The $5 philanthropist

Most everyone knows that I am a card-carrying Obamite. Many of my friends also know of my mild depression after HRC's wins in Ohio and Texas.

As an Obamite, I've signed up at BarackObama.com and receive regular email appeals signed by either David Plouffe or Barack Obama. Most of the emails are genuine communiques but inevitably include an appeal to "donate right now" typically asking for $25 dollars.

The success of Obama's online fundraising has been widely reported with particular emphasis Obama harnessing the "Power of Plenty" by receiving many small donations from a mass of individual donors.

After Ohio and Texas, I know I'm already fighting "Campaign Fatigue" but I wonder to what extent "Donor Fatigue" is starting to set-in.

A successful online fundraising campaign needs multiple appeals with different messaging which the Obama campaign has done well but I suspect that we'll see a dip (and perhaps a noticeable decline) in Obama's online fundraising due to a potent combination of Campaign and Donor Fatigue.

As a means by which to counteract both fatigues, I would advise the Obama campaign to send out several emails with links to their favorite YouTube clips, websites and articles with no mention of an appeal. Have some candid YouTube clips of Obama like the dinner-party clips from a while back. Adjust the momentum of their outbound emails and start rallying the troops before April 22nd.

Labels: barack obama, fundraising, online, politics, social media. web, strategy, US

One of the most memorable nights I had last November in Africa was visiting with a couple that drilled bore holes (to provide clean drinking water) in Uganda. At the time of my visit, they were packing up to move operations to Sudan.

The couple was originally from South Africa and were very gracious hosts to me and my traveling companions. At their house, they were caring for a litter of newborn puppies, one of whom is featured below.



I remember my hosts complaining that NGO workers and other temporary workers in Northern Uganda who adopted stray animals should have the "decency to kill the dogs when they leave." I understood (though didn't totally agree with) the point she was making: That it's "far worse" to give stray dogs a home and a stable food supply only to then abandon that dog months later and force it to return to a life of disease, starvation and suffering.

Then, on January 1st, I was reading an article published in the Globe & Mail by Lisan Jutras (no longer available free online) which spoke about the problem of stray animals in vacation "hot spots" like the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Mexico.

As someone whose heart is split evenly between a passion for international development and animals of all kinds, I often feel a tug-of-war between my passion for animals and my passion for people. How (I often think) could I possibly invest resources in a few stray dogs when people in that same community are starving?

I wonder how other people who have almost equal compassion for animals as they do humans resolve or manage this tension?

here is a story about a rescue dog being flown from Iraq to the USA.

Labels: animal welfare, animals, development, questions

According to Barack Obama's official website, more than 280,000 people have created accounts on BarackObama.com.

From those online accounts, 6,500 grassroots volunteer groups have been created and more than 13,000 off-line events have been organized through the site.

Over 370,000 individual online donations have been made, more than half of which are less than $25 donations .

And most interesting to me, personal fundraising pages (individual fundraising pages where you proactively recruit your social network to donate through your personal fundraising page) have raised over $1.5m.

Obama's campaign really emphasizes the "Power of Plenty" and demonstrates the power of grassroots fund-raising.

My critique of the Barackobama.com website is that the functionality of the fundraising page is that it provides no opportunity for me to link my blog (the site offers simple hosted-blog functionality) with my fundraising page, which seems to be a big missed opportunity.

Also, there is probably a ton of great social media buried deep within the site but no
way to easily search or browse other great stories of people joining the Hope Revolution.

Labels: barack obama, online, online fundraising, social media. web

Mr. Baines has published in the Vancouver Sun his fourth installment on his opinion of me and that of GiveMeaning and the work it has set out to do.

Baines told me when I first responded to him that as an editorialist, he was free to write his opinions. And so, in summary, his opinions appear to be:

1) I have gotten too much positive attention and praise in the media, most of which I don’t deserve;
2) I am most undeserving of praise because as a teenager and young-adult, I made some mistakes;
3) That before starting GiveMeaning, I ended a business relationship acrominiously and that story (or one side of it) merits publication and judgment in the court of public opinion;
4) That I naively bragged of my media savviness in an interview more than 7 years ago, which almost merits publication ;
5) And finally, that neither I nor GiveMeaning should be trusted because of the points above;

It is quite clear from his articles that Baines doesn’t like me and apparently a few former “friends” and associates feel the same way. But I am not sure this is worthy of 4 articles which are almost entirely personal and don’t establish any balanced or well reasoned arguments as to why GiveMeaning should not be allowed to operate as a registered charity financed by generous donations. Baines brings up the point that GiveMeaning’s donations have been subsidized by tax-payers. He repeatedly makes this statement knowing full well that the same is true of any other registered charity.

Baines has chosen an interesting time in my life to attack me: I have finally grown up. In his four articles, he has attacked me not for anything that I am currently doing now but for mistakes I've made in my past. This must be because there is no story in suggesting that GiveMeaning is up to anything other than trying to achieve and facilitate social good.

I admit I have made mistakes in my life. GiveMeaning is evidence that I have learned from those mistakes and am now devoting my energy to the betterment of others rather than myself.

Baines has no evidence of nefarious behaviour at my foundation or that it is not in complete compliance with CRA’s regulations. We can all take confidence in the fact that an investigative journalist of Baines’ experience has nothing but innuendo after 4 weeks of “research”. His primary innuendo is that the measure of GiveMeaning Foundation’s efficiency is the percentage of receipted donations which is transferred to other charities in the same fiscal period. To be clear:

100% of what is raised through GiveMeaning Foundation for projects listed on the website is distributed to qualified donees.
GiveMeaning has operating costs like any organization and like any start-up, costs are high in creating a new organization from scratch. Those operating costs have been funded by donors who recognize that overheads covered by GiveMeaning Foundation reduce the overheads of other charities, primarily struggling small charities.

We take it as a point of pride that we do not share or sell the names of donors and have had this policy from the very beginning. In fact, we state it clearly in the About page of our website and so I cannot release donors names. This is undoubtedly a prudent policy in a sector when too many charities sell the names of their donors.

Baines also mentions that before I decided to stop speaking to him that I offered him the opportunity to speak with some of our donors. This is true. I don't think it should be of any surprise that after reading his articles, that none of our supporters would wish to speak with Baines. Had he chosen to wait and speak with donors before writing his articles, I know he would have found what he says he's looking for: Donors who understand and respect the service we are providing. Given the personal nature of his articles and his reputation for a particular form of editorial, it should come as no surprise that I was advised not to talk with him. Note that this is the first time I have ever stopped talking with a person of the press.

To now enter Blake Bromley into Baines questioning of my or GiveMeaning's integrity only hurts Baines' case further. Blake is one of the most highly respected charity lawyers in Canada, if not the world. Not only was Blake Bromley proven innocent of the charges that Baines brings up, his reputation and professional practice thrives in spite of the assaults of CRA and David Baines. Baines fails to mention that Blake was also cleared by the Law Society which investigated the accusations as they would of a complaint against any lawyer.

One of the very few new things that Baines has written about today is a charity called Amazing Grace Foundation of which I am a director.

I have received no fees or had any expenses paid by Amazing Grace Foundation. Amazing Grace has received funds for specific projects, as have many other charities. The reason money didn’t flow directly from donors to Amazing Grace is because this charity (like others who use GiveMeaning) doesn’t have the technology to raise money via the internet nor does it have the money to fundraise. Instead he refers to a “circular flow of money”. What is circular about a donor coming to GiveMeaning.com and making a donation which is flowed through to Amazing Grace at 100 cents on the dollar and spent by Amazing Grace to achieve its charitable purposes? Perhaps by “circular” Baines meant “straight line”.

Baines has said that as a young man, I had some screw-ups and wasn’t as much of a “whiz kid” as I and some media outlets have portrayed myself as. Ok.

It is my past that has led me to my present. My past drives me to work as hard as I do. In the past, as Baines has made readers aware, I often ran or walked away from challenges and problems. That time is over. David Baines has only increased my resolve and inspired me to most certainly stay and continue to fight for this fledgling charity the Vancouver Sun has devoted so much energy and space to discrediting.

Ironically, Baines has said what I have known and spoken about for a long time. That up until starting GiveMeaning, I was more “famous for being famous” than for actually accomplishing anything. Baines has perhaps done me a service by bringing that weakness to the fore. It is a pity that in his zeal to tear me down he could not recognize that with the help of so many of you I am now finally building something great. I want to thank Baines for inspiring me to be both a better man and a better steward of GiveMeaning’s resources. More importantly, I want to thank you for standing with me in this time of trial.

Labels: david baines, editorial, reply, vancouver sun

Readers of the Vancouver Sun might have noted that Sun columnist David Baines continues to pursue a selective investigation of my past, this time beginning with a quote from a 2000 CBC Interview I gave seven years ago.

In it, I reference a CBC television interview done much earlier. I was featured jumping on a couch singing and dancing to a song. In the 2000 interview, I'm quoted as saying "Do you think I ever woke up in the morning, surveyed my apartment and said, 'Maybe I'll crank the tunes and jump on my couch for a while?' I don't think so." I spoke confidently and naively about my media awareness, going further with a comment that I told people "amazing, wonderful, and, in most cases, untrue stories about [myself]."

In this second column, Baines searches for investigative credibility in quotes taken from my father’s participation in the same interview. He said that I was “a prototypical child of the electronic age. He knows how to use the sound-bite. ... He will give you a sentence that will be tailored for you to put into your news broadcast. He is a child of the age in that sense."

The point in bringing this material up from seven years ago and then observing the amount of media that together with GiveMeaning I have garnered quite deliberately since, is to suggest that if I was "spinning" then, I must be spinning now. In a vain effort at making his point Mr. Baines brings up my short-lived employment at a firm called Whalen, Beliveau. I began there when I was 17 and ended a year later when the Vancouver office of the firm split to merge with another firm.

My entire salary was paid as an advance or draw against commissions. This simply meant that before I was entitled to any bonuses from commissions, all of my salary would be deducted and any additional expenses I incurred would first be repaid. Mr. Baines is correct that I did not close any deals where a commission was paid to Whalen, Beliveau, but this is because I was working to develop a new field of client, not because I didn't work strenuously on behalf of my employer.

Under the terms of my employment I was responsible for my own expenses and Whalen Believeau lent me the money to pay these expenses pending receipt of commissions. When Whalen, Beliveau split to join a new firm I was sent a letter by the Montreal office of Whalen, Beliveau demanded that I repay the loan. Since my employment had ended unexpectedly I had no income to do so and Whalen Beliveau ultimately did not pursue me further.

Quite separately, because this money was in fact a “debt owing”, and under the advice of counsel, certain of the facts are as Mr. Baines reports; specifically that I declared as income the advances I received and claimed the paid expenses. It is true that Canada Revenue Agency originally disallowed the expense claims on the grounds that I didn't pay them. It is true that I appealed that ruling, arguing that even though I didn't pay the expenses directly, I was liable to the firm for the full amount. The Tax Court decided that I had done everything correctly and Canada Revenue Agency did not appeal the court decision. It is not true that I didn’t “earn” this income as Mr. Baines quite wrongly suggests. I consider the matter closed although I am reserving the right to consider Mr. Baines assertions more formally.

In his first column focusing on me, Baines quotes a recent interview I gave to a Victoria-based newspaper called "Monday Magazine" in which the interview asked me "why aren't you more of a dick?" I responded with a column filling quote captured by Mr. Baines "I think because I was a dick," Williams replied. "This path I'm on now is only something I arrived at after having fully explored my own dickiness." But really there isn’t anything new here. I have been consistent and candid in suggesting that the motivation to start GiveMeaning lay in part to redeem myself and correct the course that I seemed to be headed-down.

And so, Mr. Baines speaks of my past grabbing thoughtless quotes from a teenager delighted with the new attention of the media. What a sleuth! He points to the typical failures of anyone attempting to find the right path to follow in his search for a worthy future. With GiveMeaning now a cause for celebration Mr. Baines is sure there is something wrong with the picture and so he has chosen to search in the past in an effort to discredit me and the work of GiveMeaning.

When Mr. Baines first called me, I decided to speak openly to him and spoke to him several times both the day before his first column and then a few days after it appeared. That won’t happen again.

If Mr. Baines had taken the trouble to read or watch any of the recent interviews in full, the ones particularly about GiveMeaning, he would know that I am in this for the long haul and I am in this completely. I am nothing if I am not open although people like Mr. Baines are quickly making me much less naïve.

As far as anything else that might appear on the web posted in an effort to capitalize on the cheap shots of someone who should know better, I would much rather you wrote me directly.

Labels: david baines, response, vancouver sun

A writer named David Baines called me on Friday morning to let me know he was writing a piece on me and GiveMeaning in the next morning's paper. Armed with our 2005 and 2006 annual reports we file with Canadian Revenue Agency, he recites publicly available numbers namely that we received $234,632 in tax-receipted donations (which are largely donations we received through our website for the projects on GiveMeaning.com) and another $730,350 from charitable foundations to pay GiveMeaning's administrative costs in operating the website in Canada.

He specifically states that I "refused to identify any of these donors" when in fact, I offered for him to speak with some of GiveMeaning Foundation's donors and yet he didn't take me up on this. I find it odd that Baines appeared to rush to publish this article, calling me for the first time the day before the article was supposed
to run.

Nevertheless, his main contention is that GiveMeaning Foundation has spent more money building the GiveMeaning brand and service than it has raised money for its projects. This is not only not in dispute but not surprising to anyone that knows anything about a start-up business. GiveMeaning launched its re-vamped website in late September of 05. Prior to that, our web presence was in Beta and very little transactions flowed through. The numbers that Baines is reporting on is our first full year of collecting tax-receipted donations in Canada for the GiveMeaning website. Given that our
average donation through the website is about $40, our first-year tally of money raised for projects is not surprising. It's also not surprising to anyone that understands the nature of a start-up that in the first few years of operation that start-up costs will exceed revenues. It took eBay eight years to make a profit.

Baines can't understand "why certain undisclosed charities would give money to pay overhead for what is essentially a charitable conduit." Foundations are investing in GiveMeaning because they recognize that the GiveMeaning service is helping charities of all sizes make fundraising easier and less costly. By supporting our work at
GiveMeaning, they are providing an infrastructure for all charities to use. He seems unaware that foundations regularly make grants to other foundations for capacity and infrastructure costs.

Of course I draw a salary and yes, my wife works as a contractor for GiveMeaning. Baines seems to think that GiveMeaning should run without staff and expense and that it's wrong for charitable foundations to provide GiveMeaning with the financial resources to build its service, a service used by charities of all sizes.

Baines seems unable to draw distinction between money raised through the GiveMeaning.com website for projects and money raised separately from donors who support our admin costs. When he says "Williams insists that, whenever a person gives money for a particular charity, 100 per of that money gets to the named beneficiary. That may be true, but it does not mitigate the fact that the vast majority of the
overall money collected during 2006 went to administration." By lumping together these two costs as one, he is ignoring the simple fact that the donors giving to our operating costs are doing so specifically FOR our operating costs and that donors giving through the website for projects have 100% of their funds passed on
the Implementing Organization responsible for carrying-out that
project.

It can't be laid out more clearly than what we have in our About Us section which reads "We charge nothing for donations collected online and even cover the credit card costs associated with each donation. We rely on the support of generous donors and advertisers to provide this service."

Baines leaves readers with his own judgement on what is or isn't philanthropy, passing judgement on a fantastic grassroots economic development initiative out of Uganda which trains Ugandan people to build guitars and then sells those guitars in North America to create self-sustaining, economic development and on Wild ARC, which is the
division of the BC SPCA that provides rehabilitation and care to injured animals. Baines doesn't think Sea Otters and poor Ugandan people fall into the class of "quality charities." He's entitled to his opinion but the whole point of GiveMeaning is to give grassroots initiatives an opportunity to find their audiences as we believe that any charitable initiative deserves to have the opportunity to better find and connect with supporters who care about those causes.

Baines' final point sums it up nicely. He says that "we have a responsibility to scrutinize all charitable endeavours to ensure that we are getting decent value for our dollar." He clearly doesn't think that GiveMeaning's service is needed, valuable or useful to the charities and donors we serve. And that spending money on a new way
of fixing a big problem is not warranted. He's entitled to his opinion.

Labels: givemeaning

Last night I spoke at the 8th annual Change Conference in Victoria, BC. I asked those in attendance to write and submit questions about making the changes they want to make in the World and I would do my best to answer each question. I was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who asked questions. This morning, I spent some time answering each of the questions I was asked. Here are both the questions and my answers.

For those of you at the conference who didn't get a chance to ask me a question, don't worry about it. Add me on Facebook and/or email me at my name at givemeaning.com

Thanks to everyone who participated!


How do I find out what I am passionate about?
I’m sorry I didn’t do this yesterday. Here’s a good way of trying to focus in on what you care about. Start by writing down 10 words that describe what’s in your heart and head. From that list, create another list but limit the words to five. From that list of five, further limit it to three.

I find that this little exercise helps clarify the issues that I’m passionate about, so that I can focus on then learning about and doing more about the things that I’m most passionate about.

Music and leadership / making positive change is my life. How can I integrate the two to benefit others?

(Another question with the same answer:) What role do you think music plays in positive change?

Well as the husband of a Musician, I can tell you that I have witnessed the impact a Musician can make. When a Musician hears from a listener that their music got them through a tough-time, helped them grieve, helped them open their heart to love, all of these things are making positive change.

So I think that simply by following your music, by making music from your heart, you are capable of making change.

At GiveMeaning, we’re exploring an idea we call “MusicGivesMeaning” which would promote various artists’ shows in exchange for the artist agreeing to raise some money that night for GiveMeaning.

I believe strongly that every artist should also seek to nurture art in others, so I think in addition to making music, helping others develop their musical craft is a great way of making meaning.

Change superficial and prejudice/racists bullying.

I’m not entirely sure of the question here so I’m going to riff on “sameness.”

The people who make fun of others who are “different” you must truly feel sad for. These people are so desperately insecure that they spend a tremendous amount of their time worrying about how to stay the same. They are totally powerless So insecure are they that they obsess about “what is cool” and do their best to live up to someone else’s definition of this. For as long as they do this, they are empty vessels, depriving themselves of understanding and respecting themselves.

Dare to be different. Celebrate the fact that you are not the same. Embrace your individuality. And understand that anyone who is making fun of you is actually jealous of who you are. Don’t treat them with disdain or disrespect. Just have compassion for the fact that they have not found what you have found. Yourself.

I think I know change is a positive thing and I would love to do all I can to help what can I do to change – make a difference? Any ideas?

I think one of the things to be aware of is that Change can’t just be a project, it has to be a daily way of living. In other words, someone who spends an entire month involved in a specific project but then spends the other 11 months not being aware of their world around them, is making only limited change.

I suggest you start with trying to listen and inform yourself more of what’s going on in the world and then follow your tears. But while you’re looking for that, start by trying to be more compassionate to those around you. Who do you have a hard time finding time or respect for? Start there.

I believe we should “bring ourselves down” instead of bringing 3rd world countries up” (wealth wise) What do you think?

I absolutely agree that we should see to “bring ourselves down.” I think we need to find the right way to express that sentiment. I really don’t like the term “sustainability.” I mean, do you want a sustainable marriage or do you want a GREAT marriage? Sustainability lacks a certain enjoyment in my mind. So I challenge you to come up with a way of “selling” what you’re really talking about, which is about celebrating ENOUGH. As I said last night, “more is always more” but enough is enough.

But I don’t think our focus on ourselves and enough should be done at the expense of trying to help others. Instead of seeing it as “one or the other” I think if we focus on enough, the logical next step becomes “ok then, what do I do with the abundance” and the natural answer is to give your abundance to someone who doesn’t yet have enough.

So by striving for enough, we will be led to give our abundance.

What occupation do you think would allow someone to affect change? Teacher, politician, doctor?

Any job that puts you in contact with another human being, even if that contact is through art or the written word or over the phone, is an occupation that allows someone to affect change.

Because it’s not about the job you do, it’s about the person that you are and the way in which you conduct yourself and treat others.

Me and my friends are organizing a 30 hr famine @ our school and I was wondering if you ever have done one and if you have any advice.

I have never done a 30 hour famine. The closest I have ever been to that experience is being in Northern Uganda in this tiny little town where a massive feeding operation was underway. People had lined up all day in the sweltering heat to get their rations of about 1 months supply of the most basic food supplies. The experience led me to actually feel physical pain for what it must like to starve and I remember sitting in this tiny little shack eating Casava and beans with my hands and feeling so grateful for that food.

My advice would be that if you want an easy way to collect pledges for donations, you can each create your own personal fundraising page at GiveMeaning.com which makes the process of raising money for the 30 hour famine much easier.

What gave you the idea to start GiveMeaning?

A bunch of conversations with friends, led me to three conclusions. Most every single person I know cared about something but it seemed as though none of us were actually doing anything about the issues we cared about. When I started to try and understand why, I realized there were three issues that prevented most people from doing something or doing more:

When I give, I’m asked to give more: Many people are put-off (rightly so) by the fact that after they’ve given their time or money to a charity, they get many requests to give more. The number of emails, letters, phone calls - altogether I call it “charity spam” – just really pisses people off, and so they don’t give any more.

How do I know that my money is being used effectively? Many people don’t feel as though they know how their money is being used by the charities they give to. And increasingly, people who can’t have the confidence of where their money is being spent, prefer not to give.

I don’t have enough to make a difference: Even some of my very wealthy friends said that they felt as though even if they gave ALL of their money away, it wouldn’t be enough by itself to change the issue that they care about. So if they feel that way, my friends with $5 dollars to spare certainly felt the same.

So I wanted to solve these three problems because I felt if I could, that more people would actually want to give.

So we solve this at GiveMeaning.com in the following ways: When you give money or sign-up at GiveMeaning.com, we never share your personal information with the charity or organization you are supporting. And we at GiveMeaning, never send you emails.

Everything at GiveMeaning that you can give to or fundraise for is a specific tangible project. Instead of just giving to Poverty relief, you can give to help a specific family, build a specific school or water well, or send a specific class on a field-trip. And then once the funds are raised, you can keep track of how the project you are supporting is unfolding because blog updates, photos and sometimes video will be posted at GiveMeaning.

And finally, it’s about pooling each person’s contribution together with other like-minded people so that your $5 and my $50 bucks and someone else’s $500 can all add up to be enough to complete the project.

On your website, do you help small growing charities or just large ones?

We welcome every charity of every size at GiveMeaning.com. We particularly love to help the small, growing charities because they are the ones who need our support the most.

What do you think the pros and cons are of political and religious ties?

Oh wow, I could write an essay on this one! I think faith is a beautiful thing. What amazes me is how much most every religion agrees with every other religion. In terms of what it means to be a faithful person, to be a good person, most every religion asks the same thing of its followers. It’s the ideology of the religions that causes so much pain, suffering and conflict. And it’s the desire for some people in positions of authority in their religion to abuse their power for their own reasons/motiviations that can turn many people off from faith. What a horrible line to write. That a small group of people can turn another away from faith.

Similarly with Politics, many Politicians don’t disagree with their members of their opposing political parties but it’s the ideology (again) and the desire to hold on to power that leads to a tremendous amount of arguing for arguing’s sake.

Your question asked specifically about the ties to religion and politics. I think the more that one affiliates with a certain ideaology, the more unlikely they are to be able to find people who share their same beliefs and desires to make change. And in order to truly change the world, I think we need to reach across the lines that divide us, stop being “right” and “left” “Christian” and “Muslim” and start being brothers and sisters, people who share the same fears, the same aspirations, the same desire to make the World a better place. So I think it’s much better to have a respect for all and a desire to include everyone no matter their faith or politics in the effort to make change.

What is the issue you feel most strongly about?

I care most about helping others connect with their passions and helping each person achieve their goals of making meaning in the World. That’s why GiveMeaning.com is the perfect place for me because I get to help everyone no matter what the cause or where they are working.


We have a tight neighborhood and we get together in the fall for a block party. I’d like to introduce the idea of a sister neighborhood in Africa.

This is a great idea and myself and my team can help you connect with a village to support. The notion of a neighborhood supporting a neighborhood from another place is a fantastic idea. I’ll be in touch via email to help you on this.

What is the most difficult choice you have made in your life, and who inspired you to make the decision?

I have always trusted and relied upon my instincts so I have never deliberated in the moment about a decision for a long-time. In other words, the biggest and most difficult choices APPEARED easy at the time, because I have always trusted in my own ability to survive, no matter if my choice turned out to be the wrong one. I think, looking back on it, it’s the choice to have created GiveMeaning and put all my remaining money into it. There have been many moments in making that decision, where I worried it was the wrong decision or that it wouldn’t work, but I persisted because I believed so strongly in what I was doing. Where I’ve drawn my greatest inspiration is from the people I’ve met along the way of this journey. The people that are trying to make the world a better place in their own ways.

Why did you end up giving your fortune away after working so hard to achieve it?

Because giving away my money to help others is the best thing I could spend it on. But let's be clear, when I started GiveMeaning, I wasn't a tremendously wealthy man, financially.

To start-up a non-profit for microloans what are the first three things to concentrate on?

Geographic Focus: Where will you focus your lending:
Lending Criteria: Who are the target beneficiaries of your loans? (Single mothers? Children? Anyone affected by poverty?)
Banking Partners: What criteria will you use in selecting micro-lending banking partners? Reporting, Credibility, Communications capabilities? Etc.


How do I motivate my friends to see a good cause as something they should support?

I’ve said about selling anything that I’ve never sold anything in my life but I’ve had a lot of people want to buy things from me. By this I mean that for as long as you’re trying to CONVINCE someone that your cause is right and just, it will be an uphill battle. But if you can find a way for them to see that they WANT to be involved in that cause, then they will be asking you to join. How do you have them WANT it? By positioning that cause as desirable to them based on their existing values and interests.

I wish strangers on the bus would chat more. It’s so quiet.

I totally agree! So take the lead and start a chat! Make it happen. And don’t get discouraged if it takes a while to get people to open up. Here’s a random idea: On Valentine’s day, buy a bunch of flowers and get on the bus and give one out to each person, along with a little note saying “we’re all on the same ride together” or something like that. I tell you, these simple kinds of things become infectious.

Some people find change difficult, especially if its for a cause like becoming sustainable). Is it our job to convince them? Is it our responsibility to always foster change in others?

While I think it’s important to reach out to as many people as possible, I think it’s far more important to live the life you are talking about. The quiet example of leading the life that many others TALK about will inspire others around you. They will then ask you questions about why you live the way you do or care about the things you do.

First of all, we <3 u! Second, do you think there is a solution/change to homelessness and how should, if we do, come about it?

First, thank you! I <3 all of you. There is most certainly a lot we can do about homelessness. How many houses have extra rooms? How many of the families living in those homes talk about their compassion for the homeless? How many of those families would be willing to take a homeless person into their homes? There is a disconnect between what we say we care about and what we are willing to do about it. Think of all the extra beds in Victoria alone. We have enough roofs to end homelessness. Do we have enough compassion to open our doors?

In my school people generally only hang out or interact with people in the same grade. I would like to see more inter-grade interaction and inclusion.

I think that’s a great cause to work on. What can you do to kick-start this? Can you talk to the student leadership in each grade and ask them to get their friends together once a week for a social with people in a different grade as a starting point? Also, start thinking of what you will do when you are in the oldest grade in your school? How will you use that position to create change and leadership.

If you’re passionate about an idea and you’ve raised awareness locally and money for a large-scale problem, how do you go about making sure that money goes specifically into solving the problem and doesn’t get lost in translation? Especially if there are no charities for that issue?

This is exactly what GiveMeaning.com was built for. You can start your own project page at GiveMeaning. We will issue the tax-receipts to your donors, collect the money online and then find what we call an Implementing Organization who will agree to take the money you raise and spend it on the problem you’re trying to solve. They will then report by blog update, photos and sometimes video on exactly how that problem is being addressed with the money you raised.

How do you decide if an organization/group is for you? There are so many options! I want to volunteer in Africa in an orphanage but I don’t know who to go with.

My staff and I at GiveMeaning.com can help you with this. There is a friend of mine from Victoria named Logan Cochrane who runs a great small Orphanage in Ethiopia. You can learn more about it at kidshome.givemeaning.com No matter what your passion is, GiveMeaning.com can help connect you with an appropriate organization is for you.

Out of all of your experiences, what was the moment that touched you the most prominently?

There are so many moments but if I had to choose one, it was probably sitting in the Hotel Des Milles Collines (aka The Hotel Rwanda) listening to the birds chirp on a beautiful sunny morning the day after I watched the movie Hotel Rwanda in my hotel room. I had been traveling throughout Africa for two weeks, meeting people that we had helped through the GiveMeaning.com website. I wrote about the experience on my blog and said that I truly knew in that moment the power that each person has to change the World.

I have been trying to get more involved with local chapters of two organizations and I know I can bring some energy to these groups but there is a lack of interest. The events that ARE planned are generally in 18+ areas like pubs.
[Note: I summarized this email question.]

I think the first thing I would do is approach one or both of those organizations and offer to captain an under 18 specific group and ask for some support and resources by which to make this happen. If this doesn’t happen, I would gladly support you in creating an under 18 youth group for GiveMeaning.com.

Have my Children plz?!
That’s probably the one question where my answer is no.

Labels: change, change conference, education, schools, victoria