Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The lunchbag letdown.
Just before going on vacation, I wrote this entry, wanting to talk about the issues facing "New Canadians" (a term I like more and more). I had intended to post while on vacation but wisely left the laptop at home. I'm now picking-up where I left off.
Let me start with a disclaimer: I am not an expert on anything I write about. I am writing to try and create a discussion around the issues facing New Canadians and a rationale as to why more of us ought to try to do something. I am hoping that people much smarter than I am will contribute comments and feedback that will set right my mistaken assumptions and inform us all. Disclaimer made.
In this post, I want to compare a donor dollar spent on Darfur emergency relief and a dollar spent on providing free after-school tutoring to Sudanese kids who have landed here in Vancouver as refugees. I hate these types of comparisons because - in an ideal world - we ought to fund both, but it's unlikely that the same donor will fund both programs.
The "on the ground" effort is urgent, extreme and well-reported in the media. The "here at home" situation is certainly not urgent nor extreme (in the same context) and thus not well-reported. Of course, if a family of Sudanese refugees have found their way to Canada, they are certainly much luckier/wealthier than their friends and family back home, right? Right. Well kinda.
I can't fault any refugee if they lose perspective eventually. (I know I would lose it quite quickly) Meaning that eventually, I stop comparing my current situation today, here in Canada, with my past situation back in Sudan. Eventually, I have to look at the fact that I am here now and I must survive and ultimately try to move up the economic ladder here in Canada.
So back to what to fund. The crisis is on and somehow this one refugee has landed in Toronto along with his two children. The children are placed in school in the grades corresponding with their age. Problem is that their education is at a much lower level than their ages. They've been in and out of school. Stop start for the past several years before coming to Canada. The school gives a bit of extra help, an hour a week but there's one tutor to 10 kids, all of whom are at various learning levels and english competency.
The two kids are falling behind in school and yet despite this, they are already more educated than their father. He can't help them. So eventually, they stop trying. They spend less time at school, hanging-out with other kids who have slipped through the cracks. Meanwhile, the father whose English is passable but by no means strong, finds himself unable to get work other than as a less than minimum wage laborer.
An entire post deserves to be written on the exploitation of New Canadians on farms, in nannying and other industries but let's keep talking about the father and his kids.
The kids drop out-of school and then walk down one of two paths: A life not unlike their father, working below the poverty line, their labor exploited or they find easier money selling drugs, find support and a sense of family in a gang, and then end-up incarcerated or dead.
Obviously the story I portray is one of extremes but the story I'm telling above is a composite of many people I've met here in Canada whose personal stories are far more sensational than this composite.
Now maybe your attitude is that they (the New Canadians) should be "lucky to be here" and "to each his own" and if they're unable to make it up the economic ladder, that's their problem. And at least on the last point, I might be willing to accommodate that view, if only it were a fair fight. But my Sudanese friend is "bringing a knife to a gunfight."
So then, if it's not a fair fight, and we're not investing in adequate resources to ensure that those that we purposefully annoint as one of us, as a Canadian, if they are not given the resources, then in a way, we are actually contributing to a new form of slavery.
Bear with me.
We know the basic requirements to move up the ladder. It starts with education and skills development. If these resources (which are inalienable rights of any Canadian) are not afforded to New Canadians, specifically recognizing that they can't just be "slotted" into society with a citizenship card and a rousing singing of O'Canada and God Save The Queen, that they need some form of "starter kit" that specifically addresses how to place them onto a level playing field, then we are in many cases signing-off on their enslavement.
Now if that isn't a compelling enough argument for us to do MORE, let me make a pure dollars and sense argument. I've seen some of the most generous giving for international development come from New Canadians who have managed to move-up the economic ladder, and who have contributed disproportionate amounts of their wealth (as a percentage of their income compared to "averages" of annual giving) back into the communities where they grew-up and in the surrounding communities. I've seen a lot of this giving done quietly and even without tax-relief and I'm proud to say that at GiveMeaning, we provide an infrastructure by which many of these grass-roots projects are being facilitated.
So here's a couple of solutions:
The biggest issue is not a lack of resources, but a lack of access to these resources. Back to my analogy of the starter-kit, if there was someone during the citizenship process who worked as a "case officer" for a New Canadian, who took the time to understand the specific needs of that family, and then accessed a central database of all service providers offering relevant and applicable services, this would make a MAJOR difference.
As I say often, there are 80,000 charities in Canada and more than 100,000 non-profit societies. In addition, there are countless grass-roots volunteer groups offering a myriad services but most of these organizations have zero budget for outreach or awareness.
Heck, someone should create a community portal aimed at New Canadians arriving from the same countries. Share resources, anonymously articulate problem employers, coordinate meet-ups, etc. Do it as a non-profit endeavor. I'm sure there would be lots of government grants and community grants available for such a site, and potentially even some corporate sponsorship.
So there's a start. Second, we need stricter laws protecting "migrant workers" and a review of temporary worker visas and the employers who bring in workers under this visa, and a better process by which workers can articulate grievances without fear of retribution.
So there it is. Not without hyperbole but not without merit.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Let me start with a disclaimer: I am not an expert on anything I write about. I am writing to try and create a discussion around the issues facing New Canadians and a rationale as to why more of us ought to try to do something. I am hoping that people much smarter than I am will contribute comments and feedback that will set right my mistaken assumptions and inform us all. Disclaimer made.
In this post, I want to compare a donor dollar spent on Darfur emergency relief and a dollar spent on providing free after-school tutoring to Sudanese kids who have landed here in Vancouver as refugees. I hate these types of comparisons because - in an ideal world - we ought to fund both, but it's unlikely that the same donor will fund both programs.
The "on the ground" effort is urgent, extreme and well-reported in the media. The "here at home" situation is certainly not urgent nor extreme (in the same context) and thus not well-reported. Of course, if a family of Sudanese refugees have found their way to Canada, they are certainly much luckier/wealthier than their friends and family back home, right? Right. Well kinda.
I can't fault any refugee if they lose perspective eventually. (I know I would lose it quite quickly) Meaning that eventually, I stop comparing my current situation today, here in Canada, with my past situation back in Sudan. Eventually, I have to look at the fact that I am here now and I must survive and ultimately try to move up the economic ladder here in Canada.
So back to what to fund. The crisis is on and somehow this one refugee has landed in Toronto along with his two children. The children are placed in school in the grades corresponding with their age. Problem is that their education is at a much lower level than their ages. They've been in and out of school. Stop start for the past several years before coming to Canada. The school gives a bit of extra help, an hour a week but there's one tutor to 10 kids, all of whom are at various learning levels and english competency.
The two kids are falling behind in school and yet despite this, they are already more educated than their father. He can't help them. So eventually, they stop trying. They spend less time at school, hanging-out with other kids who have slipped through the cracks. Meanwhile, the father whose English is passable but by no means strong, finds himself unable to get work other than as a less than minimum wage laborer.
An entire post deserves to be written on the exploitation of New Canadians on farms, in nannying and other industries but let's keep talking about the father and his kids.
The kids drop out-of school and then walk down one of two paths: A life not unlike their father, working below the poverty line, their labor exploited or they find easier money selling drugs, find support and a sense of family in a gang, and then end-up incarcerated or dead.
Obviously the story I portray is one of extremes but the story I'm telling above is a composite of many people I've met here in Canada whose personal stories are far more sensational than this composite.
Now maybe your attitude is that they (the New Canadians) should be "lucky to be here" and "to each his own" and if they're unable to make it up the economic ladder, that's their problem. And at least on the last point, I might be willing to accommodate that view, if only it were a fair fight. But my Sudanese friend is "bringing a knife to a gunfight."
So then, if it's not a fair fight, and we're not investing in adequate resources to ensure that those that we purposefully annoint as one of us, as a Canadian, if they are not given the resources, then in a way, we are actually contributing to a new form of slavery.
Bear with me.
We know the basic requirements to move up the ladder. It starts with education and skills development. If these resources (which are inalienable rights of any Canadian) are not afforded to New Canadians, specifically recognizing that they can't just be "slotted" into society with a citizenship card and a rousing singing of O'Canada and God Save The Queen, that they need some form of "starter kit" that specifically addresses how to place them onto a level playing field, then we are in many cases signing-off on their enslavement.
Now if that isn't a compelling enough argument for us to do MORE, let me make a pure dollars and sense argument. I've seen some of the most generous giving for international development come from New Canadians who have managed to move-up the economic ladder, and who have contributed disproportionate amounts of their wealth (as a percentage of their income compared to "averages" of annual giving) back into the communities where they grew-up and in the surrounding communities. I've seen a lot of this giving done quietly and even without tax-relief and I'm proud to say that at GiveMeaning, we provide an infrastructure by which many of these grass-roots projects are being facilitated.
So here's a couple of solutions:
The biggest issue is not a lack of resources, but a lack of access to these resources. Back to my analogy of the starter-kit, if there was someone during the citizenship process who worked as a "case officer" for a New Canadian, who took the time to understand the specific needs of that family, and then accessed a central database of all service providers offering relevant and applicable services, this would make a MAJOR difference.
As I say often, there are 80,000 charities in Canada and more than 100,000 non-profit societies. In addition, there are countless grass-roots volunteer groups offering a myriad services but most of these organizations have zero budget for outreach or awareness.
Heck, someone should create a community portal aimed at New Canadians arriving from the same countries. Share resources, anonymously articulate problem employers, coordinate meet-ups, etc. Do it as a non-profit endeavor. I'm sure there would be lots of government grants and community grants available for such a site, and potentially even some corporate sponsorship.
So there's a start. Second, we need stricter laws protecting "migrant workers" and a review of temporary worker visas and the employers who bring in workers under this visa, and a better process by which workers can articulate grievances without fear of retribution.
So there it is. Not without hyperbole but not without merit.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Labels: canada, newcanadians, politics, refugee
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
New Canadians
Ever since the day I wrote this post, I've been thinking a lot about challenges facing New Canadians, especially those who are coming to Canada as refugees or who come in hopes of escaping poverty.
A friend and colleague recently introduced me to William. William is one of the "Lost Boys of Sudan" and moved to Canada seven or eight years ago.
William has been running an all volunteer-run after-school tutoring program for African kids who are falling behind in school. And here's but one example of the problems facing New Canadians: Kids coming from other countries are assigned to school based on their age. So a 13 year-old kid who has just arrived from Sudan is being put in the same grade as a kid who has lived here all their life. That would be no problem if Sudan taught the same things and had the same level of education as Canada but how likely is that? Never-mind homework! Homework is at least somewhat reliant on having a parent able to oversee, assist or at least encourage the child in their studies but many of the parents of these kids never had the opportunity to be educated, leaving the kid alone to study and figure it out. What good is the chance at a new life if they're not supported with the basic ingredients needed to have a chance at succeeding in the new life??
So that's part of the problem. Here's part of the solution: William has been organizing a volunteer-run tutoring program for New Canadian kids struggling at school. According to him, it's pretty ad-hoc and in need of more tutors and in need of a permanent space (the church that they have been using gave notice that they can no longer host the group for free) but from my conversations with William and others like him, I'm beginning to come to a few distinct opinions that I'm going to share in separate blog entries this week.
In summary:
I'm going to argue that it might be a better "investment" for us to focus on the New Canadians arriving here from lives of poverty and conflict;
For those that don't give abroad because "charity begins at home," I'll outline a "two for the price of one offer" (horribly crass but used with the intent to provoke);
I'll expand on what I think is an evolution from "Immigrant" to "New Canadian" to "Canadian" and provide an argument that if we make the investment in the resources needed to make the transition to "Canadian" that we'll create new capital (financial and human capital) that will find its way overseas to address international development issues;
And finally, I'll try and express my thinking around the concept of "business planning" for giving.
Please join the discussion.
A friend and colleague recently introduced me to William. William is one of the "Lost Boys of Sudan" and moved to Canada seven or eight years ago.
William has been running an all volunteer-run after-school tutoring program for African kids who are falling behind in school. And here's but one example of the problems facing New Canadians: Kids coming from other countries are assigned to school based on their age. So a 13 year-old kid who has just arrived from Sudan is being put in the same grade as a kid who has lived here all their life. That would be no problem if Sudan taught the same things and had the same level of education as Canada but how likely is that? Never-mind homework! Homework is at least somewhat reliant on having a parent able to oversee, assist or at least encourage the child in their studies but many of the parents of these kids never had the opportunity to be educated, leaving the kid alone to study and figure it out. What good is the chance at a new life if they're not supported with the basic ingredients needed to have a chance at succeeding in the new life??
So that's part of the problem. Here's part of the solution: William has been organizing a volunteer-run tutoring program for New Canadian kids struggling at school. According to him, it's pretty ad-hoc and in need of more tutors and in need of a permanent space (the church that they have been using gave notice that they can no longer host the group for free) but from my conversations with William and others like him, I'm beginning to come to a few distinct opinions that I'm going to share in separate blog entries this week.
In summary:
I'm going to argue that it might be a better "investment" for us to focus on the New Canadians arriving here from lives of poverty and conflict;
For those that don't give abroad because "charity begins at home," I'll outline a "two for the price of one offer" (horribly crass but used with the intent to provoke);
I'll expand on what I think is an evolution from "Immigrant" to "New Canadian" to "Canadian" and provide an argument that if we make the investment in the resources needed to make the transition to "Canadian" that we'll create new capital (financial and human capital) that will find its way overseas to address international development issues;
And finally, I'll try and express my thinking around the concept of "business planning" for giving.
Please join the discussion.
Labels: canada, charity, development, immigration, international, migrantworkers, refugee
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Everything has changed
After just a night in Montreal, I'm back on the train now headed to Toronto. I'm listening to Lucinda Williams on my iPod and as I opened a new window to start this blog entry, the song started. Appropriately titled: Everything has changed.
The song (in Lucinda style) is horribly depressing but beautiful:
Now I don't know where my faith has gone
Faces look familiar but they dont have names
Towns I used to live in have been rearranged
Highways I once traveled on dont look the same
Everything has changed. Everything has changed
Reading the Globe & Mail this morning, this song was the perfect soundtrack for an article on the front page that reported that the Liberals raised $531,141 from 4,365 contributors versus the $5.1 million from 45,192 contributors that the Conservatives reported during the same period.
The fundraising landscape has changed and what worked before doesn't work as effectively today.
My advice (perhaps self-serving) is that the Liberals need to license the GiveMeaning platform to create personalized fundraising pages for each candidate. Here's how it would work: E
ach candidate creates a page (within their own website) where their supporters are encouraged to sign-up as "virtual campaigners."
They send an email to their own social networks with an introductory note about why they support the candidate and encouraging them to donate. The link brings them to a fundraising page not unlike this one except branded in the look and feel of the rest of that candidate's page.
People can leave messages of support, and the candidate's blog entries, photos, video entries whatever are automatically imported with a notification being sent out to each donor when updates are made (like Facebook).
In targeting small donations, the two big issues are conversion rate and cost of acquisition. There is no cheaper, more effective program than GiveMeaning's fundraising pages. What do you say candidates and campaign managers?
The song (in Lucinda style) is horribly depressing but beautiful:
Now I don't know where my faith has gone
Faces look familiar but they dont have names
Towns I used to live in have been rearranged
Highways I once traveled on dont look the same
Everything has changed. Everything has changed
Reading the Globe & Mail this morning, this song was the perfect soundtrack for an article on the front page that reported that the Liberals raised $531,141 from 4,365 contributors versus the $5.1 million from 45,192 contributors that the Conservatives reported during the same period.
The fundraising landscape has changed and what worked before doesn't work as effectively today.
My advice (perhaps self-serving) is that the Liberals need to license the GiveMeaning platform to create personalized fundraising pages for each candidate. Here's how it would work: E
ach candidate creates a page (within their own website) where their supporters are encouraged to sign-up as "virtual campaigners."
They send an email to their own social networks with an introductory note about why they support the candidate and encouraging them to donate. The link brings them to a fundraising page not unlike this one except branded in the look and feel of the rest of that candidate's page.
People can leave messages of support, and the candidate's blog entries, photos, video entries whatever are automatically imported with a notification being sent out to each donor when updates are made (like Facebook).
In targeting small donations, the two big issues are conversion rate and cost of acquisition. There is no cheaper, more effective program than GiveMeaning's fundraising pages. What do you say candidates and campaign managers?
Labels: canada, fundraising, online, politics, web
Friday, March 16, 2007
Home sweet home
As many of you know, I have been traveling across Western Canada to meet with local charities, students, youth groups and others interested in bettering their worlds (plural because a lot of our worlds are quite different from one another).
Kamloops, Kelowna, Grand Prairie, Fort McMurray, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Brandon. Unfortunately, we couldn't fit any cities in Saskatchewan in this trip though I really want to travel to Regina to understood the poverty crisis in a certain part of the city which - according to some accounts - is now worse than that of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.
I had intended to blog from every city but I have a legitimate excuse: My wife. Now before you take me to task for being so totally lacking in chivalry, please allow me to explain myself. My wife, Jessie Farrell, is a country musician who was recently signed to Universal Music. She was given the opportunity to open for Emerson Drive who are currently the top-selling country band in Canada. And of no coincidence, her tour stops were in Kamloops, Kelowna, Grand Prairie, Fort McMurray, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Brandon. Being the opening act on any tour is by no means glamorous. While Emerson has a great tour-bus and a dressing room full of food and drink, Jess has a rented minivan and sometimes a bottle of water.
So here we were leaving Kamloops at 2am leaving for Grand Prairie (about a 9 hour drive). As soon as we pulled into each town, I would begin my day of meetings and presentations and then as my regular day would come to a close, I would then start my second job as Jessie's "Roadie" which would keep me on my feet until we loaded into the Minivan headed to the next city overnight.
The Emerson tour ended in Calgary last Saturday so we drove from Calgary Sunday afternoon back to Vancouver. We arrived (thanks to daylight savings and the roads being closed due to avalanche warnings) back in Vancouver on Monday morning at 5am.'
This week has been exceptionally busy not only catching-up from being on the road but also because we're preparing for what is a whole new version of the GiveMeaning.com website. I had hoped that it would be launched yesterday but the tech gods have not been smiling on us. It's now a certainty it will be sometime next week and I can't contain my excitement! We've been working on it non-stop since last September. I'm proud of what we have now and while there is plenty that was innovative about our use of technology applied to the charitable sector, this is the first time where truly innovative technology is being built and applied to the GiveMeaning site. You'll see what I'm talking about next week and hopefully agree with me!
I'm now here in Victoria bringing our "Party Pig" a massive bamboo version of our cardboard "Pig-e-Banks" for a fundraising event in support of Village of Hope a project on GiveMeaning benefiting women in Rwanda. I've been here all day for a variety of meetings today and at lunch, walked into a White Spot (for my American friends, I can tell you that White Spot beats In-&-Out burgers by miles) which I remembered from my childhood. I remembered being about 9 or 10 with my family eating a "Pirate Pack" at the exact same table as I was at today. It was an unintentional nevertheless much valued trip down memory lane.
I popped-in on the folks at Victoria Women's Sexual Assault Center, a great organization that uses GiveMeaning's personal fundraising pages for its annual "Tri-athalon of Compassion" and also met with Rumon Carter a very dynamic guy who used GiveMeaning last year quite successfully and has started a new project that is close to getting enough votes to start fund-raising.
This post is getting quite long and I haven't even talked about the highlights of the tour. I'll do that in a separate post over the weekend. It's now time to get going to the fundraiser. Please keep your radio stations tuned to your country music station and listen for "Let's Talk About Love" by Jessie Farrell!
Kamloops, Kelowna, Grand Prairie, Fort McMurray, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Brandon. Unfortunately, we couldn't fit any cities in Saskatchewan in this trip though I really want to travel to Regina to understood the poverty crisis in a certain part of the city which - according to some accounts - is now worse than that of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.
I had intended to blog from every city but I have a legitimate excuse: My wife. Now before you take me to task for being so totally lacking in chivalry, please allow me to explain myself. My wife, Jessie Farrell, is a country musician who was recently signed to Universal Music. She was given the opportunity to open for Emerson Drive who are currently the top-selling country band in Canada. And of no coincidence, her tour stops were in Kamloops, Kelowna, Grand Prairie, Fort McMurray, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Brandon. Being the opening act on any tour is by no means glamorous. While Emerson has a great tour-bus and a dressing room full of food and drink, Jess has a rented minivan and sometimes a bottle of water.
So here we were leaving Kamloops at 2am leaving for Grand Prairie (about a 9 hour drive). As soon as we pulled into each town, I would begin my day of meetings and presentations and then as my regular day would come to a close, I would then start my second job as Jessie's "Roadie" which would keep me on my feet until we loaded into the Minivan headed to the next city overnight.
The Emerson tour ended in Calgary last Saturday so we drove from Calgary Sunday afternoon back to Vancouver. We arrived (thanks to daylight savings and the roads being closed due to avalanche warnings) back in Vancouver on Monday morning at 5am.'
This week has been exceptionally busy not only catching-up from being on the road but also because we're preparing for what is a whole new version of the GiveMeaning.com website. I had hoped that it would be launched yesterday but the tech gods have not been smiling on us. It's now a certainty it will be sometime next week and I can't contain my excitement! We've been working on it non-stop since last September. I'm proud of what we have now and while there is plenty that was innovative about our use of technology applied to the charitable sector, this is the first time where truly innovative technology is being built and applied to the GiveMeaning site. You'll see what I'm talking about next week and hopefully agree with me!
I'm now here in Victoria bringing our "Party Pig" a massive bamboo version of our cardboard "Pig-e-Banks" for a fundraising event in support of Village of Hope a project on GiveMeaning benefiting women in Rwanda. I've been here all day for a variety of meetings today and at lunch, walked into a White Spot (for my American friends, I can tell you that White Spot beats In-&-Out burgers by miles) which I remembered from my childhood. I remembered being about 9 or 10 with my family eating a "Pirate Pack" at the exact same table as I was at today. It was an unintentional nevertheless much valued trip down memory lane.
I popped-in on the folks at Victoria Women's Sexual Assault Center, a great organization that uses GiveMeaning's personal fundraising pages for its annual "Tri-athalon of Compassion" and also met with Rumon Carter a very dynamic guy who used GiveMeaning last year quite successfully and has started a new project that is close to getting enough votes to start fund-raising.
This post is getting quite long and I haven't even talked about the highlights of the tour. I'll do that in a separate post over the weekend. It's now time to get going to the fundraiser. Please keep your radio stations tuned to your country music station and listen for "Let's Talk About Love" by Jessie Farrell!
Labels: canada, emersondrive, givemeaning, jessiefarrell, tour
Friday, February 09, 2007
Cowtown becomes Pigtown?
This post was made by Hannah Lee & Anna Martin, our dynamic duo bringing GiveMeaning to communities across the Country.
So this is what a snowflake looks like!
Anna and I are deploying the Valentine's Day Piggy Box Campaign in the Calgary area this year. From the moment that we touched down from the airplane, I immediately loved the vibe of Calgary. It has a homey feeling to the city and I feel like I am at home. The pace is really nice...no one's in a big hurry to get anywhere but it feels like everybody gets the job done.
I must admit that I have never been so cold in my life. As Anna and I walked from store to store, we had to weather the snow and the storm. My fingers felt like they were going to fall off from the frostbite that was setting in. But, thankfully, after walking in the snow for 6 hours a day, we got to go back to the hotel and go for a hot tub. The soak was my saving grace.
It has been an eventful time in Calgary, and a highlight especially for me, was meeting Evan and Gabe (the project founders for Have a H.A.A.R.T. - tinman.givemeaning.com). Their own personal passion and dedication to getting their project completed was inspiring. Anna and I had a great conversation with them about their project, charity and the whole world of giving.
I am heading back to Vancouver tonight and am already missing Calgary. Although I have felt like I have been in the Artic for a week, I will miss the warmth that I have felt from the city and the people.
Yes, Hannah this is what a snowflake looks like.
I was surprised to find out that Hannah is new to what most Canadians experience every winter and that is a whole lot of snow! I found myself thankful to be in the role of "Canadian Tour Guide" as I have lived in Alberta before and I was able to navigate the streets of Calgary with ease.
Our time spent in Kensington Market and along 17th Ave was well spent. Businesses welcomed our Pig-E-Boxes with great enthusiasm, typical of Calgary's reputation of being the "city of hospitality".
Calgarians even went to the extent of going along with "Where's Pig-E?",our version of "Where's Waldo?" last night at the pub. Hannah and I asked if people could casually place our Pig-E-Box in places around the pub. Please take a look at some of our pictures and see if you can find Pig-E.
All in all we are happy to say that our time in Cow Town was great fun...who knows maybe Calgary will soon be called Pig Town.
So this is what a snowflake looks like!
Anna and I are deploying the Valentine's Day Piggy Box Campaign in the Calgary area this year. From the moment that we touched down from the airplane, I immediately loved the vibe of Calgary. It has a homey feeling to the city and I feel like I am at home. The pace is really nice...no one's in a big hurry to get anywhere but it feels like everybody gets the job done.
I must admit that I have never been so cold in my life. As Anna and I walked from store to store, we had to weather the snow and the storm. My fingers felt like they were going to fall off from the frostbite that was setting in. But, thankfully, after walking in the snow for 6 hours a day, we got to go back to the hotel and go for a hot tub. The soak was my saving grace.
It has been an eventful time in Calgary, and a highlight especially for me, was meeting Evan and Gabe (the project founders for Have a H.A.A.R.T. - tinman.givemeaning.com). Their own personal passion and dedication to getting their project completed was inspiring. Anna and I had a great conversation with them about their project, charity and the whole world of giving.
I am heading back to Vancouver tonight and am already missing Calgary. Although I have felt like I have been in the Artic for a week, I will miss the warmth that I have felt from the city and the people.
Yes, Hannah this is what a snowflake looks like.
I was surprised to find out that Hannah is new to what most Canadians experience every winter and that is a whole lot of snow! I found myself thankful to be in the role of "Canadian Tour Guide" as I have lived in Alberta before and I was able to navigate the streets of Calgary with ease.
Our time spent in Kensington Market and along 17th Ave was well spent. Businesses welcomed our Pig-E-Boxes with great enthusiasm, typical of Calgary's reputation of being the "city of hospitality".
Calgarians even went to the extent of going along with "Where's Pig-E?",our version of "Where's Waldo?" last night at the pub. Hannah and I asked if people could casually place our Pig-E-Box in places around the pub. Please take a look at some of our pictures and see if you can find Pig-E.
All in all we are happy to say that our time in Cow Town was great fun...who knows maybe Calgary will soon be called Pig Town.
Labels: calgary, canada, charity, community, philanthropy, pig-e-bank
Monday, January 22, 2007
Net Neutrality in Canada - Who Cares?
The Tyee just posted an article entitled "Canada Sleeps Through War to 'Save the Internet."
The Tyee defines the issue of Net Neutrality as "Whether telecom companies can favor some Internet sites over others by charging different rates to different customers and making some sites much easier to access than others."
While the issue has made its way to the top of hot button issues in the US, even being hilariously profiled on the Jon Stewart show by the "PC Guy" (see below)
Anyone that expresses shock or outrage that the telco's dare to propose making more
money off the services they provide should give their head a shake. It's this mis-perception that the internet is free or a public utility that gives rise to the argument against Net Neutrality. The internet is NOT free. It's access is owned by an elite group of multi-billion companies whose business it is to make as much possible money of their assets and services. Whether in an Internet cafe in Kitgum, Uganda or at home in South Granville, I have always paid a provider for my internet (except when I find open wireless networks, but then still, someone is paying for that network access).
That these companies have gained these assets in part because of years of government granted monopoly is not sufficient argument against keeping them from charging for tiered access.
The companies that provide this access to both servers and browsers of content have made multi-billion investments in being able to efficiently deliver an exponentially increasingly amount of high-bandwidth content to the masses, expecting the highest return on their investment possible that that their customers are willing to pay for.
Is it a sad day that this new medium has matured into a platform that is now drawing big numbers of people away from their television sets, magazines and newspapers and as such is starting to act more like traditional media industries or is the portioning of the internet really nothing more than the logical evolution of a medium that has finally begun to truly mature? It's probably both.
The argument that valuable progressive media broadcasting will not be able to afford a two-tiered model, I reject. Supporters of those organizations will donate in membership drives (GiveMeaning has already funded some of those drives).
Yes, the fact that this might mean higher start-up costs for new organizations and that it would impose a "success fee" as organizations serve-up more content but the great majority of these content providers will find a way to cover those costs.
For the organizations that can't support themselves independently, they will form media co-ops that will pool resources, and a crop of new intermediaries will emerge to offer pooled resources for similarly oriented content providers.
So amongst all of the issues that need our Country's attention, I don't think Net Neutrality should factor to the top 5.
But you see that I have posted a blog badge to Neutrality.ca because I do believe that all of us but especially those of us in the IT business need to be more aware of the policies and issues governing our infrastructure providers and as consumers of internet services, we need better insight into what the major providers are doing especially in regards to free speech and fair competition.
That's why I post the blog badge and why I dugg the Tyee article. We need to be aware of the changing landscape as the medium we rely on matures as an industry. We need both extremes of the debate advocated passionately and keep informed about the policies that shape the industry.
Lastly, I'm waiting to see what IT company figures it out first and makes this issue a core aspect of their corporate social responsibility platform.
The Tyee defines the issue of Net Neutrality as "Whether telecom companies can favor some Internet sites over others by charging different rates to different customers and making some sites much easier to access than others."
While the issue has made its way to the top of hot button issues in the US, even being hilariously profiled on the Jon Stewart show by the "PC Guy" (see below)
Anyone that expresses shock or outrage that the telco's dare to propose making more
money off the services they provide should give their head a shake. It's this mis-perception that the internet is free or a public utility that gives rise to the argument against Net Neutrality. The internet is NOT free. It's access is owned by an elite group of multi-billion companies whose business it is to make as much possible money of their assets and services. Whether in an Internet cafe in Kitgum, Uganda or at home in South Granville, I have always paid a provider for my internet (except when I find open wireless networks, but then still, someone is paying for that network access).
That these companies have gained these assets in part because of years of government granted monopoly is not sufficient argument against keeping them from charging for tiered access.
The companies that provide this access to both servers and browsers of content have made multi-billion investments in being able to efficiently deliver an exponentially increasingly amount of high-bandwidth content to the masses, expecting the highest return on their investment possible that that their customers are willing to pay for.
Is it a sad day that this new medium has matured into a platform that is now drawing big numbers of people away from their television sets, magazines and newspapers and as such is starting to act more like traditional media industries or is the portioning of the internet really nothing more than the logical evolution of a medium that has finally begun to truly mature? It's probably both.
The argument that valuable progressive media broadcasting will not be able to afford a two-tiered model, I reject. Supporters of those organizations will donate in membership drives (GiveMeaning has already funded some of those drives).
Yes, the fact that this might mean higher start-up costs for new organizations and that it would impose a "success fee" as organizations serve-up more content but the great majority of these content providers will find a way to cover those costs.
For the organizations that can't support themselves independently, they will form media co-ops that will pool resources, and a crop of new intermediaries will emerge to offer pooled resources for similarly oriented content providers.
So amongst all of the issues that need our Country's attention, I don't think Net Neutrality should factor to the top 5.
But you see that I have posted a blog badge to Neutrality.ca because I do believe that all of us but especially those of us in the IT business need to be more aware of the policies and issues governing our infrastructure providers and as consumers of internet services, we need better insight into what the major providers are doing especially in regards to free speech and fair competition.
That's why I post the blog badge and why I dugg the Tyee article. We need to be aware of the changing landscape as the medium we rely on matures as an industry. We need both extremes of the debate advocated passionately and keep informed about the policies that shape the industry.
Lastly, I'm waiting to see what IT company figures it out first and makes this issue a core aspect of their corporate social responsibility platform.
Labels: activism, business, canada, internet, IT, netneutrality, news, politics, savetheinternet, technology
Monday, January 15, 2007
We Care Marketplace
I just read this article from the Edmonton Journal about the We Care Marketplace, a "charity market" that occurs in the same spot every Sunday morning in Edmonton that gives away donated items "with no questions asked and no names taken."
It's entirely voluntary and no formal organization is behind it.
These kinds of grass-roots initiatives are exactly what I was talking about in my earlier blog posts today.
The article says that about 500 people receive gather each week to receive items.
On a similar note, I StumbledUpon the Burrito Project, another grass-roots initiative to feed the hungry that gives the "ingredients" needed for you to replicate their project in your community online and promotes itself well through MySpace and Friendster.
I LOVE these kinds of projects.
If you know of others like these, please post them here.
It's entirely voluntary and no formal organization is behind it.
These kinds of grass-roots initiatives are exactly what I was talking about in my earlier blog posts today.
The article says that about 500 people receive gather each week to receive items.
On a similar note, I StumbledUpon the Burrito Project, another grass-roots initiative to feed the hungry that gives the "ingredients" needed for you to replicate their project in your community online and promotes itself well through MySpace and Friendster.
I LOVE these kinds of projects.
If you know of others like these, please post them here.
Labels: alberta, burritoproject, canada, charity, church, edmonton, faithbased, homeless, homelessness, ministry, poverty, society
Saturday, December 23, 2006
We're all the king's boot-makers
I am exhausted. I have been traveling since last Sunday and I'm quite sure I have slept only a total of about 25 hours in the past six days. But it's been a good week and I'm always happy to be spreading the word about GiveMeaning.
Toronto earlier in the week was particularly special for me because I got to meet with Karyn Kennedy, the Executive Director of The Toronto Child Abuse Center ("TCAC")
TCAC was introduced to me by Christie Blatchford of the Globe & Mail (a journalist for whom I have immense respect). It was Christie's courtroom coverage of the story of Randal Dooney, a young boy who was brutally tortured and ultimately murdered by his Father and Step-mother that inspired be to start GiveMeaning. I was so angered and saddened by the total break-down in the "safety net" that was supposed to protect children in Canada from this abuse, that I wanted to do something, anything.
Here I was having just read Christie's coverage and motivated to act, and I couldn't find anything at my fingertips that I could do to react positively to this story. I spent the next couple of weeks trying in vain to reach-out to local organizations that were tasked to provide counsellings to children who have been abused but I either couldn't find the organizations or couldn't get my email or phone call returned when I did find a number or an email address to ping.
The reason? Because most of the small organizations, the ones looking after kids like Randal and his brother Tego (who survived and is now living back in his native Jamaica), these organizations operate on such shoe-string budgets that they don't have enough staff to both provide their services and respond to interested donors like me.
GiveMeaning's service is designed for ALL charities but it's the small organizations, the ones whose names we don't know, the ones whose organizations are constantly struggling for funding which really sums up more than 80% of the 80,000 charities in this country, and a similar percentage of the more than 1,000,000 charities in the US, say nothing of the rest of the world.
I had a great meeting with Karyn and though she doesn't have any projects on the site yet, we discussed several exciting initiatives that we can work on together. I've long asserted that if we want to truly want to make change in our country, we have to focus on the root causes of the problems that manifest many years later as a result of those problems.
Child Abuse is irrefutably one of the most obvious root causes of homelessness, violent crime, and sex crimes. Anyone who wants to actually reduce the instances of any of these social problems who proposes anything other than tackling child abuse is bound to fail. Blunt, yes. Controversial, maybe. Room to debate my point? Only by massaging the words. My assertion isn't a difficult argument to agree with, is it? And yet, in provinces like Ontario where too many sensational cases of children like Randall Dooney and Jeffery Baldwin were failed by the Province, leading to their deaths but across the Country, we have provincially funded organizations that are stymied in their abilities to intervene.
Child Abuse is one of those "hard topics" in charity to sell. But increasingly, I want GiveMeaning to find a way to address these "hard topics" by marrying our innovative marketing ideas with the wonderful, hard-working, and life-changing organizations like Toronto Child Abuse Center.
If we can empower organizations like TCAC by providing them new ways to communicate their message, new ways to engage, the children in Canada who right now, as we celebrate our holidays, are suffering horrible, unspeakable, unthinkable acts of violence and depravity will be saved. Let us not wait until they are another of Christie's stories.
As it seems to be the case with each of these blog entries, I start by meaning to keep it light, talk about a million different things that happened this week, I found a topic I needed to talk about, if for no other reason than for me to commit my own thoughts to the page.
Two last things. I have started my own project at GiveMeaning. In the two years of running GiveMeaning, I have never started my own project. I will enter a separate blog entry over the holidays about it, but you can visit it at yves.givemeaning.com
I'm on my way to do my last interview of a week that has been - gratefully - full of interviews. I have never met the host of Get Connected, but judging his bio, it should make for a good, interactive interview.
Merry Christmas (it's a sentiment, not a religious assertion).
Stay Safe and Warm.
Toronto earlier in the week was particularly special for me because I got to meet with Karyn Kennedy, the Executive Director of The Toronto Child Abuse Center ("TCAC")
TCAC was introduced to me by Christie Blatchford of the Globe & Mail (a journalist for whom I have immense respect). It was Christie's courtroom coverage of the story of Randal Dooney, a young boy who was brutally tortured and ultimately murdered by his Father and Step-mother that inspired be to start GiveMeaning. I was so angered and saddened by the total break-down in the "safety net" that was supposed to protect children in Canada from this abuse, that I wanted to do something, anything.
Here I was having just read Christie's coverage and motivated to act, and I couldn't find anything at my fingertips that I could do to react positively to this story. I spent the next couple of weeks trying in vain to reach-out to local organizations that were tasked to provide counsellings to children who have been abused but I either couldn't find the organizations or couldn't get my email or phone call returned when I did find a number or an email address to ping.
The reason? Because most of the small organizations, the ones looking after kids like Randal and his brother Tego (who survived and is now living back in his native Jamaica), these organizations operate on such shoe-string budgets that they don't have enough staff to both provide their services and respond to interested donors like me.
GiveMeaning's service is designed for ALL charities but it's the small organizations, the ones whose names we don't know, the ones whose organizations are constantly struggling for funding which really sums up more than 80% of the 80,000 charities in this country, and a similar percentage of the more than 1,000,000 charities in the US, say nothing of the rest of the world.
I had a great meeting with Karyn and though she doesn't have any projects on the site yet, we discussed several exciting initiatives that we can work on together. I've long asserted that if we want to truly want to make change in our country, we have to focus on the root causes of the problems that manifest many years later as a result of those problems.
Child Abuse is irrefutably one of the most obvious root causes of homelessness, violent crime, and sex crimes. Anyone who wants to actually reduce the instances of any of these social problems who proposes anything other than tackling child abuse is bound to fail. Blunt, yes. Controversial, maybe. Room to debate my point? Only by massaging the words. My assertion isn't a difficult argument to agree with, is it? And yet, in provinces like Ontario where too many sensational cases of children like Randall Dooney and Jeffery Baldwin were failed by the Province, leading to their deaths but across the Country, we have provincially funded organizations that are stymied in their abilities to intervene.
Child Abuse is one of those "hard topics" in charity to sell. But increasingly, I want GiveMeaning to find a way to address these "hard topics" by marrying our innovative marketing ideas with the wonderful, hard-working, and life-changing organizations like Toronto Child Abuse Center.
If we can empower organizations like TCAC by providing them new ways to communicate their message, new ways to engage, the children in Canada who right now, as we celebrate our holidays, are suffering horrible, unspeakable, unthinkable acts of violence and depravity will be saved. Let us not wait until they are another of Christie's stories.
As it seems to be the case with each of these blog entries, I start by meaning to keep it light, talk about a million different things that happened this week, I found a topic I needed to talk about, if for no other reason than for me to commit my own thoughts to the page.
Two last things. I have started my own project at GiveMeaning. In the two years of running GiveMeaning, I have never started my own project. I will enter a separate blog entry over the holidays about it, but you can visit it at yves.givemeaning.com
I'm on my way to do my last interview of a week that has been - gratefully - full of interviews. I have never met the host of Get Connected, but judging his bio, it should make for a good, interactive interview.
Merry Christmas (it's a sentiment, not a religious assertion).
Stay Safe and Warm.
Labels: abuse, aid, canada, charity, childabuse, givemeaning, philanthropy, politics, web
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Stop trying to "solve" homelessness
I'm in Victoria this weekend to celebrate my father's last day of class as a professor at the University of Victoria. He has been teaching English Lit at Uvic for 42 years!
He officially retires next year but his last class was taught Thursday. It's great to celebrate his commitment, creativity and intellectual contribution in reading between the lines of the World's greatest writers. While here, I stopped in on Kathy over at C.A.R.T.S who helps deliver warm clothing and food to Victoria's homeless. CARTS was one of the first ever charities to sign-up at GiveMeaning and I was pleased that we raised $3,000 for their winter campaign last year.
I admire and am inspired by the same quality in my Father and in Kathy. It is about commitment to individual action despite whatever institutional and political interferences exist. In simpler terms, it's about being committed to service for service's sake independent of quantified or qualified outcome.
Sometimes solutions aren't whats needed
When speaking about how to address the problem of homelessness, there are many great minds that proffer wonderfully complex solutions. Job and life-skills training, affordable housing, substance abuse counselling, long-term care for the mentally ill. Wading into the debate, you quickly become drowned in a sea of statistics, opposing theories and policies, all the while the problem never goes away.
The root problem of homelessness will never be fixed when asking the question of how to serve the homeless. Homelessness is an outcome of years of problems. For as long as the real causes of homeless exist in our society (and I expect that they will always exist), then we must look at how to address homelessness as not how to "make them not homeless" but rather how should we respond to people who are the most troubled, the most wrecked, the most broken?
The answer lies not in our heads but in our hearts. And this is why I love that GiveMeaning supports organizations like CARTS. Kathy is as experienced and intelligent as anyone else dedicated to the needs of the homeless but her approach is not to try to get anyone off the streets. Her approach is both the simplest and in my mind, the most effective (if we can use the word "effectiveness"):
The human touch
It is simply to offer warmth, love and compassion to those in need. Faithfully, Kathy, her sister Sharon and the group of dedicated C.A.R.T.S volunteers are out on Victoria's streets every Friday night, giving their love to those who often feel the most uncared for. While their outreach is faith-based, there are no requirements imposed on people they serve. Kathy and her ministry volunteer their time because of their desire to serve their God. The big difference I see with CARTS versus other organizations that deliver services to the homeless is that human intimacy is as important a provision as a hot meal. This isn't an instituational feeding, it's a community between the homeless and the CARTS volunteers who care for one another.
Many people have encouraged CARTS to grow bigger than their current grass-roots organization: Get an office, hire a staff, do more nights out on the street.
But C.A.R.T.S remains dedicated to doing one thing really well. And in my personal opinion, it's the one thing that seems obvious but is most over-looked in the discussion about homelessness: The best "treatment" is love and compassion.
It's being consistently present each Friday night, with not only food and clothes and supplies but to talk with the community, to give love, to share a joke, to take care of one another.
Want to solve the problem? Address the real roots
If we want to eventually solve the problem of homelessness, we must intervene long before someone considers the street their best home. We must make a massive investment and make radical changes to Child Welfare organizations, and to the governmental agencies responsible for identifying homes where children's welfare are endangered. A responsible government should intervene at expense of all other considerations to ensure that a child is protected from a home-life that could endanger that child's welfare in any way.
I've heard it said from people recovering from drug and alcohol addictions that drugs were never the cause of their problems. To them, in the throes of their addiction, drugs and alcohol were the solution. The solution to their pain, to their self-loathing.
What we see in homelessness is the manifestation of years of problems. Those problems were ignored or we as society failed in treating those people of those problems. We should then look at our failures with responsibility and obligation. Acknowledge that the mistakes we have committed likely can't be undone for the people currently living on the street. Above all else, it should be the government's responsibility to look after those that the system has failed to protect and defend. And that this care must be done from a point of view of compassion, not of fixing their "lot in life."
Two things we each can do
At no point am I advocating "giving up" on innovative programs. My mother in her role as a Federal Civil Servant funds many of these programs (along with individual donors and foundations) to great success. But I am saying that as citizens, I believe our responsibility is two-fold: Require our local and federal governments to be responsible for those that they have failed to protect and provide for; To give the compassion, understanding and love to this segment of our population who these basic human needs are so often scarce.
No matter where you live, please consider making a donation to CARTS. They are entirely volunteer-run, and are not sophisticated fundraisers. Each year, they depend and rely on this small fundraising goal they set at GiveMeaning to fund their winter program.
He officially retires next year but his last class was taught Thursday. It's great to celebrate his commitment, creativity and intellectual contribution in reading between the lines of the World's greatest writers. While here, I stopped in on Kathy over at C.A.R.T.S who helps deliver warm clothing and food to Victoria's homeless. CARTS was one of the first ever charities to sign-up at GiveMeaning and I was pleased that we raised $3,000 for their winter campaign last year.
I admire and am inspired by the same quality in my Father and in Kathy. It is about commitment to individual action despite whatever institutional and political interferences exist. In simpler terms, it's about being committed to service for service's sake independent of quantified or qualified outcome.
Sometimes solutions aren't whats needed
When speaking about how to address the problem of homelessness, there are many great minds that proffer wonderfully complex solutions. Job and life-skills training, affordable housing, substance abuse counselling, long-term care for the mentally ill. Wading into the debate, you quickly become drowned in a sea of statistics, opposing theories and policies, all the while the problem never goes away.
The root problem of homelessness will never be fixed when asking the question of how to serve the homeless. Homelessness is an outcome of years of problems. For as long as the real causes of homeless exist in our society (and I expect that they will always exist), then we must look at how to address homelessness as not how to "make them not homeless" but rather how should we respond to people who are the most troubled, the most wrecked, the most broken?
The answer lies not in our heads but in our hearts. And this is why I love that GiveMeaning supports organizations like CARTS. Kathy is as experienced and intelligent as anyone else dedicated to the needs of the homeless but her approach is not to try to get anyone off the streets. Her approach is both the simplest and in my mind, the most effective (if we can use the word "effectiveness"):
The human touch
It is simply to offer warmth, love and compassion to those in need. Faithfully, Kathy, her sister Sharon and the group of dedicated C.A.R.T.S volunteers are out on Victoria's streets every Friday night, giving their love to those who often feel the most uncared for. While their outreach is faith-based, there are no requirements imposed on people they serve. Kathy and her ministry volunteer their time because of their desire to serve their God. The big difference I see with CARTS versus other organizations that deliver services to the homeless is that human intimacy is as important a provision as a hot meal. This isn't an instituational feeding, it's a community between the homeless and the CARTS volunteers who care for one another.
Many people have encouraged CARTS to grow bigger than their current grass-roots organization: Get an office, hire a staff, do more nights out on the street.
But C.A.R.T.S remains dedicated to doing one thing really well. And in my personal opinion, it's the one thing that seems obvious but is most over-looked in the discussion about homelessness: The best "treatment" is love and compassion.
It's being consistently present each Friday night, with not only food and clothes and supplies but to talk with the community, to give love, to share a joke, to take care of one another.
Want to solve the problem? Address the real roots
If we want to eventually solve the problem of homelessness, we must intervene long before someone considers the street their best home. We must make a massive investment and make radical changes to Child Welfare organizations, and to the governmental agencies responsible for identifying homes where children's welfare are endangered. A responsible government should intervene at expense of all other considerations to ensure that a child is protected from a home-life that could endanger that child's welfare in any way.
I've heard it said from people recovering from drug and alcohol addictions that drugs were never the cause of their problems. To them, in the throes of their addiction, drugs and alcohol were the solution. The solution to their pain, to their self-loathing.
What we see in homelessness is the manifestation of years of problems. Those problems were ignored or we as society failed in treating those people of those problems. We should then look at our failures with responsibility and obligation. Acknowledge that the mistakes we have committed likely can't be undone for the people currently living on the street. Above all else, it should be the government's responsibility to look after those that the system has failed to protect and defend. And that this care must be done from a point of view of compassion, not of fixing their "lot in life."
Two things we each can do
At no point am I advocating "giving up" on innovative programs. My mother in her role as a Federal Civil Servant funds many of these programs (along with individual donors and foundations) to great success. But I am saying that as citizens, I believe our responsibility is two-fold: Require our local and federal governments to be responsible for those that they have failed to protect and provide for; To give the compassion, understanding and love to this segment of our population who these basic human needs are so often scarce.
No matter where you live, please consider making a donation to CARTS. They are entirely volunteer-run, and are not sophisticated fundraisers. Each year, they depend and rely on this small fundraising goal they set at GiveMeaning to fund their winter program.
Labels: canada, homelessness, politics activism
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]