could be considered a nonprofit organization as an unincorporated association. A giving circle generally is a more informal type of philanthropy while a donor advised fund is governed by more stringent legal and operating requirements and often overseen by a community foundation or other legal entity.

5). You have the challenge of any entrepreneur in starting an enterprise that wants to be paid. Family and friends are generally the most reliable during this early phase, as well as, maintaining current or seeking part time employment.

Question from Cyndi Ware (interested in starting nonprofit):

I am interested in starting a non-profit, an ongoing community for women where they can learn about life skills, e.g., decision making, finances, relationships, career, health in a creative and engaging way. Do you know of any organization doing that sort of thing where I might be able to do an informational interview? Also, what is the first step? How does one go about getting money to get started?

Marty Martin:

Cyndi, an interesting national organization with local affiliates called "Dress for Success" is one organization you might want to contact. They work with helping women make transitions.

Finding seed money is the challenge for the start up social entrepreneur. Start with your own network of family and friends and expand from there.

Question from Claire Grove, Stepping Onward:

I have incorporated in my state, created the bylaws and I am working on the 1023. In addition, applied to the USPTO to protect my name and logo. The initial application was rejected even though there is no organization that is close to mine with the same name. I cannot afford a patent attorney. Can you suggest another option?

Marty Martin:

Claire, patent and trademark law is a very specialized area. While you may not be able to afford full time representation, you may want to consider a consultation for an hour or two to have counsel review what you've done and give you advice.

If you can't afford a consultation, then check with your state or local bar association or law school to seek if they may have an attorney clinic that might be able to provide an hour of advice.

You may also be able to find a course at a local college or community college that may help.

Question from Ken Wyble, Liberty 7 Foundation:

What are some ways to push the IRS along and check with the IRS on the status for 1023?

Marty Martin:

Ken, unless you qualify for an expedited review which is granted in only very limited circumstances, you will have to wait out the several months delay between submitting your 1023 application and hearing from them.

The IRS tries to triage these applications so that if your organization clearly qualifies, you may hear back sooner than later. If it doesn't clearly qualify, then you will wait.

Having experienced legal counsel may help avoid some of the potential legal and drafting about which many first time or one time applicants don't know.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

Hi Ken. You might be pleased to know that the IRS's taxpayer advocate is pushing for the IRS to speed up processing times on the Form 1023. Here's an item I wrote in July about that issue: http://philanthropy.com/news/government/5144/

irs-told-to-speed-up-applications-for-nonprofit-status

Question from Michi, ACEFC:

Hello, our mission has been rejected by the IRS twice already. what do you think our chances of success are at this point, and where can we find some exemplary mission statements for review?

Our organization is arts performance-related. The general idea is to get matching grants to make performances possible in free-to-the-public venues such as libraries and schools.

Thanks. Michi Regier

Marty Martin:

Michi, without reviewing your applications there is no way of knowing. I suggest you contact an attorney who practices in nonprofit law to review what you've done and to advise you on how to proceed.

Comment from Claire Grove, Stepping Onward:

Thank you, Mr. Martin, for answering my question.

Question from Claire Grove, Stepping Onward:

What is the best way to find a non-profit mentor in my area?

Josh Sommer:

First, is there a reason that the mentor needs to be in your area? Is the problem your organization is trying to solve unique to your locale? If not, then I wouldn't limit your search to your area.

Try contacting founders at other similar organizations. It helps if you get an introduction through a mutual acquaintance.

I've found most of my mentors through enhanced serendipity. Enhanced serendipity means intentionally setting your self for serendipitous things to happen. I'll be at an event and meet someone who knows someone who has the answer to a burning question, or has access to a needed resource. For example, I was at a 17,000-person cancer research conference and overheard the people behind me at lunch talking about their Chordoma research - turns out I had collaborated with one of their lab-mates. These guys were probably five at the entire conference doing chordoma research, and they just happened to sit behind me. I had to be at the conference to meet them - in other words, you have to play the game to win.

In general networking is probably the best way to enhance your serendipity. The bigger your network, the more opportunities will likely come across it. Tell people you know what you're looking for, whether it be a mentor or anything else - even if they don't have any ideas at the moment, they will be on the lookout for you.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

We've reached the halfway point in today's conversation. With that in mind, I'd like to remind our audience that there is still time to ask questions. To do so, please click on the "ask a question" link and then type in your question. If you have already asked a question and are waiting for a response, please stick around. Our guests are working through your questions and we'll post the answers as they are ready. Thanks.

Question from david:

If a for-profit organization wants to take some of its community training functions and spin them off into a separate nonprofit where some of the for-profit's employees will impart services to clients for a fee, what are some of the pitfalls to avoid?

Marty Martin:

David, there are many potential pitfalls when combining a business and nonprofit organization, though it can be done. The primary one is that the tax exempt entity and/or its assets are used inappropriately for the benefit of the business. In addition, there are legal differences between operating a business as a business and operating a nonprofit, tax exempt entity. Having employees working in both may give rise to problems.

Question from Fr Fred, Episcopal Church:

I am a priest in the Episcopal Church. We want to start a nonprofit which would assist the homeless. What is the very first legal step a local congregation needs to take?

Marty Martin:

Father Fred, the fact that you are seeking to establish a nonprofit entity separate from the church is an excellent first step. Too often a church will grow a "program" while continuing to operate it directly under the church's umbrella. This is not always a good idea once a "program" begins to grow.

To establish a separate nonprofit will require incorporating pursuant to state law, creating a board of directors, and filing the IRS 1023 as some first steps.

Question from davidn:

Can you also talk about issues related to board members taking salaries? Does the issue as far as legality change whether they do/don't provide services as more than board members to the organization?

Marty Martin:

David, generally it is not a good idea for board members to take a salary for their service unless they enjoy increasing the potential for an IRS audit, repayment, and penalties, and the risk of loss of the tax exempt status. Further, public scrutiny through the new IRS 990 form will likely impact the ability to raise funds.

As for providing services to the nonprofit, this has the potential for raising similar issues and should be done only in compliance with a stringent and operating conflict of interest policy and decision to do so by a majority of the unaffected, independent board members. Again, doing so raises issues with the increasing public scrutiny of a nonprofit's 990 form which may require disclosing these transactions.

Question from Jim, considering an L3C org.:

What can you tell me about L3C organizations like RBInternational L3C? Is it beneficial to form one versus a nonprofit? Will the L3C be able to self sustain?

Marty Martin:

Jim, I'm just learning about the L3C organizations which currently are only available in four or five states. They are an interesting, though untested hybrid corporate structure that seeks to blend the social side of a nonprofit with a low capital return of a business. If you live in a state that permits the formation of an L3C, I'd be interested in information about how they're working.

Question from Peter Panepento, moderator:

Hi Josh, perhaps you can provide our audience with a little bit of background of your experience starting a group. Tell us what prompted you to create the foundation -- and a little bit about your first steps. Thanks.

Josh Sommer:

I was diagnosed with a rare form of bone cancer, called chordoma, during my freshman year of college. The prognosis and treatment options were unacceptable so my mother and I resolved to find better options. After recovering from surgery I went to work in the only federally-funded chordoma research lab in the country. Meanwhile my mom and I contacted all of the leaders in chordoma research and many in related fields, as we formed our plan of attack to cure chordoma. We started the foundation out of a need to solve some very specific problems: 1) Access to scientific resources such as tumor tissue. 2) Communication, collaboration, and sharing among researchers. 3) Synchronization and coordination of research projects.

While our overarching mission is to find a cure for chordoma, and to improve the quality of life for those that it effects, our work focuses on solving the intermediate problems needed to reach that goal. These problems are not unique to chordoma so we are developing a model that can be applied to other cancers as well.

We started the foundation when we did, in February 2007, because in May we were to co-host the First International Chordoma Research Workshop. From this workshop emerged a research road map that was entrusted to the foundation to carry out. Since then we've been driving forward that plan, all the while raising money and building infrastructure to become increasingly effective.

Comment from Claire Grove, Stepping Onward:

Thank you so much, Josh, for that great answer and the description of Enhanced Serendipity :)

Question from Keri, Small Nonprofit:

What is the best way to connect with county- and/or state-run programs?

Marty Martin:

Keri, I'd suggest contacting your county manager's office for information on the programs in which you have an interest. Similarly, you may want to contact your Governor's office to direct you to the appropriate individuals and agencies in state government. These offices are in business to help serve you and generally are most helpful.

Question from Ray, DC Stop Modern Slavery:

We are a large grassroots organization applying for 501c3 status so we can raise funds to execute our mission. Generally, can an organization start raising funds while its 501c3 application is in progress? Our fund raising would consist of applying for grants and seeking grassroots donations.

Marty Martin:

Ray, you can raise funds while awaiting for the IRS determination of your tax exempt status. If you are determined to be tax exempt, then the status will relate back to your date of incorporation.

However, you cannot indicate or suggest in any fashion to prospective donors their contribution is tax deductible. You should be totally transparent and forthcoming about your status and include a written statement that you have not yet been recognized as tax exempt and have an application pending with the IRS in all of your fund raising communications.

Question from Kristopher:

I am contemplating starting a non-profit but am aware of a few organizations already in existence doing what I'd like to do. I am cautious about not overloading the field with new organizations. Do either of you have any general thoughts regarding starting new organizations or joining with already existing ones?

Josh Sommer:

It's good that you are aware of others operating in your space. I personally believe that there are too many similar/overlapping nonprofits, and that there needs to be consolidation in many sectors.

In general I think it's far better (and probably easier) to join an existing organization. For one, you'll save a lot of time in developing relationships and a donor base. Plus you can benefit from their infrastructure, reputation, and complementary expertise/capacity. Assuming that the organization you join or partner with is adequately funded, you could devote more time and energy to the mission as opposed to fundraising. I wish there had been an organization that we could have piggy-backed on to.

All that said, if you have a very innovative idea or approach that just isn't compatible with an existing organization, or if the specific issue you are trying to address is too narrow, and would get diluted by joining another organization, then I certainly wouldn't want to discourage you from starting your own organization. Just know it's an enormous commitment.

Before you make a decision map out the entire space, and contact all of the organizations who you could potentially partner with. Really do your homework and talk with the people in charge. Get a sense of their willingness to collaborate, whether they share your philosophy, and how financially sound they are.

Comment from Jim, considering forming an L3C org.:

Comment: Thank you Marty for answering my question, I truly believe that L3C orgs can help the nonprofits. From my research, you form one and you are able to operate nationwide.

Question from Kim S.:

We're interested in learning whether we can legally act as a nonprofit without the 501c status?

Marty Martin:

Kim, if you are seeking to be recognized as tax exempt, the better practice is to file your IRS 1023 application immediately after you incorporate under state law.

Question from Starting a new nonprofit:

I'm not sure how to get started. What would you recommend? Is there a guidebook with step-by-step instructions to start a nonprofit? Do I get the 501(c)3 first? Do I need a lawyer and an accountant first?

Josh Sommer:

Yes, there are lots of guidebooks. I think we bought a bag-full when we were starting, but didn't end up turning to them very much. You don't need to get 501(c)3 status to get started. You can incorporate and operate without a federal exempt status. I would definitely recommend incorporating with the help of a lawyer with nonprofit experience. There are nuances of nonprofit law that most other attorneys just aren't familiar with. I'd recommend finding an accountant as soon as possible, but you don't need one before you incorporate. Again, you need to find an accountant that specializes in nonprofits.

Question from Susie, charter school PTA:

I have obtained 501(c)(3) status for a newly formed parent teacher organization. The school we support is a separate tax exempt organization. How careful do we need to be about maintaining our separate status? Should we avoid placing school teachers and administrators as heads of our committees to avoid conflicts of interest? We are not classified as a supporting organization.

Marty Martin:

Susie, this is a key question for the founding board to consider as it will set precedent and the culture of your PTO. I'd suggest a well considered written policy on this issue to guide the founding and future boards.

In the absence of additional information, my inclination and bias may be to consider establishing and maintaining independence between the two entities by having a majority of board members and committee members who are not school employees.

Comment from Kristopher:

Thank you Josh...I agree that consolidation would be extremely beneficial. I am afraid that by starting my own, I, and the other similar organizations, won't be as successful as we could be because we'll have to compete too much for resources, etc...

Question from Bill:

Is it better for nonprofits to join other nonprofits during these economic times if they are on the same mission?

Josh Sommer:

Unless there are compelling reasons not to, I would favor joining another nonprofit regardless of the economic situation.

Question from Naomi C. Leapheart, Philadelphia nonprofit leader and independent consultant:

Hello!

This question is for Josh in particular: What three things would you say, looking back, were the most important to do during the first six months to one year of the Chordoma Foundation's existence? How did those things lay a strong foundation for the organization as you reflect three years later?

Josh Sommer:

1. Building relationships - many that were developed three years ago are paying off today.

2. Honing in on the mission.

3. Hiring administrative assistance.

4. creating a good looking Web site.

Other things I wish we had done earlier:

1. Found an accountant.

2. Implemented a CRM and donor database.

3. Asked for money.

4. Hired more people.

Question from Steve Brand, Ways & Means Productions:

Related to my previous question, what are the typical year-to-year maintenance cost categories involved with running a nonprofit? What might a start-up's costs look like over the first few years?

Marty Martin:

Steve, this will vary from nonprofit to nonprofit depending upon what you are doing.

As part of the IRS 1023 application, you are required to create a three-year, pro forma operating budget. This is where you will need to look closely at both the sources of your revenue as well as your operating expenditures and budget. I encourage you to be as specific as you can when you establish these numbers and then create a written plan with specifics on how you intend to achieve them.

Question from Allison, small nonprofit:

I know that there are surveys of nonprofit salary averages, can you point me to the best surveys and Web sites for this?

Marty Martin:

Allison, you may want to look at Guidestar and The Chronicle of Philanthropy as two quick sources that I believe will have salary information.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

Our annual salary survey is available to Chronicle subscribers at: http://philanthropy.com/premium/stats/salary/

Question from Tricia, small nonprofit:

Given the number of nonprofits in the U.S. and the various missions they have, what factors go into the decision to start one of your own, verses becoming an executive at an established nonprofit?

Josh Sommer:

It depends why you want to join a nonprofit. In my case it was to solve a particular set of problems that I was very passionate about, and concluded that we could not realistically solve these problems without starting a new organization. If you are just looking for experience or to make a difference, I would strongly urge you to join an existing organization. It will probably be much much easier, and as I said before, I think the nonprofit space is already pretty crowded and redundant.

Question from Laurie, small non-profit:

Mr. Martin, yes, my small non-profit would like to join (long-term) an umbrella 501(c)(3) organization that would combine the administrative costs for all of its "programs." My board has agreed that the way this particular umbrella charity operates would be both cost and time effective. Do you have any guidance you can provide about umbrella or adoption organizations?

Marty Martin:

Laurie, you should take care in drafting the agreement that defines this relationship and in particular how costs and expenditures will be allocated, as well as any attendant risks. Likely I'd limit the time frame, particularly for the initial agreement, and then make certain your board and executive director monitor the relationship and expenditures closely as you grow and develop to make certain this still makes sense economically and otherwise.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

We're keeping the discussion open for a little longer to get to some more questions. Thanks for all who have joined us today.

Question from Dana La Force:

What are the benefits and limitations for a faith based non-profit?

Marty Martin:

Dana, unfortunately your question is too broad a question for this format and any answer will be highly dependent upon what a group is seeking to do and why.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

For those who are starting new groups, I hope you will turn to our live discussions series as a resource for your organization. We hold these discussions every Tuesday at noon Eastern time on a wide range of topics. You can also read free transcripts from previous discussions at http://philanthropy.com/live.

Question from Steve Brand, Ways & Means Productions:

I am an independent filmmaker working on social issue documentaries, primarily for public television and educational distribution. These projects can sometimes take seven years or so to complete. Up to this point I have worked with fiscal sponsors and been the project director but have been considering setting up a nonprofit, partly because the fiscal agent fee would then be able to be plowed directly into the work. But I am not sure how much of an undertaking this would be, how much administrative time, how many tax filings (and how cumbersome), how many people I would need to manage the nonporfit, etc. Any suggestions on what pluses and minuses to consider?

Marty Martin:

Steve, the key here is what works best for what you're doing. There are benefits and costs to either arrangement--some of which your question suggests. I'd encourage you to make a list of what you currently see as the pros and cons with a dollar and estimated time expenditure for each as a starting point.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

We have reached the end of the line. Thank you to all of you who took the time to join us today. I hope you found the information useful. I'd also like to pass along a special thank you to our guests, Josh Sommer and Marty Martin. They offered some fantastic advice.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

Please remember to visit http://philanthropy.com/live for information about upcoming live discussions and to access our archive. Please also note that we are playing host to a special series of discussions on recession issues along with experts from the Nonprofit Finance Fund in New York. The series begins this Thursday, May 14, at noon Eastern time. You can learn more here: http://philanthropy.com/live/recession_series/

Peter Panepento (Moderator):

Thanks again.

Source - www.philanthropy.com

Using Video to Spread Your Nonprofit Group's Message and Mission

More and more nonprofit organizations are tapping into video as a powerful marketing and fund-raising tool.

But while some charities use video to reach supporters, potential donors, and the public, others have been slow to adopt the approach.

What's the best way to use video storytelling to get your group's message across to current and potential supporters? What technologies work best for public-service announcements? What's the difference between direct-response and viral video?

The Guests
Sara Fusco is assistant director for online communications at Refugees International, in Washington, where she is managing a redesign of the organization's Web site. Previously, Ms. Fusco was deputy director of development at the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, where she developed databases and marketing materials, and directed the organization's special events planning. Michael Hoffman, an expert in online business development and marketing, is chief executive officer of See3 Communications, which develops visual, audio, and photographic content for nonprofit groups wanting to raise money and spread their message. Mr. Hoffman co-founded DoGooderTV and EarthFirst.com. Mr. Hoffman is also the host of the Guide to Online Video, an introduction to online video for nonprofit groups.

Mark Horvath is a television producer who creates video content for nonprofit causes. He has worked extensively with the homeless population in Los Angeles for over eight years, and creates video narratives of the plight of homeless people in Los Angeles. His videos can be seen at http://invisiblepeople.tv/blog/. He has also developed marketing and fundraising campaigns for churches in Los Angeles, and St. Peters, Mo.

Steve Braker has produced broadcast, non-theatrical, and commissioned documentaries for more than 25 years. He founded Worthwhile Films, a Northfield, Minn., company that produces documentary and educational video, and other types of media programming for nonprofit organizations and government agencies.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
Hello, and welcome to today's online discussion on online video for nonprofits.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
The growth of social media has made it easier than ever before for nonprofit groups to use video to spread their message and raise money.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
But for many organizations, video isn't part of the daily routine. And, of course, budgets are tight. So how can your group effectively create, produce, and market video on a tight budget? What are the common mistakes? What are others doing?

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
Today, we have four experts in the use of video for storytelling and advocacy available to answer these and other questions.

They include:

Sara Fusco, assistant director for online communications at Refugees International, in Washington; Michael Hoffman, an expert in online business development and marketing and chief executive officer of See3 Communications; Mark Horvath, a longtime television producer who creates video content for nonprofit causes; and Steve Braker, who has produced broadcast, non-theatrical, and commissioned documentaries for more than 25 years.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
To ask a question of one of our guests, please click on the "ask a question" link on this page and type in your question. This discussion is text based, so there is no need to call in. The page will refresh every minute with the newest information.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
With that, let's get started ...

Steve Braker:
Hello all, I'm Steve Braker and I've been producing "narration-free" documentary style video for NGOs / nonprofit organizations for 25 years as Worthwhile Films (http://worthwhilefilms.com).

It's exciting to see that video is in a new era in terms of its reach and potential, now that almost anything can be seen almost anywhere. That doesn't mean that the old ways of getting an org's video message in front of the right eyeballs are obsolete, they're just part of a larger mix. The challenges are the same: produce video which tells a compelling story and message, and get the right people to see it in a productive context.

Question from Ellen, small video production company:
Where can I find data on the effectiveness of using video for nonprofit fundraising?

Michael Hoffman:
There is a lot of information online. A good place to start is the Guide To Online Video at http://www.see3.net/guide/

Question from Ladd Morgan, Ernst & Young:
If a small nonprofit cannot afford a professionally done video, should it approach donors with something homemade?

Sara Fusco:
In large part I'd say it depends on the content that you have, and the donors you are approaching. "Amateur" raw footage can be extremely compelling to donors if the content is fresh - something that hasn't been seen or told before - and has an emotional story that is being told.

Don't try to over-stylize it yourself. As long as the content is there, the story is sharp, and you clearly make the case that your organization is the one who can best address the issue you're portraying, then yes, it can absolutely be homemade and work for donors.

Mark Horvath:
Quality transmits credibility. people will judge your brochure, video, or any marketing material by how professional its done. that said, with today's tools and a little extra work quality video production does not necessarily have extreme costs anymore.

Question from Jeff, Rainbow Hospice:
We have some older, non-professional equipment (digital but just barely) like a handicam. Is it worth producing something or just waiting until the budget opens up for better items?

Mark Horvath:
NEVER WAIT! Right now all I have is a laptop that cannot even edit video and a small camera. My Avid died and I cannot afford to replace it. I sat and looked at what I didn't have and got depressed. Once I started to look at what I had and just decided to make things happen I found the solution. The point is take what you have and make something. If you are missing an important piece rent or borrow.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
We've had a couple of questions come in about this format. This is a text-only chat -- so there is no audio or video that accompanies this discussion. This page will refresh every minute with the newest material. Thanks everyone.

Question from Piper Stege Nelson, NDI:
When posting a video on your website, specifically on the CONTRIBUTE or DONATE page, what is most compelling? And what length is best?

Steve Braker:
I think in this day and age, you need to get the viewer on your side as quickly as possible. I'm still a proponent of getting people in a room to watch and discus a video, but you don't have a "captive audience" online.

Your online fund raising video might be 5 or 8 or even 12 minutes, but you want them to have a good feeling for what you're about and why they should help within the first 1 or 2 minutes.

Question from Kin Lazzaro, Sarah Lawrence College:
Would you suggest using online video as part of the acknowledgement process?

Sara Fusco:
Absolutely! It's a great treat to donors to receive something that helps them see that their money is going to an important cause. Anything that makes a donor feel special does wonders for your cultivation efforts.

Question from Scott Fortnum, ALS Canada:
I run the development program for the ALS Society of Canada and we have a stellar 60 second PSA that essentially chronicles the impact of the disease (typically 3 to 5 years) in one minute.

It is extremely powerful according to viewers and has been blogged about internationally on various marketing sites.

The industry buzz is great, but I am wondering what some of your thoughts are with regard to getting this in front of potential donors.

Steve Braker:
Congratulations, Scott. It sounds as though you're in a great position! I won't be an expert on this as it's more in the realm of web message wrangling than video itself.

But I think the challenge will be to get as many of those online placements to point back as visibly as possible to the site where people can take action. The video should include a specific call to action; if it isn't in there it should be added as text-over or at the end.

Question from Katherine, Mary's Pence:
If I have a four minute video of a grantee of ours that is compelling of our organization how can I use this to reach donors or educate people? What are the best ways to use this video?

Mark Horvath:
Interesting question. Sometimes video is not the answer. So often I hear "lets make a video" when another method would work best. The key here is to know your donors and ask THEM how they want to receive communications. For example, if they are online then add to a Web page or send in an e-blast. If the video is short make a business card sized DVD and mail it. There are many delivery methods but I must stress that you MUST know your donors. The real questions is, how do they want to receive your messages? I hope that helps

Question from Scott Squire, NonFiction Media:
As a small-footprint documentary production company, I'd like to know how to make a convincing case to organizations for making the relatively substantial up-front investment a documentary entails.

Steve Braker:
Great question. First of all I would suggest targeting yourself to the groups or types of groups that you really believe in and want to work with.

The vast majority of my projects are funded by sources outside the organization's budget. Government funding, foundation grants, individual donors who see it as valuable seed money for other donations. I help the organization in this process by providing a proposal and other materials which are then turned around as part of the appeal or application to fund the video. It's a new age, of course, but I think the same process is still alive.

Question from Nedra Weinreich, Weinreich Communications:
What are the elements you need to think about in video storytelling that are different from telling a story in print? Thanks!

Mark Horvath:
To me, the big difference is emotion. So much communication is lost in the written word where video/audio will capture everything. I personally like the person to tell their own story as I feel it's more powerful then a voice over narration. I am also not very big on locations unless they bring real meaning and emotion to the person being interviewed. Head shot so you can see the face and then add broll to visually tell the story. music plays a HUGE part in bringing emotion and is a very effective tool that print cannot provide.

Question from Abhilash Ravishankar, grassroutes.in :
I have a question, which is quite specific in nature. We fund youth to go on road-trips to rural areas, meet change-makers and document their travelogues on video.

When we process the video, we look at two audiences:
a. Donors
b. Other youth (in order to inspire them to travel for social change).

How different do you think the stories in the videos should be for the different audiences?

In your experience, what does a donor look for? Obviously impact. What else?

Michael Hoffman:
I think the most important thing is telling compelling stories. Stories that work, work for everyone. The difference between donors and others might be length and format -- you might want to use the donor videos in a presentation and you might need to have a different length or different messaging at the end.

Donors want to know that their support matters to real people. They want to know that the problem isn't so large that they can't have an impact, and they want to see their money at work with real people.

Question from Rachel, large nonprofit:
What are some of the pitfalls or obstacles I might run into as a part of a very large nonprofit? I'm interested in pitching it to my supervisors, but know I will face some resistance. Do you have any statistics of how online videos have been helpful to groups?

Sara Fusco:
It definitely can be tough to make the initial case. There are success stories that I know of, but it depends on your objective with the video (advocacy, fund raising, list-building). Michael at See3 probably has better ideas of statistics that he could share with you.

You'll need to develop a targeted campaign with a very clear objective, and then explain how online video will fold into that. Video is not the silver bullet, and can't accomplish your goal by itself. It's mostly the outreach that you do once it's produced and posted online that can make or break your campaign, and that's a huge pitfall that people can overlook. Just because you build it, it doesn't mean they will come.

Question from Jeff, Rainbow Hospice:
We're not eligable for Adobe non-profit discounts on Premiere (at least not through Techsoup) is there anywhere else to look to get decent editing software? -note no one here has a mac to use Final Cut.

Michael Hoffman:
The kind of software matters less than just getting started. Windows Movie Maker software is free and it can do basic editing. If you are committed to really building an in-house capacity for editing, I suggest speaking with your key supporters about why this investment is important and try to get them to underwrite the purchase of the software.

Question from Chris Davies, Weldmar Hospicecare Trust:
We were fortunate to have a film presented for us by a national celebrity, written for us by an Oscar winner (Gosford Park, etc) and produced by professionals - but it was too long for YouTube. I have added it as two halves. But the first half is getting 3 times the views of the second. They have offered to recut it (just needs 1 minute and 30 seconds taken out) but, as it's been there for four months now I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Will it dilute/ruin the impact we have already made?

Mark Horvath:
OUCH, these are great questions. The biggest bang was when it first went up. Unless you are going to promote it again it may not be worth the effort however, if they are offering to recut for free then do it just to have it. Personally, I never like to cut projects in parts. As I type I'd say YES, make it all into one. You'll find a use for it.

Question from Alexia Harris, adult education nonprofit:
It seems like most people are interested in nonprofits that cater to children, pets, or diseases. Do you have any suggestions for getting the public's attention if we don't serve those publics?

How can we use video to talk about the importance of adult literacy/education?

Steve Braker:
The categories you mention might be the most visible, but that doesn't mean your audience isn't out there. As Mark recently said to Katherine, video may or may not be the best vehicle for you. It's a tool to be used within the context of your overall marketing and fund raising.

I think telling genuine, straight-up stories is the best way to really reach anyone on any subject. Build a conversation with the people involved, and back it up with visual stories.

I wish I had the link for you, but there was a segment within the last month on NPR's "The Story" which was absolutely riveting - and they were talking about literacy! It took the story of one adult, in depth, and looked at how her life changed as she learned to read. There's one great example - it could have been audio, print, or video.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
We're about halfway through today's discussion and I wanted to post a reminder that you can submit questions or comments by clicking on the "ask a question" link on this page and then typing away.

Question from Amy Welsh, The Coordinating Center:
What type of a release do you need from the constituent in the video?

Sara Fusco:
We have a standard release that essentially says the individual understands what the objective is of the video, where it will be shown, how it will be used, and that we are free to edit the footage we collect from them. This should be signed by a parent or guardian if it's a minor, too.

There is also a location release we use that says it's okay to take footage of that space and edit it for those same purposes (mostly for when we collect b-roll).

It can also be extremely useful to get the individual on tape right at the beginning of the interview, with you explaining all of these details, and getting their verbal agreement. That's your safety net.

Question from Rachel, large nonprofit:
What are some of the pitfalls or obstacles I might run into as a part of a very large nonprofit? I'm interested in pitching it to my supervisors, but know I will face some resistance. Do you have any statistics of how online videos have been helpful to groups?

Steve Braker:
I'm afraid I don't have statistics, I just know that organizations are doing more video than ever, and the ones I'm involved in report great success in public awareness, donations, and other forms of support. Just tell them the people doing video say it's a good idea.... One longtime resource for this kind of information has been the Benton Foundation, I don't know what they have now but they have a long history of tracking media trends including nonprofit use. You might also want to check out the Communicators Network, for nonprofit communications people.

Question from Lauren, higher ed:
Do you see video social media site as a good method of online philanthropy? Are there specific organizations doing this well?

Michael Hoffman:
Absolutely! Social media sites are a great way to distribute video online. Of course there is YouTube, but there are also social networks such as Facebook, MySpace and smaller social networks built on platforms like Ning. The key is to map your community online. Where do the people you want to reach go? Start there, and then bring your compelling content to them -- don't make them come to you.

Question from Melissa Hoyos, City University of Seattle:
Could each of you recommend a compelling Web site or video link that you believe is an innovative example of how to use multimedia for fund raising purposes?

Mark Horvath:
Here is my favorite right now:

http://participate.denversroadhome.org/

My friends at URM do a great job and their short videos have made "stories from skid row" in the top 20's on Itune.s

http://www.urm.org

Of course, what I do

http://invisiblepeople.tv

social media release http://pitch.pe/4732

I'm not going for fund raising although there are strong elements. This was not part of the question but one of the reasons I started this is so many nonprofit videos show VICTORY that people detach, they say "wow, look at how great they are, now we don't have to do anything." Hhomelessness is not going away and is getting worse.

The one tip I can leave you with is that in creating a cause fund raising video ,do not leave the viewer thinking you solved the issue.

Question from Melissa Hoyos, City University of Seattle:
Could each of you recommend a compelling Web site or video link that you believe is an innovative example of how to use multimedia for fundraising purposes?

Sara Fusco:
I think American Jewish World Service does great things with video...which you probably read in the accompanying article! (http://www.ajws.org)

And I'll boast a little about our own current campaign (http://www.refugeesinternational.org/iraq-release) that is centered around a take-action and list-building.

I strongly believe that video isn't the magic solution to raise money, but it's one of my best (and favorite!) tools to cultivate and build faithful donors.

Question from Robin Gabbard, Buckhorn Children & Family Services, Kentucky:
We have a great 1- minute video. I would like to have a 1 - 3-minute clip edited from the original and put on our Web site. It tells me that our site cannot handle the video stream. Can you point me to a reputable source where I can learn more about the needs of a Web site handling video and how to upgrade if needed?

Steve Braker:
Robin, I can't speak to your specific technical (or internal affairs) situation, but you may want to seriously consider the social networking sites - specifically Facebook and Youtube. If you won't be doing a lot of video I would currently suggest Facebook, as higher quality video can be integrated into external sites with minimal fuss and almost no branding ("Facebook" shows up for about three seconds on playback). Assuming you aren't on Facebok yet, there's another thing to ponder. It's very well used by the nonprofit community and has features specifically beneficial for nonprofits. Take a look at how some organizations you know are using it.

Steve Braker:
There have been a few questions about DIY video. I'm not a blogger, but in response to a request from Kivi Leroux Miler I did put up a few do-it-yourself video tips here: http://tinyurl.com/bmre6z . It is general and technical and doesn't address the questions of style and approach - which deserve the most attention. You really need to plan out exactly what you want and make sure that it meets your needs and your resources.

Question from Katherine, Mary's Pence:
What is a business-sized DVD? Will people know how to use it? I think the piece I have could go on a Web site, and could also be used at small donor gatherings as a discussion piece.

Michael Hoffman:
I'm not sure what you mean by business-sized DVD, but DVDs can be sent to donors. I think they are best used as part of a facilitated discussion. It often makes sense to do both -- have a DVD for distribution to events and to key donors/board members, etc... and put the video online.

Question from Steve Brand, Ways & Means Productions:
Can you give us a range of typical rates being charged for producing different length videos (30 second spots, 2 minutes, etc) - both for broadcast and for online? I know there can be an enormous variety depending on the nonprofit's operating funds, but any ballpark figures would be helpful. Operative word is typical.

Mark Horvath:
Oh that all depends. You can shop around and get cheap rates but lots of times you get what you pay for. Coming from the church world where staff is usually untrained volunteers and good gar is a hard sale to a pastor you get used to making excellence with a little.

It also varies on what your spot is and how extensive the production will be

To me, more important than price is you need to build a relationship with a media team that GETS your vision. There are lots of "cookie cutter" guys that will give you a rate and produce your spot. But if they cannot properly transmit your message it's a complete waste.

Comment from Jeff, Rainbow Hospice:
Here's The Story segment on Illiteracy that Steve Braker referred to earlier, http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_682_Learning_To_Read.mp3/view

Question from Melissa Hoyos, City University of Seattle:
Could each of you recommend a compelling Web site or video link that you believe is an innovative example of how to use multimedia for fundr aising purposes?

Steve Braker:
There are many, but I would point you to Mark Horvath who is in the room here. I don't know what's going on on the fund raising end, but his invisiblepeople.org makes a very compelling case for L.A.'s homeless people.

Question from Helen, Los Angeles Education Partnership:
How do videos compare if scripted by someone within the organization versus someone from the outside?

Michael Hoffman:
People within your organization know your work better than anyone from outside. And while that's important, it can also be the problem. You are sometimes too close to your issue to explain it to outsiders in the economical way necessary for good video.

When we work with someone it's a partnership. We assume they know their work better than we do, but we also know how to craft stories from the raw material. If you are working only in-house, I suggest showing it to people outside and getting and accepting honest feedback. If you are working with someone from outside, it still has to feel authentic to you, or it won't feel authentic to your audience.

Question from Jonathan Hutson, Physicians for Human Rights:
We posted a great video on our homepage, http://physiciansforhumanrights.org, to address the astronomical cost of health care in Zimbabwe. It's called "Health Care: Zimbabwe's Luxury Item." It's posted on YouTube, and we've promoted it to our supporters via email. The Zimbabwe Times also featured it on their homepage. We've Twittered about it and promoted it via our LinkedIn group. Where else could we cross-promote our Zimbabwe video?

Steve Braker:
That's a very interesting question. As a side note, I put together a piece for an organization in Zimbabwe, but for political reasons it is only shown in person at fundraising events to protect the people in it - no web viewing. I would absolutely make a Facebook page for it, and possibly a Myspace Film page in addition to YouTube. Make sure that you maintain these sites with useful information and make the call to action as easy as possible for viewers to follow. I would embed the YouTube or Facebook (I prefer) videos on your Web page so that they are seen in your own context; Otherwise just make sure that the right links are at hand anywhere the video can be seen. It sounds like you might want a social media person to handle all this if you don't yet.

Question from Jillian DeLaTorre, small nonprofit:
We have three different audiences our videos cater to - how different should these videos be?

Mark Horvath:
These really are great questions. Without knowing any more details then what you have provided, whenever possible target to your demographic. That said, three videos. But then again as I said earlier, maybe one of your audiences would prefer communication via another media. One issue is trying to have a big net to catch everything. The more you can shape your media to target your audience the better your response.

Question from Peter Panepento:
Steve, we've talked a lot today about what makes a good video? What makes a bad one? What are some common mistakes that can doom a video's impact?

Steve Braker:
Hah! Well, we know that shakycam can work, and weird awkward editing can work. The kids these days...

But really, I think what makes bad video (bad print, bad marketing, bad communications...) is lack of a clear purpose that is actually supported by video. Also a lack of understanding of what video is good and bad at. A few statistics won't hurt, but generally people won't remember them. What people remember is the FEELING that they got from the video - a feeling for what the subject or organization does, a feeling of empathy, a feeling that the wallet is weighing too heavily upon the pants. If the feeling is instead "huh? or "ugh" or "yuck", or even "ho-hum", it isn't an effective program.

Question from Amy Welsh, The Coordinating Center:
Any video we produce would be with limited equipment and probably then edited with Windows Movie Maker. Do you have an yguidelines or list of considerations before beginning?

Michael Hoffman:
The most important thing in your case is to have the end in mind before you start. Try to know what you are trying to capture before you shoot so you don't have to do massive amounts of editing. Also, focus on good sound. People forgive bad video, they do not forgive bad sound. Investing in an external/wireless microphone pays off.

Question from Michael Woolworth, The Connection, Connecticut:
Is there any caution against using consenting current clients or graduates in the video? If they recidivate, or backslide, that might prompt us to edit the video with someone else.

Mark Horvath:
ok, if i get this right you are asking if you put a graduate from a drug rehab in a video then the person goes out and uses is there a caution.

yes, you'll know if they are going to make it, but then again. lots of people fail. not because they are bad, it's just life.

i've been in this situation MANY times. usually if we find out the person has challenges we pull it from airing. that does not lesson their story or YOUR story because you helped them off drugs. in fact, it can be a good pitch to donors for more help because this is a serious issue

Question from Melissa, Montana State Univeristy:
I work as a fundraiser trying to raise foundation dollars for programs on campus. Many programs would benefit from online videos to bring attention to the great work that's being done - such as cancer prevention and awareness in tribal communities.

My question is, program officers are overworked and don't have time to do it, everyone's budgets are taxed, so who does it? What have other institutions done?

Sara Fusco:
We've recruited volunteers to put together a handful of videos for us (from local TV stations, students, friends of friends). But more importantly, we've focused a portion of our fundraising efforts on finding foundation money for staff time and outsourced projects.

This is, needless to say, really tough to do when your staff and budgets are stretched already. But making a commitment to build a comprehensive plan to create and use video can bring great rewards. It sounds like you have extremely compelling content that I'm sure a funder would be very interested in helping you create.

Question from Elisa, E.J. Associates:
We are producing a 20-minute documentary-style video for our nonprofit client. We have identified target audiences and are planning how to reach various segments, using the video as a key tool in our marketing/outreach efforts. We are planning campaigns ranging from events to targeted e-mails to Web 2.0. We've established a presence on Facebook and will start there. What are effective ways to get people on social networking sites to watch our video? Also, we haven't used viral marketing yet. How should we approach this?

Michael Hoffman:
I think you have to ask yourself and the client whether the 20-minute video by itself can achieve your goals. When we have a need for a longer form video (20-minutes counts as long-form in a world where the average web video is 1.5 minutes) we often create derivative content from this longer form video. I am sure you have enough content to create a 3-minute version, or better yet, several 3-minute versions that accentuate different aspects of the issue.

These shorter videos will likely get more traction in social networking sites. That is not to say that people won't watch longer video -- they will. The issue of length is what is the right length for the story.

In terms of getting people to watch, you need to have sharing functions built-in -- allowing people to easily embed the video on their own blogs, tell their friends through email, and post to their social networking profiles.

Mark Horvath:
there has always been a big debate about quality vs content. remember the most watched video of our time is the Rodney King video and it was shot on VHS. yes, work hard to have excellence but ALWAYS remember compelling content is what engages and motivates your audience!

Question from Peter Panepento:
Sara, what is the most worthwhile lesson you've learned about spreading your organization's mission through video?

Sara Fusco:
That it's a crowded world of video out there and it takes some hustle to really get your message heard. Creating great content can only get your so far...the success of any type of video campaign relies heavily on your outreach, responsiveness, blog promotion, etc.

Question from Maureen, Conservation Northwest:
How much of a video catalog should be kept? We have been collecting, shooting, and producing video for more than 20 years. Some of the video has no sort of tells as to what is being shown (For example, a shot of a clearcut, but where and when is unknown, or a mountain as the sun sets, or a stand of healthy trees). Should we invest to rip all the video off VHS or batamax tapes we have?

Steve Braker:
That's a tough question, Maureen. From the language it sounds as though you might rather it all just go away. But you know that as soon as they are thrown away or become unplayable, you'll want them. I would suggest getting them at least digitized, and ideally into some higher form than DV (at least DV50). When you do want them, you'll thank yourself for doing this. During the process you can be selective and let things go, or you can save that for later (at a higher digital storage cost). I can recommend a Mac product called Frameline (frameline.tv) for capturing, clipping, applying metadata to your media. I'd b hapy to be more specific in person.

Question from Steve Brand, Ways & Means Productions:
Michael, wonder if you can explicate some more on your answer on using social networking...any specific examples on getting the message out to people through a social network as opposed to having them come to you?

Michael Hoffman:
Sure. The key to social networking is authentic conversations and so building a community on social networks is something that should extend beyond the goals of one particular video or another.

You should start by mapping the community -- where are the people you want to reach? Then make your media portable. Send the embed code to key bloggers in your community of interest, with a good reason for them to view it and use it. Join groups of like-minded people and share the video in those forums. Again, this must be seen as authentic conversation -- which involves listening! -- and should not be seen as just pumping your issue.

There is more information about this in our Guide To Online Video - http://see3.net/guide

Question from Peter Panepento:
Mark, what are some quick tips you can offer nonprofit groups that are trying to produce videos on a tight budget?

Mark Horvath:
i always work backwards. what is the result you want? phone to ring? people to write? people to show up? who do you want to take action?

i've seen big budgets hurt a campaign so just because you have limited resources don't feel less than. look at the solution and not the problem. be creative.

Robert Rodriguez has a great book "Rebel without a Crew: Or How a 23-Year-Old Filmmaker With $7,000 Became a Hollywood Player"

for anyone doing video keep it short, engaging, target your audience, and get it to them FAST. lost of times nonprofits will shoot something and work on it for months and then the urgency is gone

Question from Peter Panepento:
What do you think of nonprofit groups spending big money to create videos for annual dinners and other events? Is this the best use of their resources in today's environment -- or are there more effective ways to produce and distribute video?

Michael Hoffman:
The dinner video can be useful. But if that's where it starts and ends you are missing out.

The dinner video is a product everyone understands and as such can be used to do a lot of production for your organization. The key is to use the raw material to create MANY video products -- for the dinner yes, but also for your website, for your social communities, etc.

A dinner video we did for the American Jewish World Service became 25 different video products. Some needed an additional day or shooting, but many were just repurposed from the raw material. Make sure you get all the raw footage from your dinner video work, and that investment will be much more useful.

Question from Peter Panepento:
Michael, this medium has changed significantly in the past few years. What opportunities do you see emerging for nonprofit groups over the next few years as it relates to video?

Michael Hoffman:
Remember when your organization didn't have a Web site? And then they got one, and it was bad, and people asked "Why do we need that?" It wasn't so long ago.

We are in the same place with video today. The infrastructures of the Web and TV are coming together and so while text content won't go away by any means, the mindshare -- of donors and policymakers and volunteers -- will drift toward those who are telling compelling stories. These stories need to be authentic and transparent (about real challenges and real operations) and they will attract people.

The opportunity is for those to begin building their capacity to move beyond the one video and create a library of images and video and audio that is constantly being repurposed into messages, long and short, for your site and for all of the networks in which your audience lives online.

Steve Braker:
Just want to emphasize what Mark said: "compelling content is what engages and motivates your audience!" That's key. You may or may not need professional help depending on your slills and other factors. But Compelling is really the key word.

Steve Braker:
Steve's windup: There are many many ways to approach a video project. I think the most important things are that you as the producer or collaborator believe in the message, the approach, and your collaborators, and that the project will make the right fit with the organization, other marketing messages, donors, and supporters.

I invite you to connect and continue with questions and discussion after the session: http://worthwhilefilms.com/contact.html

Michael Hoffman:
I want to thank everyone that asked a question today. Online video is here to stay so the main take-away should be GET STARTED!

Two things I want to draw your attention to. The first is the 3rd Annual Nonprofit Video Awards. This is a great opportunity to get some recognition for your work, but more importantly it is a great opportunity to learn about what other organizations are doing that works well. You can find it at http://www.dogooder.tv/contest2009/

The second is the Guide To Online Video - a series of short videos about how nonprofits can use video. This is available at http://www.see3.net/guide/

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
Thank you for taking the time to join us today and a special thanks to our four fantastic guests, who provided some excellent information. I'd like to note that we have a special live discussion scheduled for tomorrow at noon Eastern time on President Obama's proposal to change the charitable deduction for taxpayers earning more than $250,000. You can find that discussion here: http://philanthropy.com/live/2009/03/obama/

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
And as a final reminder, you can read transcripts of all of our previous discussions and get information about upcoming events at http://philanthropy.com/live. Also, you are always welcome to contact me with questions or suggestions at peter.panepento@philanthropy.com. Thanks.