Category: Organization Development

Big announcements require major crisis prevention planning

Twitter on Thursday announced that it is now able to block tweets that run afoul of certain countries’ restrictions on speech, but that has prompted backlash from users who fear the micro-blogging service will honor takedown requests from repressive regimes.

In explaining the move, Twitter mentioned France and Germany, which ban pro-Nazi speech. But many users questioned how this might play out in the Middle East, for example, where social networks like Twitter and Facebook played a key role as organizational tools during last year’s Arab Spring uprisings.

As a result, the term #TwitterCensored is now a trending topic in the United Arab Emirates. Many angry users have also pledged not to use Twitter on Saturday, Jan. 28 in protest of the move, much like the anti-SOPA/PIPA Internet blackouts here in the United States.

We were as shocked as anyone to hear the news contained in this quote, from a PC Magazine article by Chloe Albanesius. Twitter, which grew from techie tool to worldwide phenomenon on the back of natural disasters and revolts against oppression, appears to be acting against the very freedom which made it a social media icon.

What was even more surprising to us as crisis management professionals was that Twitter seemed seriously underprepared for the highly predictable backlash, issuing a cryptic statement explaining that if “we receive a valid and properly scoped request from an authorized entity, it may be necessary to reactively withhold access to certain content in a particular country from time to time.” While you may be able to puzzle through that one, to the layperson it may as well be Greek, and that makes Twitter look shady. You absolutely have to use the language of the people, or your words will be chalked up as deception.

Belatedly, the folks at Twitter published this blog post, which is actually solid, and very much along the lines of what we would have recommended.

The biggest question that arose in our minds as we discussed Twitter’s announcement was…why now? SOPA/PIPA was just stalled after a massive uproar came from the web, so why in the world would you decide this was a great time to announce improved censorship capabilities for your net-based service?

Perhaps they’ve never heard the phrase, “timing is everything?”

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc. , an international crisis management consultancy, and author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Manage a crisis AND run a business? Are you ready?

When a major crisis hits, it can feel like the bottom just fell out of your whole organization. Energy is focused on response and recovery, communication and crisis management, and it can be easy to set daily duties aside. While obviously you have to assign considerable assets to handling the situation, it’s too easy to forget that you still have stakeholders, customers, and employees who expect your business to continue operating. What are you to do, and why should you care about business as usual in the midst of a crisis situation? Check out this quote from a PR Studio Boston blog post:

Don’t stop moving FORWARD!

This is the “one size fits all” tactic in a crisis. Do not let a crisis consume every aspect of your public relations. Even if it is a major crisis and you are consumed, designate someone on the PR team who is the ‘business as usual’ person. Don’t stop issuing information on positive happenings just because you are inundated. Bad news is contagious and once you are in a crisis you will be subject to a pig pile mentality. The only way to get out from under is to keep moving forward with the other aspects of your organization. Even if reporters do not want to hear about anything other than the crisis, too bad… it is your job to keep telling them any way and to try like heck to break the chain. If you allow the crisis to define your organization then it will.

Yes, you should still put more than enough resources into your crisis management team to handle the job, but keep the business machine running in the meantime. Of course, the level at which you’re able to do this depends on the size of your organization, along with your available resources, but even one-man operations should be able to some extent. If you’ve got to dip into your pocket to hire on a temporary receptionist, or keep legal counsel on call for a week or two, then spend the money. The ability to maintain through adversity will inspire trust from stakeholders, and keep the money coming in.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc. , an international crisis management consultancy, and author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

One of my childhood memories is of my fifth grade English teacher posing this question to us as she analyzed a piece of classical literature: does the means justify the ends? She qualified her question with, “I know you are too young to understand this, but one day you will.” I wonder how many of us ask ourselves that question while evaluating programs. In a way, we’re also asking, “Which is really more important to us—the means or the ends, that is, the process or the outcome?” Today we will review simple definitions of 3 types of evaluations: process evaluations, impact evaluations, and outcome evaluations. Introduction to Program Evaluation courses often include this component. For more experienced evaluators, I encourage you to critically consider: if forced to choose just two out of these following 3 options within a particular evaluation situation, which would you rank as more important and why?

Process Evaluations

These evaluate the program activities and methods a program uses to achieve its outcomes. These activities should be directly linked to the intermediary and ultimate outcomes that your program will target. Examples of measures and evaluation questions include:

• number and demographics of participants served,
• number of activities such as number of prevention workshops conducted
• Were activities really implemented as planned? How closely was curriculum followed, etc.

Impact Evaluations

These measure intermediary “outcomes” such as changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors that specifically link to the ultimate outcomes your program will target. In order to be able to capture these changes, make sure to measure these items before (pre-test or baseline data) and after (post-test) your intervention. For example, a heart disease prevention program may provide workshops targeting intermediary outcomes such as changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to nutrition and exercise. We can view these intermediate outcomes as a “go-between” that connects the procedures with the outcomes. A quick note: theory-driven and research-based program activities and measures are much more likely to actually produce/demonstrate the outcomes a program is seeking.

Outcome Evaluations

These evaluate changes in the ultimate outcomes your program is targeting. Again, remember to collect this data before and after your intervention. In our heart disease prevention program, we might measure changes in numbers of coronary events such as heart attacks, etc. In general, this level of outcomes can be harder to measure, especially in cases where stigma or shame is associated with the outcome you are measuring.

Process Evaluation ←→Impact Evaluation ←→ Outcome Evaluation

Thoughts

In program evaluation, both the means and the ends are equally critical. Let us consider the importance of process evaluations since it is so easy to overlook the means. The process indeed determines the outcome. In a well-designed program, process measures link closely to intermediary outcomes, which in turn link closely to final outcomes. If the process evaluation reveals shortages, that is, if the program has not really been implemented as planned, the final outcomes may suffer. A good process evaluation provides an adequate program description over the course of the evaluation, which is so important! A program description portrays what the program is essentially and really all about. This is not that easy to accomplish but is worth the effort. What the program essentially is in its core will determine the outcomes it produces.

Different programmatic contexts call for different evaluations. It is beyond the scope of this post to provide an exhaustive list of the different types of evaluations. Here are a couple resources however:

http://www.cdc.gov/NCIPC/pub-res/dypw/03_stages.htm

Program Evaluation, Third Edition: Forms and Approaches (2006) by John M. Owen.

Question:

Evaluators, if forced to choose just two out of these 3 options, which would you rank as more important within your particular program context and why?

Announcement:

Who: The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) at the University of Minnesota is offering

What: a two-day “Introduction to Program Evaluation” workshop by Stacey Stockdill, within its Spring Conference: Evaluation in a Complex World: Changing Expectations, Changing Realities

When: Monday, March 26-Tuesday, March 27, 2012.

Where: University of Minnesota – Saint Paul Campus, Falcon Heights, MN 55113

Scholarships may be available for the Introduction to Program Evaluation workshop. Scholarship application deadline: February 24, 2012.

For more information: http://www.cura.umn.edu/news/scholarships-available-two-day-introduction-program-evaluation-workshop

Contact Person: William Craig

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Nonprofit Capacity Building.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Priya Small has extensive experience in collaborative evaluation planning, instrument design, data collection, grant writing and facilitation. Contact her at priyasusansmall@gmail.com. Visit her website at http://www.priyasmall.wordpress.com. See her profile at http://www.linkedin.com/in/priyasmall/

Following President Obama’s State of the Union speech last week, we thought this would be a good time to evaluate the state of the social enterprise sector. So here is the npEnterprise Forum’s official, revised* State of the SE Sector 2012 address.

Emerging Private Sector SEs

Private sector SEs are now gaining momentum and recognition. Truth be told, the private sector started thousands of social enterprises in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, long before a large number of nonprofits “discovered” the field in the ‘90s. Today, there’s a return to the private sector, as many social entrepreneurs prefer the legal flexibility and access to capital found in for-profit business models. We’re also seeing new strategies and partnerships between the sectors to build on each other’s strengths.

SE Surge on Campus

SE has become a “hot” academic topic, with an explosion of courses and degree programs in social enterprise and related topics, including social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Last year, we created a list of graduate school SE programs; today, more programs could be added to list, including many at the undergraduate level.

SE Gets Younger

As SE becomes more mature, the practitioner is getting younger. That’s a good thing, on campus and elsewhere. Many young people are graduating today with a strong desire to start their own social enterprises rather than work for a corporation. And going even younger, there are programs like SAGEGlobal, which works with high school social entrepreneurs in 21 countries.

The Resurgent Practitioner

While the modern SE movement was founded and initially propelled by consultants, it is now being driven more and more by SE practitioners. Sure, consultants, lawyers, and academics have an important role to play in this work (and, hey, I’m one of them), but the SE movement needs to be about SEs, not service providers or anyone else. The good news is that things are moving in that direction. For the first time in its history, Social Enterprise Alliance now has a practitioner as its CEO. Here in the Rockies, SEA Colorado requires a majority of practitioners on its board, as is its chair and vice-chair. Most SEA chapters include a healthy mix of practitioners in their leadership teams. Similarly, a number of recent SE books have been written by practitioners.

Mapping The Sector

New efforts to catalog the sector are emerging, in ways designed to drive sales to existing SEs. In previous blogs, I’ve written about Buy With Heart, the online guide for Rhode Island, the SE Dining Map, and the Directory of SE Directories. There is also now an initial map of Colorado SEs. This new focus on driving sales, by increased visibility and ultimately by attracting corporate and government contracts, is designed to increase sustainability and growth of existing SEs, as well as encourage new ones to form.

Global Movements Gets Local Boost

There is now much more going on with SE at the local level than just a few years ago. There arethirteen SEA chapters across the US, with more on the way. Each one is bringing together local social enterprisers, academics and support providers, to build communication networks and share information among existing SEs and to encourage the creation of new SEs. Similarly, SEA is planning a series of local conferences in 2012, rather than one-big Social Enterprise Summit.

Less Rhetoric, More Market-Focus

One thing I’ve noticed in the workshops I’ve presented recently is an increased understanding that SE’s need to compete in the marketplace like any other business. That they must be approached with the same kind of flexibility and market-savvy that private sector companies have to carry out every day to survive let alone prosper. Mission does not sell products; only good products can do that. Also, I’m hearing less hyperbole about SE replacing the need for grants (for nonprofits), but rather as a strategy to increase impact and gain greater sustainability.

Hybrid Organizations

There are now more and more L3C’s and for-benefit corporations, with some of them having years of experience under their belts. While the expected availability of special financing (especially program related investments from foundations) has not been realized so far, these companies are blazing the trail on how private sector companies can focus on both financial and mission bottom lines. They are also writing the book on how to measure social impact, an essential but difficult topic that needs to be addressed to attract investments in the future.

Social Capital/Social Impact Markets

Finally, numerous alternative forms of financing are emerging for social enterprises through social venture funds and crowd sourced financing strategies. Recently I wrote a blog about the proposed Entrepreneur’s Access to Capital Act, which, if approved, would dramatically increase small business access to individual investors. Also, the federal Social Innovation Fund supports social impact markets by funding organizations that actively invest in high-impact solutions to a social problem, including social enterprises. Catalyst Kitchen, for example, is now an Innovation Fund grantee and able to re-grant funds to members of their collaborative. Incidentally, these kinds of collaborative networks (SEA is another one) play a significant and growing role in increasing impact and sustainability of SEs.

[*Special thanks to people who offered suggestions to an earlier version, specifically Jerr Boschee, David Carleton and David Weisberger]

• Copyright © 2012 Rolfe Larson Associates – 15th Anniversary!
• Author Venture Forth! Endorsed by Paul Newman of Newman’s Own
• Read my weekly blogs on Social Enterprise and Business Planning

What do you want out of social media?

Every successful voyage needs a defined goal that justifies the inherent risks. Similarly, when embarking on using social media to bolster crisis management, your organization must establish specific goals. These goals can be social, economic and political in nature.

In the course of our practice we have encountered companies that are using social media without having taken the time to integrate social media into their strategic goals. This approach is bound to result in a less than satisfactory outcome because the use of social media must be in alignment with relevant business objectives.

This quote, from a Disaster Recovery Journal blog post by Gideon For-mukwai, should be mandatory reading for every exec hatching a social media plan. While it is vitally important for businesses to have a social media presence, blindly stepping out there will often lead to frustration and wasted money.

Now, we’re not saying that you need a ten-page plan for this, not at all. What you do need is to sit down with your organization’s leadership and determine your goals as far as social media goes. A typical list might read:

1. Improve customer service
2. Protect our reputation from negative conversation
3. Marketing new products or services

With your priorities straight, you can determine how to accomplish your goals. On this list customer service is number one, so you would likely want to designate specific employees to monitor and respond to direct messages and mentions of your organization. Although obviously things can get as complex as you want, this is plenty to get a solid start.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc. , an international crisis management consultancy, and author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Bernstein Crisis Management will not be active online today in protest of the proposed PIPA and SOPA laws.

Oops!

The New York Times thought it was sending an email to a few hundred people who had recently canceled subscriptions, offering them a 50 percent discount for 16 weeks to lure them back.

Instead, Wednesday’s offer went to 8.6 million email addresses of people who had given them to the Times.

That was the first mistake. The second came when the Times tweeted this: “If you received an email today about canceling your NYT subscription, ignore it. It’s not from us.”

But the Times did send the original email, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said.

This quote, from an AP article, published by MSN Money, describes the trouble The New York Times found itself in at the tail end of December.

What was probably a simple mechanical mistake, one person selecting the wrong list when preparing the email campaign, led to an undisclosed loss for The New York Times, not to mention some reputation damage.

As far as the initial email goes, it was an honest mistake, and choosing to honor the offer for the better part of the day was a smart PR move. The Tweet though, is inexcusable. There is little doubt that whoever authors the NY Times Twitter account was well aware of the situation when they made that post, and whether it was a genuine attempt at deflection or humor gone terribly flat, it looked like a lie. People don’t want to get their news from an organization that lies, and that’s where the Times took an unhealthy amount of reputation damage.

Will this break the Times? Obviously not. Was it damage that could easily have been avoided? Absolutely. Especially in markets as competitive as that of bringing news to the public has become, opponents will take advantage of every slip you make. Stay honest, double (triple, quadruple, whatever it takes!) check before sending important messages, and hold on to every advantage you’ve got.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc. , an international crisis management consultancy, and author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

At my blog, Marion Conway – Nonprofit Consultant, I have just posted my annual list of resolutions for nonprofit leaders with recommendations from seven nonprofit experts. This is the fourth year that I have prepared such a post and it is interesting to see the tone being set at the beginning of each year. This year I’d say the tone is clearly “Be the best you can be.” It is upbeat and forward looking – very encouraging. Every year I am amazed by the breadth of the wisdom offered from the philosophical to the down to earth practical. And this year, the ideas seem to have a certain punch and bounce that makes you want to connect with them.

This blog post is a companion piece to the resolutions post which has been very popular. It is not intended to be a list of goals that you can cut and paste into your 2012 objectives. Rather, it provides some guiding principles and things to think about when you are forming your specific goals for 2012. At Marion Conway-Nonprofit Consultant you can see the exact words of wisdom offered by each contributor. The nonprofit expert contributors this year are Anne Ackerson, Susan Detweiler, Jay Frost, Pamela Grow, Linda Lysakowski, Marc Pitman and Terrie Temkin. You can visit their blog or website by clicking on their name. I’ve organized the ideas into categories:

Fundraising/Development

ASK! – in capital and bold letters – often, and lots of ways – both traditional and using Social Media. Don’t be shy about asking.

Get to know and connect with your donors in a personal way in all phases from cultivation through thank yous.

Get smarter – Try new approaches – Seek out training in marketing not just fundraising

Engage the CEO and Board in all phases

Think of the donor in terms of long term value and cultivate for the long term

Mission, Operations, Evaluation, Creativity, Boards

Understand and communicate your value proposition

Take evaluation seriously

Spend more time on “play” – it develops creativity – very much needed in the nonprofit sector

Center your policy, operations and decisions on your mission.

Have the Right State of Mind – From My Own 2012 Resolutions

I, of course, added my own two cents to the list which is simply to eliminate some of the “busyness” that takes so much time, and adds so little value to my life. This busyness has been cluttering my brain and keeping me from dealing with issues in depth. In 2012 I plan to fight back the sound bite life and give the “blue chips” more “in depth” attention.

I am moving into a new more spacious office space courtesy of my adult son moving into his own apartment. (Yeah!!!) I am getting rid of stuff and getting more organized in my new space. There is a place to continue to have candles lit when I am in a pensive mood or fresh flowers when I need to wake my spirits. My husband, Hugh, did a scale floor plan with pieces for the furniture and in the big empty space in the middle he had a piece that said “Zach’s play area.” Zach is my two and a half year old grandson and he does like to visit Grandma in her office. (You can also read about my escapades as a grandmother at The Grandma Chronicles). So I am looking forward to the type of year Anne talks about with “real meat on the value bones” and I plan to take Terrie’s advice and “add more play to my work.”

I hope you have found these ideas to be food for thought as you set your own goals for 2012. Please share in the comments any additional thoughts or feedback on these ideas.

Marion

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Nonprofit Capacity Building.

Going against convention boosts J&J’s brand reputation

Apologies are supposed to be serious. If you’re joking, then you don’t really mean it, right?

Johnson & Johnson, whose handling of the infamous 1982 Tylenol tampering murders and ensuing crisis management still stands as a “how-to” case study today, begs to differ, and did so in style with a hilarious video apologizing for shortages in a particularly popular brand of tampon.

Why’d it work? Larry Kahaner explains in this quote from a McGowan Fund blog post:

Just like the Tylenol incident which has become a standard case study in B-Schools (I included it in my own book Say It and Live It.) this event will be studied as well because it goes against the conventional wisdom that says to never use humor in a apology. The danger of the joke fall flat can be devastating to a company’s reputation and brand. This time, however, humor works perfectly. Why? For one thing, nobody died. Second, it’s personalized in a way that seems downright magical. Third, the company makes fun of the shortfall in a way that is not mean spirited but jests, ever so slightly, at the personal affection and loyalty women feel for this product. J&J has found the perfect mix of ‘we’re truly sorry,’ and ‘gee, we didn’t realize how much you cared.’ They show that they appreciate the ardor women have for the product but also make a bit of fun at how overzealous this love can be. They’re also making light of romance novel and cheesy nighttime drama stereotypes. It’s a balance that is nearly impossible to pull off, but they did.

The topper is that they offer a free coupon for the product at the video’s end. Nothing says sorry like free.

As Lara explained, the key to this working was that the apology wasn’t really needed at all. A shortage of one particular product on a flooded market isn’t a major crisis management concern, but spotting the opportunity to create positive online buzz regarding a returning product and brand in general? That’s the type of move that separates the good from the great.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc. , an international crisis management consultancy, and author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Program evaluations are “individual systematic studies conducted periodically or on an ad hoc basis to assess how well a program is working¹.” What was your reaction to this definition? Has the prospect of undertaking a “research study” ever deterred you for conducting a program evaluation? Good news! Did you know that program evaluation is not the same as research and usually does not need to be as complicated?

In fact, evaluation is a process in which we all unconsciously engage to some degree or another on a daily, informal basis. How do you choose a pair of boots? Unconsciously you might consider criteria such as looks, how well the boots fit, how comfortable they are, and how appropriate they are for their particular use (walking long distances, navigating icy driveways, etc.).

Though we use the same techniques in evaluation and research and though both methods are equally systematic and rigorous (“exhaustive, thorough and accurate”²), here are a few differences between evaluation and research:

Program Evaluation Focuses on a Program vs. a Population

Research aims to produce new knowledge within a field. Ideally, researchers design studies to be able to generalize findings to the whole population–every single individual within the group being studied. Evaluation only focuses on the particular program at hand. Evaluations may face added resource and time constraints.

Program Evaluation Improves vs. Proves

Daniel L. Stufflebeam, Ph.D., a noted evaluator, captured it succinctly: “The purpose of evaluation is to improve, not prove³.” In other words, research strives to establish that a particular factor caused a particular effect. For example, smoking causes lung cancer. The requirements to establish causation are very high. The goal of evaluation, however, is to help improve a particular program. In order to improve a program, program evaluations get down-to-earth. They examine all the pieces required for successful program outcomes, including the practical inner workings of the program such as program activities.

Program Evaluation Determines Value vs. Being Value-free

Another prominent evaluator, Michael J. Scriven, Ph.D., notes that evaluation assigns value to a program while research seeks to be value-free⁴. Researchers collect data, present results and then draw conclusions that expressly link to the empirical data. Evaluators add extra steps. They collect data, examine how the data lines up with previously-determined standards (also known as criteria or benchmarks) and determine the worth of the program. So while evaluators also make conclusions that must faithfully reflect the empirical data, they take the extra steps of comparing the program data to performance benchmarks and judging the value of the program. While this may seem to cast evaluators in the role of judge we must remember that evaluations determine the value of programs so they can help improve them.

Program Evaluations ask “Is it working?” vs. “Did it work”

Tom Chapel, MA, MBA, Chief Evaluation Officer at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) differentiates between evaluation and research on the basis of when they occur in relation to time:

Researchers must stand back and wait for the experiment to play out. To use the analogy of cultivating tomato plants, researchers ask, “How many tomatoes did we grow?” Evaluation, on the other hand, is a process unfolding “in real time.” In addition to determining numbers of tomatoes, evaluators also inquire about related areas like, “how much watering and weeding is taking place?” “Are there nematodes on the plants?” If evaluators realize that activities are insufficient, staff are free to adjust accordingly.⁵

To summarize, evaluation: 1) focuses on programs vs. populations, 2) improves vs. proves, 3) determines value vs. stays value-free and 4) happens in real time. In light of these 4 points, evaluations, when carried out properly, have great potential to be very relevant and useful for program-related decision-making. How do you feel?

References:

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Performance Measurement and Evaluation. Retrieved January 8, 2012 from http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gg98026.pdf
2. Definition of “rigorous.” Retrieved January 8, 2012 from google.com
3. Stufflebeam, D.L. (2007). CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist. Retrieved January 8, 2012 from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/cippchecklist_mar07.pdf
4. Coffman, J. (2003). Ask the Expert: Michael Scriven on the Differences Between Evaluation and Social Science Research. The Evaluation Exchange, 9(4). Retrieved January 8, 2012 from http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/reflecting-on-the-past-and-future-of-evaluation/michael-scriven-on-the-differences-between-evaluation-and-social-science-research
5. Chapel, T.J. (2011). American Evaluation Association Coffee Break Webinar: 5 Hints to Make Your Logic Models Worth the Time and Effort. Attended online on January 5, 2012

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Nonprofit Capacity Building.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Priya Small has extensive experience in collaborative evaluation planning, instrument design, data collection, grant writing and facilitation. Contact her at priyasusansmall@gmail.com. Visit her website at http://www.priyasmall.wordpress.com. See her profile at http://www.linkedin.com/in/priyasmall/