Re: Programs with government and nonprofit staff teams?

Cindy, will you send Nancy a copy of the original grant proposal and 
this year's annual report?  Her address is below.  Thank you.

Nancy, I will finally get back to answering you.  If you have
additional questions after I respond, let me know.  The answers to 
your questions are below:

> Date:          Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:30:05 +0000
> To:            "Jeff Goebel" <goebel@mail.wsu.edu>
> From:          ng13@cornell.edu (Nancy Grudens Schuck)
> Subject:       Re: Programs with government and nonprofit staff teams?
> Cc:            sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu

> Dear Jeff and SANET,
> Thanks very much for your reply. Yes, this is the sort of example I was
> looking for, to help my thinking on an aspect of my research that wants to
> understand the challenges and advantages of pairing staff with different
> institutional (or not) affiliations.
> I have some questions about this good work in Washington. I do agree with
> you that expertise comes in many forms.
> First, do you have written materials on your program that you could send to me?
> Second, because of my unfamiliarity with the Covey model, I did not
> understand several aspects of your description.
> (1) Do the members of the teams (whatever affiliation -- sounds like you've
> got lots of networks engaged) teach together when they teach to their
> broadest audience?

This varies from group to group and situation.  They do participate 
in four regional sessions about twice or three times a year in which 
someone facilitates learning.  They then go back to their communities 
and facilitate this learning with others in their communities, 
businesses or families.  In the consensus building process we use, 
the knowledge of the group is honored and solutions come from the 
community based on sessions they facilitate.
> (2) Do members of MSG's teach different things to each other (or to
> others), e.g. is there a 'train-the-trainers/process' part, and a
> 'content/facilitation' part?

Yes, very much so.  The faciliatation role changes (power is shifted) 
during each meeting.  The extension person is as much a learner as 
everyone else.  The extension person is also a teacher, as is 
everyone else.
> (3) I am pleased to see that the model has advantages and that you are
> happy with the progress it has made. Are their also specific challenges? (I
> don't assume that you can or should share the 'problems.' For myself, in
> projects with many partners, I sometimes hesitate to speak about the
> challenges as an individual, nor do I assume that e-mails on large e-mail
> discussion list is the way to understand this issue! But, I *am* curious.

"Quality" is always an issue.  But since I haven't met anyone who is 
in the "know", it really seems to work itself out.  By honoring each 
individual and their knowledge, it seems to draw a intense desire and 
willingness to learn more.  A curiosity is produced.  Also, as Stephen 
Covey in his book, "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", points 
out, three-person teaching is a powerful way to learn.  Retention 
levels go way up, from 10-30% to 50-90%.  That's significant!

The biggest challenge is one of power.  Are the "experts" willing to 
accept the knowledge and frailties of individuals, who used to be 
considered their cliental or "students"?  Each person has something 
unique to offer and contribute.
> Thanks!
> Nancy GS
> ***************************
> Nancy Grudens Schuck
> Graduate Student
> Mailing address (Aug. '96-July '97)
> 14 Home Street Apt. 202
> Guelph, Ontario, N1H 2E5
> E-mail: ng13@cornell.edu
> ***************************