Your Holiday Giving and Navigating the Nonprofit Sector

Since moving to Washington D.C. and deciding to pursue a Master of Public Administration degree with a focus on nonprofit management, I have been to a lot of job and internship interviews at nonprofit organizations. As is the case with any job or internship search, some of these interviews have proven more fruitful than others. But what I have found to be the case (although this was not really something I thought about much going into the process) was what an eye-opener this process has been. As the holiday season approaches and many people prepare to give their annual donation to whatever organization or cause they feel is important, I invite you to ask yourself a few questions before you write that check this year.

1.) Is the organization an advocacy group or a direct service provider?
 
Chances are, if you're giving to an organization, you know what they stand for. They stand for "saving the environment" or "women's rights" or "LGBT equality" or "eliminating global poverty." And you, being a good person, stand for those things, too. That's great but it doesn't answer the question of what the organization does. What is their strategy for accomplishing this goal?

For example, some organization engage in direct service provision. Community health clinics, domestic violence shelters, libraries, and food banks are all classic examples of this type of nonprofit. They provide some kind of direct service to individuals. Planned Parenthood provides reproductive health services (birth control, physical examinations, STD testing, pregnancy testing, the HPV vaccine, and in some cases abortion). The Ronald McDonald House houses the families of sick children while they receive medical care. Your local homeless shelter or domestic violence shelter provides homeless people or victims of abuse with somewhere to go during difficult times. To find out how well organizations like this are fulfilling their mission and what quality of services they are providing, you can ask those they serve. You can even offer to volunteer at some of these organizations to see how well you think they're serving the individuals they claim to serve. If the group helps those far away, see if you can find independent online testimonials about how good (or not so good) the group is at fulfilling its mission to them. In any event, it is oftentimes not too difficult to get a picture of the end product of these organizations' work because they interact directly with those they are helping.

However, some organizations do not engage very often in direct service provision. They serve as advocates for causes they think are important. When these organizations do intervene directly for individuals, it is in the hopes that their work will have a wider impact. Examples of organizations like this include the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Human Rights Campaign. It can sometimes be difficult to tell how effective these organization are in achieving their mission. When organizations like this are effective, they can create massive amounts of change. When they are ineffective, they can hold back social movements and causes, diverting money, talent, and energy away from more effective means of advocacy. It can be hard to know who to ask about these organizations as well. The average LGBT person probably cannot tell you how well or how poorly the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force represents them. Only the most political and informed gun owners may have a sense for how well the NRA is representing their interests and this sense may not be entirely well-informed. Thankfully, there are ways to measure impact that will be discussed in greater depth later.

2.) What exactly does the organization do and how effective are they at doing it?

First of all, I would look on an organization's website to get a sense of how they impact their cause of choice. Are they a direct service provider? Are they an advocacy group? Do they do both? If they are a legal group, do they do their best to help all individuals needing a certain kind of legal assistance (battered women, indigent populations, etc.) or do they focus more on impact litigation (like the ACLU)?

For direct service providers you will want to ascertain exactly what programs the organization has and how easy they are to access. A good question to ask yourself in these cases is "If I was in the population this organization serves, what services could they offer me, how important to me would they be, and how easy would they be to access?"

Figuring out what an advocacy group does can be a little trickier. A poke around their website can be helpful, but there are better ways of measuring a group's impact when they are of this type. I would argue that media coverage can be significant. When an issue is discussed on the news, in newspapers, or in magazines, how often do certain organizations receive a mention? If they are mentioned frequently, they are probably recognized as providing a definitive voice on a certain topic.

Secondly, I would do some research into how the organization effects policy change. If they go through the courts, do their legal challenges tend to be significant and successful? If they lobby legislators, how successful have they been in this endeavor? How much access do they really have to leaders with the power to effect change? For example, the effectiveness of some lobbying groups is legendary. (For example, AIPAC, the Israel lobby, is well known for being extremely effective.) The most effective lobbyists not only convince leaders, they are involved with writing the legislation they want. Some organizations (I am sad to say that all of the national non-legal LGBT groups fall into this category) are much less effective. They never really gain much access to the halls of power. And while money can sometimes buy more effective lobbyists or strategists, oftentimes it simply allows for the continuation of ineffective tactics and non-responsive leadership within nonprofits. If an organization's list of accomplishments is much smaller than their operating budget should indicate, then perhaps it is wise to find an organization with a stronger track record. Here it is instructive to think of Christ and his parable of the talents. If someone can do a decent amount with what little they have, they can be trusted with more. If they are given a lot and do little with it, then it is unlikely that continuing to give to them will be very fruitful.

Thirdly, I would look at some hard numbers. What percentage of a group's budget goes toward their staff's salaries? I certainly think that it is important to pay those working in the nonprofit sector well and oftentimes with advocacy groups, the staff include lobbyists or litigators who are responsible for the success of the cause itself. But if more money seems to go towards paying staff than anything else and the group doesn't seem to be very effective, then I would give elsewhere.

3.) What is the relationship of an organization's activities to the end goal?

Some organizations seem to do a poor job of connecting their current activities to a clearly defined end goal. Sometimes the end goal (eliminating global poverty, ending all racism) is so broad and unattainable as to be laughable. Other times the goal is more reasonable (providing shelter for all of our city's homeless who wish to utilize it during the coldest months of the year, achieving racial parity on a certain standardized test in a given number of years) but the means of achieving it seem to bear little relation to the end result.

For instance, let's say that an organization wants to help lessen the prevalence of STDs in a community. Providing a free or low cost health clinic in the community that everyone knows about is a good start. So is providing free classes on STD prevention and treatment. Handing out cheap condoms that will probably break to people on the street is silly. It is a one time, ineffective solution to the problem.

This is my problem with Teach for America. We can disagree about how best to improve the education of our nation's youth. However, I am fairly certain that sending small numbers of inexperienced teachers into  communities they know nothing about for short amounts of time is not a practical or sustainable solution to the problem. While it may make the volunteers feel good about themselves, it is not going to make a big dent in our nation's education-oriented problems.

I want to end this piece by saying that giving is important, especially if you know of an organization that does good work, that has helped you or someone you know, and whose work seems to be effective. I encourage all of you to give, if you can, to nonprofits this holiday season. But be wise about where you put your money and be mindful of what strategies you may be supporting with your cash. Happy Holidays!

Why I Won't Be Queering My Census

I received my Census tonight in the mail. And even before I received it, I had contemplated the question that many politically engaged LGBT people have been contemplating: to queer or not to queer? And I have to say that I fall squarely on the "not to queer" side of the issue.

Let me start off by saying that I think the census questions asking same-sex couples in committed, partnered relationships about their living arrangements are a step in the right direction. I urge all persons in such relationships to fill their Census out honestly and to make sure and include this information when appropriate. But what I cannot endorse is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's deeply misguided campaign to "queer the Census."

It pains me to publicly state this as I have a lot of admiration for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In contrast to some LGBT organizations, they seem to have a relatively genuine commitment to serving the needs of bisexuals, trans folk, gender variant persons, LGBT youth, LGBT elders, disabled LGBT persons, and other LGBT subgroups who are often marginalized by mainstream organizations that supposedly exist to meet our needs. And I commend them for their willingness to think outside of the proverbial box when it comes to new ideas to engage our community and further our cause. Nonetheless, for a multitude of reasons, "queering the Census" is a bad one.

For those of you not familiar with this concept, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is urging LGBT people and our allies to affix a hot pink sticker to the front of our census envelopes with the heading on it "ATTN: US Census Bureau: It's Time to Count Everyone!" Below this heading one can check one or more boxes labeled "Gay," "Lesbian," "Bisexual," "Transgender," or "Straight Ally." Beneath these boxes is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force logo and the statements "Everyone deserves to be counted. It's time to queerthecensus.org."

There are a number of things that make this concept problematic. It should be obvious that nothing is more likely to invoke unfair but pervasive stereotypes about LGBT people in the minds of wary Census officials than a hot pink sticker with the word "queer" emblazoned on it. But that is still the least of the issues that a reasonable person could take with said sticker.

The categories themselves are problematic and if the content of the sticker is supposed to function as a guide for what the Task Force thinks an ideal question about LGBT identity should look like on a hypothetical future Census form, then a troubling lack of thought has been put into this proposition by the Task Force. Let's go down and list and analyze the terms one by one.

"Gay" - First of all, "gay" is in many ways an umbrella term but in other contexts it has a very specific meaning. "Gay" can be used to refer exclusively to homosexual men, to refer exclusively to homosexual and bisexual men, to refer exclusively to homosexual men and women, to refer exclusively to all LGB people, and as a term to refer to all LGBT people. While all of these uses are highly contested, all of them are a contemporary and/or historical reality. In the context of the Census, would I count as "gay" as a woman? As a bisexual person? Would gay men of a certain era identify with it that may prefer now anachronistic sounding terms like "homosexual"? How about younger men that may prefer "queer"?

"Lesbian" - "Lesbian" is another highly contested term and one that not even all homosexual women identify with. I have heard women that others would most likely identify with the term explain that they disliked it for whatever reason and preferred "gay," "queer," or some other label to describe their sexual orientation. Would anyone that was "lesbian" automatically count as "gay" as well? How about men that may choose to identify as lesbians for cultural reasons? Are they committing Census fraud? (And, yes, this is apparently a real phenomenon, if a pretty rare one.)

"Bisexual" - Along with the "transgender" label this term seems to me to be among the most potentially troublesome. It is important to note that many individuals that express and enact attraction to both men and women strongly dislike this term for a number of reasons. Reasons I have heard expressed for this include the term's debt to the concept of a gender binary, derogatory associations among both gays and heterosexuals, and the term's waning popularity relative to newer labels like "queer," "pansexual," or "fluid." Add into the equation "gay-identified bisexuals" and "lesbian-identified bisexuals" and you have a recipe for mass confusion in counting this population. Additionally, a high number of people may identify as "bisexual" in some contexts but not in others. For instance, they may have engaged in same-sex (or opposite sex) experimentation or experienced same-sex (or opposite sex) attractions without consistently or seriously pursuing a bisexual lifestyle. Such individuals and their identifications would prove an additional gray area in counting America's LGBT population.

"Transgender" - The best definition of the term "transgender" was one I encountered courtesy of Dr. Petra Doan at a panel discussion of employment and housing discrimination issues facing LGBT people. To paraphrase the professor as I understood her remarks, "transgender" is an umbrella term encompassing two spectra: the male to female spectrum and the female to male spectrum. On one end of these spectra, the professor continued, lay those with somewhat gender non-conforming identities. These folks include gender-variant LGB as well as heterosexual persons. Some of these folks may cross dress, engage in drag performances, or exhibit other gender non-conforming characteristics. On the far end of the spectra lay transsexual people who live full time as a member of a sex other than the one assigned to them at birth. Many trans persons also identify with the terms "gay," "lesbian," and/or "bisexual" although not all trans persons will. And, of course, the way individuals use these terms to describe themselves and others vary widely. I have heard of trans men that continue to identify as lesbians even after their transitions, for example. On another note, some people identify intersex people as falling under the transgender banner although not all intersex people embrace this identification with the transgender community. Not all intersex persons are even aware of their condition. Lumping such a diverse population under one vaguely defined umbrella term is obviously not going to be revealing of much of anything and may actually provide misleading pseudo-information.

"Straight Ally" - I cannot imagine the Task Force seriously imagining a category to denote "Straight Ally" on any actual hypothetical future Census. I suppose it is included on this sticker solely to enlist heterosexual, cissexual people who may want to show their support for the program. Nonetheless, on a hypothetical future Census form that asks about sexual orientation and/or gender identity, it is likely that one will be asked to affirm a heterosexual identity if he or she feels it to apply to them. Which leads to more interesting questions. Could a bisexual person, feeling uncomfortable with that term, simply check both "gay" and "heterosexual"? Would any trans persons be allowed to count as heterosexual?

By this time it should be obvious that these terms are almost nonsensical from a demographic perspective. They would prove confusing in this context for LGBT and non-LGBT persons alike. But, even putting aside the truth of this fact, there are deeply philosophical objections to requiring people to denote their sexual orientation and/or gender identity on a government-mandated Census form.

The first of these objections is that gender identity and sexual orientation are much more fluid concepts than we often like to admit. And whatever journeys we take as individuals to arrive at our preferred labels are highly personal and often fraught with confusion and questioning. Many people who later come to identify as gay or lesbian go through periods beforehand of exclusively dating members of the opposite sex. Some people who later come to identify as heterosexual may even go through periods where they identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Many bisexuals in particular have an especially uneasy relationship with labels denoting sexual orientation.(It should be noted that, more often than not, this is not due to a higher than average sense of confusion on the bisexual's part but due to the inadequacy of existing labels to describe our attractions, allegiances, and experiences.) An individual trans person may also go through periods in which they identify as members of one sex, then another, or even outside of the gender binary altogether at different points in time. But when it comes to filling out an official government document that one is required to fill out by law as honestly as he or she can, these factors can causes real problems for LGBT and even heterosexual, cissexual people. In a worst case scenario, they could perhaps even lead the government to prosecute people for "lying" on their Census forms when it comes to these issues.

The second of these objections relates to the second class citizenship our government currently forces on LGBT persons. In the current political climate, it is entirely possible that coming out on our Census forms could be used against us individually and/or as a community. It would seem to me to be deeply inappropriate for our government to deny us the right to form families of our choosing, to serve in our nation's military as openly LGBT persons, and to work, go to school, or seek housing free of harassment and discrimination but force us to out ourselves on our Census forms. It could be especially problematic for rural LGBT persons who may be one of the only LGBT persons or even the only LGBT person in their communities when this demographic data is published, potentially outing them to their communities without their full consent.

Allow me to illustrate one more problematic aspect of this "queer the Census" business with a personal story. In her beautiful book "Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity," writer Julia Serano explains that she has never identified her sex or entered a gendered space in an unselfconscious way in her entire life. And when it comes to sexual orientation, I can relate to her experience. When I first joined Facebook my freshman year of college, I did not check either the male box or the female box to denote "Interested In" because I was not yet comfortable embracing a bisexual identity but did not want to embrace a solely heterosexual identity either, because it felt dishonest. When I later applied to law school my senior year of college, I was in a transitional period regarding how I identified my sexual orientation. I was out as bisexual to only one friend. It was a term I was slowly beginning to feel belonged to me, but I did not yet claim it fully in the sense that I do now.

On one particular law school application I was asked to check a box if I identified as LGBT. There was no opt-out option; no box to check if you just weren't comfortable with the question and preferred not to respond. At this point in my life - when I had yet to date a woman, when I had yet to involve myself to any great extent with the gay community, when I had yet to tell my parents or aunt or most of my friends or to make things public on Facebook - to identify as LGBT seemed to me to be on some level dishonest. Similarly, not to check the box would mean to deny something I knew about myself on a molecular level and to essentially identify myself as heterosexual - a term I have never felt applied to me since I was thirteen years old. So I just didn't apply to that law school.

As members of the LGBT community, it is vital that we insist that no one be forced to come out except on his or her own terms - not on the terms of the government, not on the terms of the LGBT community, not on the terms of a heteronormative society, not on the terms of schools or families or churches or jobs. On terms they set completely for themselves as individuals.

There are many important aspects of our identity - such as religious affiliation - that the U.S. Census Bureau does not ask us about and I venture that sexual orientation and gender identity should be among them. It is entirely possible that, as LGBTI people, we comprise such a diverse rainbow of sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions, and physical characteristics that there are no boxes in this world that we can or should be forced to fit into.