You Are Awesome – The Making of a Video Tribute
On July 5, 2012 we released a video tribute to all those housing workers that are working tirelessly to end homelessness. The making of the tribute is the focus of this blog and a lesson in how leveraging social networks can help define the message.
Since January I have been taking 5-10 second clips of video on my iPhone in various locations throughout North America. Anytime I saw a word or phrase or image that I liked, I recorded it. I didn’t know how it would possibly be used. I just kept shooting. I ended up with over an hour of material. That’s a lot when you consider that each clip is very short.
About a month ago, I started the experimental phase of the project. I selected three people in various areas of North America that were friends of mine on Facebook. I asked each one, using only social media, to find out which phrases they had heard me say in speeches I had given in their community really resonated with people in their social network. A couple of points here: none of the “friends” I asked via Facebook were close friends in the more conventional sense; and, I knew full well that not everyone in their social network would have heard me speak. Anyway, through this process the text phrases that appear in the video were selected. The only thing I added was the “You are awesome” tag at the end of each one.
I record many of the speeches that I give as part of keynotes or training or lectures or briefings to elected officials. I do this so that I can learn how to make my public presentations better. This is an important back-story for the next part of the exercise. Sending a direct message to 7 other friends on Facebook, I asked them to work their friend list to isolate parts of speeches that they have heard me give that they thought were particularly impactful. I then assembled audio clips from their feedback. Because I had given more than one speech in some of these communities, there are actually pieces of 9 different speeches included in the video. Some parts of those speeches are in the foreground. However, if you listen really closely to the mix (especially with headphones on) you are hear parts of other speeches in the background.
The last piece of the spoken word component was for me to send a message out on Facebook to everyone on my friend list, and a note on Twitter, asking people to audio record “You are awesome” in any way that they wanted to and to email it to me. I also asked people to have people in their family do it as well if they wanted to do so. Almost 10% of everyone on my friend list did so. Every single one of these is in the final compilation. Some are louder than others. Some are more frequent than others. But all of them are there. Who knows, maybe the quieter ones have a subliminal power?
I set myself a five minute limit for the tribute. The first thing I did was assemble the video images and text. If someone paid no attention to the audio, I still wanted the video to have its own key messages. The second thing I did was organize the sequence of the audio clips so that the messages in the foreground would sound like one continuous speech.
Feeling something was missing, I took some clips from an interview I did with a formerly homeless gentleman last year. I liked all of the background noise in the interview. I thought his eyes and other facial expressions were very emotive. The clips with him became the inspiration for the music composition.
Then I went about composing the music for the video. This was the most time consuming part of the project. In some ways it was like scoring a film…using music to help drive the emotional attributes of the video images. In some ways it was like putting together a music video…it had to work as a stand-alone piece of music. The toughest part was having a beat to work as a backbone, in line with the tempo of the speech pattern, and one that would “drive” people through the journey of the video.
And then I finally worked the “You are awesome” word messages into the mix at various times as part of the final editing process.
The whole video, audio and editing was completed in my “spare” time – late at night or on airplanes when I was too tired to read or write reports. Other than the music and “You are awesome” phrases, the whole video was created using existing materials that were put together in a new way. It was social media that assembled the crowd of people that had input on the phrases and text that resonated most with them in different communities. What I liked about this was that it provided a strong voice to how others have interpreted our work and messages rather than me providing solely a self-assessment. Some of the content recommended, honestly, is different than what I expected. For that I am grateful.
Once the video was posted on YouTube, I let people know via Facebook (personal page and corporate page) and Twitter. The fascinating – and unexpected part – in the first couple of days is that people in housing and homeless organizations started dedicating it to their staff or to each other. I also got direct messages relative to parts of the messages or the text that people wanted to know more about. All in all, it turned out to be a really interesting result.
As I write this, only a few days after the tribute release, it has already reached almost 300 views on YouTube. If the power laws of the internet are true, I suspect that this number will increase quite a bit in the coming months. I hope and trust more people on the frontline working their butts off to end homelessness see this and know how much that all of us at OrgCode admire the amazing work that they do. They truly are awesome.
You Are Awesome — A Video Tribute
View the video You Are Awesome —Dedicated to Housing Workers who Believe in Ending Homelessness
Ending homelessness is possible when there are awesome, professional people dedicated to the task.
This video is dedicated to those individuals.
These people inspire me and I hold them in high esteem.
… More to come detailing the video and the role that social media played in creating it.
Input from Persons with Lived Experience
I think it is critical in Human Service delivery that time is spent speaking with recipients of services and benefits to hear directly from them. In the projects we have done – from homeless counts that use surveys to developing long term affordable housing strategies; program evaluations to redesigning income benefits; strategic planning to developing plans to end homelessness – we fundamentally believe that the voice of the consumer must be heard in legitimate, defensible ways to inform and empower end users of services. The adage “Nothing about us without us” from the psychiatric survivor movement rings very true in our work.
Here are 12 tips to introduce/improve interactions with persons with lived experience in your work.
1. Have a research design.
You can’t gather this sort of input and use it responsibly if you have not sorted out the methods by which you are going to gather information and the ethics involved in having people with lived experience involved. Just going out to talk with people is insufficient. How, when, where, why, who and what is spoken about are all essential questions that need to be answered before you start talking to people.
2. Seek informed consent.
Just because someone has received a service from you doesn’t mean they have to talk to you. Same goes for someone who may be eligible for a service but has never accessed a service. People have to be able to provide informed consent to provide their input and for you to use it. It is ethically dubious to assume that just because you are serving someone or can serve someone that they are implicitly consenting for you to use their input.
3. Don’t talk down to people.
Persons with lived experience have unique subject matter expertise. Yet a lot of the time the people engaged with them speak down to them. If the questions, tone or situation for the conversation is in anyway condescending, you’ve got it all wrong.
4. Bring in outsiders.
The people engaged with consumers of your services (past or present) to get their input should be different than the people that they rely on for service on a day to day basis. Bring in a consultant, fellow agency, volunteers or staff from a different program area to get input from the people with lived experience. Otherwise if people even think there is an iota of possibility that what they tell you having an impact on the quality or quantity of service they receive, sunshine will be blown up your derriere.
5. Set the tone.
You can’t just feel people out or end up trying to be a chameleon who can “talk street” or act like someone you are not. It is up to the person getting input from persons with lived experience to set the tone for the conversation…what the conversation is about, how long the conversation will last, how the information will be used, etc.
6. Do something with what you hear.
If you really want people with lived experience to have a meaningful impact in how you deliver services then you must act upon the feedback and other information you receive. Asking for input but doing nothing about it essentially de-values the time and input of people with lived experience.
7. Empower people to have a say.
Honest feedback and input is necessary. People should be encouraged to be as open as they feel comfortable knowing in advance that there are not repercussions for being forthright.
8. Don’t limit responses to folks that are accustomed to participating.
Some communities “suffer” from the same people with lived experience repeatedly on the same types of advisory groups to provide the same type of feedback. While that is all well and good you can’t limit input to just these people. You have to find ways of engaging with those individuals unaware or unaccustomed to providing the sort of input being sought.
9. Be willing to go to places not usually associated with research/feedback.
Related to number 8 above, I have found it very interesting and helpful to go out of my way to get input. I have gotten better response rates and more honest responses, for example, standing in an underpass near a homeless shelter than at the homeless shelter itself. I have done better getting outreach vans to drop me off at encampments and pick me up later than staying with me. I have strolled the streets and alleyways with people involved with sex work. I have stood in the foyer of public housing buildings. I have spent hours on a park bench in a neighborhood chatting to people who pass by. I have been out first thing in the morning as well as the middle of the night. If we want to honor the voice of people with lived experience it has to be about the places and times of day that make sense for them, not us.
10. Don’t confuse lived experience with expertise.
Just because someone has experienced, say, homelessness does not mean they are an expert on all matters of homelessness. There are some people who have never experienced homelessness that have a lot of expertise in homelessness. It is what the input is about that matters, not that all input is of expert caliber. Let me give you an example…I have had my appendix out and my gall bladder out, and I have broken my hip. I would consider myself to have some expertise in describing the pain, approach to getting care and how to be rehabilitated afterwards for any of these three conditions. However, I would not consider myself to have the expertise to prescribe pain medication, conduct the surgery, insert pins into a person’s bones or outline an appropriate meal plan or exercise schedule.
11. Gather the input on a scheduled basis.
Gather input when you say you will gather input from the people you generally intend to get input from. If the information collection from people with lived experience is seen as haphazard more than intentional you may not get the sort of rigorous feedback that you will benefit most from through the experience.
12. Don’t underestimate access to technology.
I now find it comical when service providers tell me not to use Twitter or Facebook or Survey Monkey or similar tools to get input from people who are homeless or experience precarious housing or poverty. Why? Because I tend to get response rates much higher than one might expect from the general population. Economically poor and homeless people tend to have considerable access to technology and wherewithal to use it. Avoiding these opportunities is grossly limiting a source for gathering input.
I hope some of these tips will help you in your work and improve your services.
Generating Data is Outstripping our Ability to Interpret It
I was reading a newspaper article the other day about it now being possible to create the genetic map of an unborn child. Fascinating stuff. But there was one line in the article that really got me thinking about data more than genetics itself: “The capacity of genomics to generate data is outstripping our ability to interpret it in useful ways.”
I don’t think this phenomenon is limited to genomics. I can think of lots of fields and industries and individual organizations that place a premium on collecting data but do not have the ability to interpret it in useful ways.
Some errors that drive me around the bend:
Data for data’s sake. I have encountered too many organizations where they jumped on the data bandwagon and collected oodles of info that they never use. They devote loads of time to data for data sake without doing anything with the data. Data should drive decisions and program improvements.
Feeling. I once had a boss that used gut check and nothing else to see if he could use the data to tell the story he wanted to tell. Ugh. If ever the data collided with his world view he would either want to bury the data, have us re-run the analysis (which came up with the same conclusions time and again) or would challenge the methods of data collection (there was nothing wrong with the collection methods). We cannot shy away from data when it tells us something different than what we were expecting or wanted to hear. Data won’t always tell you that you are doing an awesome job.
Incorrect language. This is a well-intentioned error, but a common one all the same. People who don’t use data a lot will use words like “significant” or “sample” in ways that mean something completely different to data nerds and analysts than what they were intending. The result? People question their findings because of the incorrect language use. We could also get into incorrect manipulation of data (like averaging averages) but I won’t go there.
Data analysis plan after the fact. Good scientific and defensible analysis of data requires us to have a good plan for how the data will be looked at before launching into the analysis of the data. Otherwise there can always be the accusation that the data analysis set up after the fact was done in such a way so as to bias the findings.
People without any training drawing conclusions. Data analysis isn’t something that just anyone can do without proper training. We need to be infusing instruction on how to interpret data and take action upon it at the frontline and supervisory levels if we want organizations to use it properly. Oh, and Boards and Funders and Government too where there seems to be no shortage of people who have no clue how to read and interpret data and yet make huge decisions based upon the data.
But it isn’t just about interpretation or the common errors noted above. One major problem is that in many instances the data driven mentality has resulted in groups collecting way more data than they need (or at least trying to collect). A few things that happen as a result:
Incomplete data sets. Hiring an outside expert to make sense of your data when the data sets are largely incomplete will not result in robust findings. Without some key fields filled in within your data system it is sometimes possible to make inferences and use proxy data, but it is not as reliable. We need staff to feel that data entry is part of the real work that they do – not something that happens after the real work is done.
Constantly tweaking data asks. I could throttle (as I’m sure some service providers could as well) senior managers or funders that keep changing what data they want. Doing a file crawl or file audit to try and track down various pieces of data is not only inefficient, it is problematic by way of accuracy in many instances. Data asks should only be altered at the start of a funding year and should only be changed from one year to the next when there is a compelling reason to do so.
Insufficient infrastructure to support analysis. And then there are times when service providers collect all of the data requested and send it to their funder. I have lost count of the number of times there are not enough staff with the Funder to pull the data together across the agencies, undertake the necessary quality assurance analysis on the data, analyze the data appropriately and report back out on the data. It goes into a black hole. Tragic.
So if you want to make the best use of the data collection and analysis in the environment you work in, ask yourself these questions:
Do we correctly capture the information we need to know if we are meeting our stated objectives? Yes, the data collected should be directly linked to the objectives of your activities. Do not collect more than you need to. Keep it simple. And here is a tip – pull together a small group of people who do the work on the frontlines to help define the data to be collected relative to the objectives. They are a great barometer on what is helpful and what is crap.
Do we have a plan for analyzing this information in regular intervals? Set out an analysis and reporting out schedule in advance. Don’t get too ambitious. Figure out what needs to be shared internally and what should be shared externally, how and when. Once you have the plan, stick to it. If you let it slide it is amazing how complacent the organization will be about data and reporting out.
What do we do as a result of this information? This isn’t data collection and analysis just because a funder told you had to in order to get the money. You need to get into a mindset that if you collect only the data you need you should be able to reflect on service delivery and make it better.
How can we do this better? Take a step back once every 6-12 months and ask yourselves how you can collect and use data better. You may find that this is the key to decreasing the amount of data that you collect and doing more meaningful things with the data you do have to improve programming and service outputs and outcomes.
For the umpteenth time, Iain will be presenting Data and Performance Simplified at the National Alliance to End Homelessness Conference in Washington, DC this July – and he is happy to do so. Stay tuned to see the presentation on the Alliance website shortly after the conference.
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
Welcome to today’s Latin lesson. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” means “after it, therefore because of it”. It is the title of a West Wing episode from Season 1 (and you can watch the scene herewhere it is discussed). It also happens to be the sort of thing they teach you if you study logic and comes in handy if you love data and helping organizations improve services.
In a nutshell, you can write up the formula like this:
X happened, then Y happened
Therefore, X caused Y
You can also have people reverse elements of the equation. Let’s say it really sucks for Y to happen. In that case, if you avoid or prevent X then Y won’t occur.
If you look just at the order of events rather than the influences on the events you can draw oodles of false conclusions. A temporal succession of events is not evidence of a causal relation. Does a rooster raising a cacophony just before the sun rises cause the sun to rise?
A lot of times when engaged with people, there is a reliance on anecdotes to explain causation rather than examining influences independently. The problem with anecdotes (amongst many) is that they are open to subjective interpretation, have the bias of the anecdote teller, rely considerably on intuition and frequently ask the listener to believe based upon the existing relationship between anecdote-teller and anecdote-listener rather than facts.
For those of you who love to support or play sports, you know that there is a lot of superstitions that occur which fall victim to post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking. As a species we are in search for meaning. We use superstition to sometimes create explanations for things simply rather than looking at other factors that may have had an influence. Was it really putting on the yellow headband before the tennis match that made her win? Maybe it was that the headband kept the hair out of her eyes. Or maybe it was nothing to do with her headband…that her opponent was under the weather…or that she had trained hard on her serve and footwork…or the match started with the wind at her back…and so on. To state that putting on the yellow headband before the match that she won caused her to win the match just doesn’t cut it.
Key messaging from a public relations perspective frequently falls victim to post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking. In one community recently I heard the following statement from a local elected official, “Since 2002 when we opened the [name of facility withheld] homelessness has dropped 11.78%.”
It begs a lot of questions. What has happened in the local economy over the same period of time? The community was at double digits of unemployment when the facility opened but steadily declined even through the recession. What about the more steady and rapid decline in homelessness after the 10 Year Plan and new programming were introduced in 2007? What about the investments in professional development for staff in the community to the tune of almost $200,000 in the past three years to learn better strategies to help people access and maintain housing? What about the availability of more rent subsidies available since 2008? So, did the facility opening cause the drop in homelessness? It may be part of the equation depending on who the facility caters to and the programs operated out of the facility, but unless you look at the whole picture you can’t say that the drop in homelessness after the facility being opened caused the drop in homelessness. (And as an aside, always exercise caution in Human Services data analysis which goes to a second decimal place…people are trying to baffle you with precision when the precision is not warranted given the margin of error accepted and expected in this type of analysis and research.)
And let’s take a moment to examine the reverse of the formula…that if you prevent X from happening then Y won’t happen. Complex social issues tend to have more than one factor that needs to be considered. For example, homelessness is rarely caused by one event…it is the manifestation of several events over time (where sequence may be irrelevant) that destabilizes housing or the confluence of multiple factors during a single event. A reduction of focus to just one factor tries to over-simplify prevention activities and will likely result in more anecdotes than proof when trying to explain your efforts to prevent homelessness. (Look at this another way – we know lots about risk factors for homelessness and prevalent characteristics of chronically homeless people and families, yet to this day do not have a full-proof way of preventing homelessness because the cause and effect cannot be easily traced and applied to the unique circumstances of different households.)
In Human Services in particular – although applicable to any organization with inter-personal interaction – I strongly urge people to look for meaning and explanation beyond just the sequence of events. Dig deeper. Look at context. Examine a range of rational factors that may have had an influence. Then draw together the plausible narrative of why things are the way that they are.
Dealing with C.R.A.P.
Want to make the world a better place? Want your organization to run more smoothly? Want to change the way people view their community or work environment? Be prepared for CRAP. CRAP = Criticism, Rejection, Assholes and Pressure
Criticism…talk about a gift for people who believe it is better to give than to receive! One observation I have from the field and working with dozens upon dozens of communities – if you are being innovative people will ask what your evidence-base is; if you are drawing upon an evidence-base people will challenge whether that evidence rings true locally and will challenge you to be innovative. We need to balance innovation and evidence-informed service delivery. We need data to defend criticism from uninformed outsiders, but also be open to criticizing ourselves in the spirit of improvement. Criticism is normal. A bunch of “yes people” do not advance ideas or improvement. About the only type of criticisms that I reject are unsolicited ones based upon uninformed opinion and vague criticism that I don’t know how to interpret or put into actionable improvement.
Rejection…often seen as the flipside of acceptance, one of the toughest lessons in my professional career has been not taking rejection personally. I have confused rejection with ostracism. Rejection happens both passively and actively…the former keeping me up at night and the latter sometimes raising my “fight or flight” response. I have come to expect that people will reject new ideas or even proven ideas if it collides with their worldview. So, to address the possibility of rejection I have learned more and more about how the introduction of an idea –new or old – is sometimes more important than the idea itself if we want people to have openness to the experience of a new idea. Sometimes this means being a straight shooter, rather provocative, with some charisma and perhaps even some bravado. Other times it can mean patience, soft spoken and almost apologetic introduction of an idea or facts. Other times still it is a big room full of people where there are more likely to be some kindred spirits, whereas other times it is a small kitchen table trying to pull together a small coalition of like-minded people. Situational awareness and emotional intelligence is so key for creating an environment where rejection is less likely.
Assholes…so many ways to use this category. First off, I recommend taking Bob Sutton’s “Asshole Rating Self Exam (ARSE)” for insight and perhaps comic relief, though I think it is spot on in many respects. You can also take a gander at Cracked’s “5 Scientific Reasons Why People Act Like Assholes” which is also illuminating. The biggest assholes I have had to deal with are “professional” controversialists. I find it maddening when their polemical assertions are pointed in the wrong direction. How many times do I have to deal with being seen as evil because I helped a homeless person access housing (that is sustainable) but couldn’t solve their poverty? Was being poor and homeless better than poor and housed? Sigh. Also on my butthole list (in no particular order) are: people who create data or misinterpret data to “prove” their point; people who constantly interject without listening; people who degrade homeless persons; other consultants that are so competitive they spend most of their time putting others down; people who hurt children or puppies; men who beat their significant other; people that cut in front of me in line or in traffic; people who constantly rant on Facebook; okay – I will stop here.
Pressure…careful what you ask for rings true when I think of pressure. If you are successful, people can want you to be even more successful. Go the extra mile to meet deadlines to impact change? People may expect you to run a marathon weekly – or even daily. Finally got the public/media attention that you wanted for your issue? Now you will find yourself potentially the spokesperson for everything. Prepared an awesome presentation to explain a complex issue? You can feel the pressure to re-work other people’s presentations…become known as the “presentation guru”. Answer your work phone in the evening when clients call? You may feel the pressure to be “on” 24/7. You get the point. Pressure can start external, but it is when we internalize that pressure it can consume us…burn us out…diminish our desire to make positive change happen. Positive tension is a good thing in most instances, so holding things in balance is key to success.
CRAP happens. If you are prepared for it, you can ride the wave and even use it to your advantage. If you let it consume you, you will find yourself buried and unhappy – and less likely to want to affect change. Some tips:
Spend time thinking about how you are likely going to be criticized in advance of launching your new approach.
Be open to feedback – even critical feedback – when it is provided in the spirit of improvement.
Think of the best ways to get your ideas across – new or old – depending on the audience at hand.
Practice a variety of approaches of generating support for the same subject matter.
Don’t respond to assholes…their quest is to tear down without a solution focus. Investing your time with them only legitimizes their assertions.
Determine when and how you will respond to external pressures so that you can still exercise appropriate self care.