Learning 
The following is a discussion of the learning that took place during the project. True to our philosophy, "mistakes are wonderful opportunities to learn!" Much of the following answers the question, "Now that you have completed the activity, what would you do differently next time?"
The discussion is organized to address each element of the project. There are links from each element of the project to the learning associated with that element and back from the learning to the project element. Further feedback from you is welcome, contact: Web Manager dmbro@iastate.edu or Project Director bberna@iastate.edu.
| Our learning regarding implementing CYFAR philosophy |
|
Return to Overview |
To truly undertake the steps to engage members of the target population, to look for strengths when it is easier to dismiss them, and to take advantage of teachable moments takes time and effort. It may seem like it is easier for staff to coordinate an ice cream social or family night event, but it is not empowering to do for others. It may seem tedious to watch citizens wrestle with the steps to implementing a neighborhood social event, but it is full of teachable moments.
The results are awe inspiring:
- A shy woman takes great pride in completing a task that matches her talents and she is asked to teach a class for youth by the City Leisure Services Department.
- A gentleman who attended special education classes and dropped out before graduating finds that he has people skills and a genuine excitement about gathering public input as he begins to attend City meetings and considers a seat on the Housing Commission.
- Planning the next event takes less time and effort as natural leaders begin to emerge.
| Our learning regarding project director and coordinator |
|
Return to Timeline |
The project moved quickly into forming initial partnerships due to the many connections already in place as a result of the Project Director's long time position with Dubuque County Extension. The Coordinator position was held by someone new to the community. Although the relationships made by the Project Director could be transferred to the Coordinator, it did take some time for trust to be built and for this 'unknown quantity' - the new Coordinator - to make connections. It is important to support the transfer of community/partner trust from known staff to new staff.
Some of our learning took place when there were changes in staff. This allowed us to observe differences in approaches to empowerment activities. What seemed to be effective early on, was not as effective in the long term. Just as in therapeutic relationships creating an initial dependence is an appropriate step. And just as in a therapeutic relationship, the purpose of the work is to wean the dependence and create a healthy interdependence. There is a danger in using this process if the helper begins to enjoy being needed and does not bgin to teach empowerment skills to decrease group dependence on the helper.
The Coordinator developed close ties to one of the citizen groups. She attended all of the meetings, wrote grants, and led the group. Initially, this was quite helpful for the group, but when this staff person left, the group went through a period of not knowing how to lead meetings, write a grant or make connections to complete activities. A new community staff person took a slightly different approach.
A new community staff person in a similar role as the Coordinator attended neighborhood meetings, but not all of them. During meetings suggestions were offered as teachable moments arose. Observations during the meetings were used to prepare an agenda for a more private meeting with the leadership of the group. During the private meeting ideas about goals were discussed as leadership skills were taught informally. In time the group began to exercise some more advanced leadership and meeting planning skills. The direction of the group discussion changed (focused more on the positive outcomes and how to repeat them, than on blaming persons for not doing things) and more was accomplished during meetings.
| Our learning regarding partnerships |
|
Return to Partnerships |
Each partner is unique. The culture of the partnership organization influences the level to which the partner implements CYFAR philosophy or a similar strengths-based systems philosophy. Some partner organizations may not have embraced the philosophy, but the staff of those organizations who interacted with the project did understand and implement the philosophy. It did see that the level of depth of a partnership varied with the level the partner organization implemented the philosophy. Organizations with only a surface level understanding or superficial implementation of the philosophy enjoyed only a surface level partnership with the project. The project accepted what the partners were able to provide and took advantage of many teachable moments.
The most difficult situation was wrestling with the dilemma: "Is it appropriate implementation of the philosophy to confront a partner who says they are implementing the philosophy --- who believes they are focusing on strengths --- who believes they are sharing power with citizens, when their behavior appears to be focusing on deficits and disempowering?" The dilemma continues -- we have never confronted, we took advantage of teachable moments, but the learning curve seems to have reached a plateau.
| Our learning regarding St. Mark Community Center |
|
Return to St. Mark |
Locating the CYFAR Coordinator within the target area was extremely helpful in developing relationships with citizens. Being located at the Center during its time of growth and outreach to the neighborhood increased access by citizens. Staff learned about needs and opportunities quickly and were able to provide resources in response. As citizens got to know the Center, they got to know the project. As citizens got to know the project, they were drawn to the Center and began to learn about its resources. Additionally, being located with a partner strengthened the partnership relationship. The Center was able to learn more about Extension and all of its resources --- increasing the number of educational offerings at the Center.
| Our learning regarding the North End Neighborhood |
|
Return to North End |
The North End Neighborhood Council was the group of citizens that as we look back on the project we believe received the most services of the project and made the best use of the project resources. In reflecting on this thought, it seems that this neighborhood was at the right place in their history, growth and development to make the best use of what The Connecting Link was all about. Historically, the North End has been the home of active, caring neighborhood leaders who at times of greatest need, were very outspoken. With this history to support them, the new leaders also focussed their efforts on caring for their youth and families. They were ready to increase the resources coming into the neighborhood to support their youth and families.
As a result, the Coordinator was embraced for her connections to resources, her knowledge of computers, her ability to connect with the schools and her ability to develop a grant proposal and make sense of City of Dubuque processes. From her support grew the activities listed in the North End Neighborhood Council section.
If asked what we would do differently in the future, it would be to make sure that neighbors become familiar with each and every skill the Coordinator was able to provide. After the Coordinator position was discontinued, the neighbors had many skills in grant administration, but had not refined and practiced grant planning, development and writing skills. The group continued to be somewhat dependent on Extension staff to continue activities throughout their neighborhood.
This leads us to the dilemma: "Are there times where it is appropriate for staff (of some organization) to perform duties or should we 'expect' neighbors to take responsibility for every aspect of their neighborhood?" As we think of higher resource neighborhoods and the roles of those neighbors, we see a pattern of citizens not organized, not taking on responsibility for resource development, not engaging in group activities, and we wonder, "Do we expect too much of people just because they live in a low resource area?", "Why is it that we expect more of persons living in the target areas of this project, than we expect of ourselves/persons in non-target areas in the role of neighbor?"
North End Family Nights, Resource Fairs and Socials
It is important that the group learn about taking minutes of meetings and document the process they undertook to plan and implement events. The more they have written down, the easier it is to replicate their successes and avoid repeating mistakes in future events. Assisting the group to create notebooks and files with all the information about events not only teaches organizational skills, but preserves the institutional/group learning/knowledge.
| Our learning regarding the Downtown Neighborhood Council |
|
Return to Downtown Neighborhood Council |
The Downtown Neighborhood Council had some very strong leadership in the early years of the project. These leaders connected to the City of Dubuque's Neighborhood Development Specialist in much the same way the North End had connected with the project Coordinator. This group provided a couple key annual activities, which petered out over time as the number of leaders decreased and the number of neighbors engaging in meetings decreased. In the early years of the project, the neighborhood which includes a historical district was very concerned about the disrepair of homes/row houses along the bluff. The neighbors came together, engaged the expertise of the COPS (community oriented police/bicycle patrol) and confronted landlords and 'unruly' neighbors. Once this emergency state was sedated, the group took on the beautification of the 2 parks within their boundaries. But beautification efforts were difficult to maintain -- volunteers did not continue to weed the flower plots.
The strength of this neighborhood group is its linkages to the St. Mark Community Center. A partnership developed. The Center staff did most of the legwork and the group was the conduit through which to access the City funding stream. The result is the Downtown Resource Guide, which in 2001 became a line item in the City Budget and funded as a partnership between St. Mark and Information and Referral/Project Concern agency. The Center is also the command central for the annual downtown clean-up. The group has enlisted Main Street, Ltd. to do the leg work while it acts as the funding conduit to access City of Dubuque funds.
| Our learning regarding the Historic Bluffs Neighborhood |
|
Return to Historic Bluffs |
Similar to the Downtown Neighborhood, the Historic Bluffs Neighborhood had strong leadership during the early years of the project. These leaders were also leading their neighborhood to address the concerns arising from the properties along the bluff in the Downtown Neighborhood boundaries, but also to address similar concerns regarding properties in disrepair and 'unruly' tenants along Loras Boulevard. The group brought much publicity to the street -- leading the community to view the 2 block area quite negatively and with unnecessary fear. Once these concerns were addressed, this neighborhood focussed on beautification efforts. About this time the stronger leaders stepped back, while others happened to move out of town. The new leadership discussed returning trees to the area and has been working to increase the partnership relationship with Loras College. Many of the neighbors attending meetings are owners of older homes, some of which are located within the historical district within the neighborhood boundaries.
Similar to the Downtown Neighborhood this group also made a strong connection to the City of Dubuque Neighborhood Development Specialist.Yet unlike the Downtown and North End, this group has not accessed City funds, except to support the printing and distribution of their bi-monthly newsletter. The group does engage in the annual Downtown Clean-up, meeting at the St. Mark Community Center and picking up trash along Loras Boulevard (moving up the hill from the downtown area).
| Our learning regarding Audubon School |
|
Return to Audubon School |
Audubon (Kindergarten to 6th Grades) became the most active school site. Not only did the principal fully embrace the CYFAR philosophy, but the technology center staff quickly implemented the philosophy throughout the center. One important element in contributing to the large usage of this school was the physical design of the school itself. Audubon School (built in 1974) is air-conditioned with the computer room located next to an outside door. There is space for multiple computers, which are on wheeled carts for use in classrooms during the school day. We have learned that relationships with the school custodian are key to program success. The custodian is often responsible for the physical facilities after regular classroom hours.
The greatest success of the project's electronic connectivity efforts is the Audubon Family Technology Center. With trained community members, proactive school personnel as well as the support of the North End Neighborhood Council the center opened in November, 1998. The one computer from the CYFAR electronic connectivity enticed the Dubuque Community School Foundation to provide five computers, which made a more expanded format possible. The schedule of the Family Technology Center reflects an attempt to be responsive to a variety of needs outlined from citizen input.
One of the most difficult groups in the neighborhood to become engaged in technology use was the senior citizens. We did have a few adult or grandparent/child pairs in the computer classes. This led to the creation of intergenerational computer classes (see below - Jefferson).
| Our learning regarding Prescott School |
|
Return to Prescott School |
Prescott School is an early childhood school center with Even Start and Kindergarten to 2nd grades. (Fulton School serves grades 3 to 6). We found that having a computer in this school did not have the same outreach results as experienced at Audubon School. The children attending Prescott are not old enough to serve as mentors and communicators in their families. Attempts to have after-school or family nights have only reached a limited numbers of participants. The school facility is overcrowded and quite outdated (not accessible). It does not have a gym. These are all large challenges to programming effectively. This again is in sharp contrast to Audubon School.
Prescott School experienced a fair amount of transition in staff during the project years. These were key positions: principal and outreach staff. Once this became stabilized in 1999, the school began to embrace the philosophy. Throughout the project period, there was a strong link between Prescott School and the St. Mark Community Center. This link began prior to the project period.
Due to the fact that Prescott does not serve children through 6th grade (as Audubon does), it is not a neighborhood school in the truest sense. As a result parents with children in Prescott and Fulton Schools are torn between which activities to attend and which school to support with their volunteer time. In time, we learned to combine activities for these two schools, which addressed the needs of these families.
| Our learning regarding Fulton School |
|
Return to Fulton School |
Fulton Elementary School serves grades 3 to 6 and is paired to Prescott School (see above). As a result Fulton School is not a neighborhood school in the truest sense, as some families live in the old Prescott School neighborhood. (Prescott is about 20 blocks from Fulton). As noted in the Prescott discussion, in time we learned to provide activities for children K to 6, generally held at Fulton which has a full-sized gym that provided enough space for large group activities. Fulton School is not accessible and has stairs at every entrance. With a change in principals early in the project period, the coordination between the project, the neighborhood and the school increased as did the number of evening activities offered. Fulton Principal accessed the AmeriCorps resources to make further increases in the number of supportive activities available for children before, during and after-school. To learn more about the AmeriCorps initiative which serves most all schools in Dubuque County ---- click here.
| Our learning regarding senior citizens and computers |
|
Return to senior citizens and computers |
We noticed that senior citizens were not taking advantage of the computer access provided by the project at any of our sites. Noticing that the few seniors who did use the computers came with their grandchildren sparked an idea. We paired middle school (6th, 7th and/or 8th) aged students with senior citizens and found that both enjoyed learning. It has often been said that the person who learns the most is the teacher.
In 1999, the Intergenerational Internet project won the National Grand Prize in the Colgate Youth for America Program for Outstanding Community Service. In addition the Iowa State Education Association has endorsed the project as a project for all Iowa Communities.
The Intergenerational Internet program allowed The Connecting Link project to accomplish two goals. One was to establish a service learning program for middle school students. We knew that only 31% of the 8th graders in the Dubuque County asset survey reported volunteering to help other people one or more hours per week. Also engaging seniors had been identified as a goal but proved difficult to accomplish. This program brought senior citizens to the school computer technology center and provided an intergenerational experience for both the middle school students and their senior partners.
Reflection:
Youth identified three main
concepts they felt were important to teach seniors about the
Internet:
- how to access web sites that connect with their interests so they can research anything they want
- how to send and receive e-mails so they can communicate with family and friends
- "that it opens up a whole new world to the mind"
As youth assumed the teaching role they began to think about the experiences of another person and how they are affected. Beyond sharing Internet skills, the classes resulted in the creation of a bond between each youth and their senior partner. They continued to exchange e-mail after the session was over.
| Our learning regarding Dubuque Community Schools |
|
Return to Dubuque Community Schools |
The Administrative Professionals of the Dubuque Community School District were key partners even before funding was received. A number of high level professionals with the school system were members of the Family Connections Task Force -- the team that created the vision and held the dream for the project. This team came together to develop the grant proposal for the Dubuque CYFAR project. The partnership link with these professionals facilitated the project to make quick relationships within neighborhood schools. When policy issues seemed to get in the way of project progress -- this partnership allowed for these concerns to be quickly addressed. The partnership also gave the schools more clout when asking for additional services from the City of Dubuque. In time this partnership facilitated the development and implementation of an AmeriCorps program in nearly every school in the county (public and private).
| Our learning regarding City of Dubuque |
|
Return to City of Dubuque |
The City was the largest bureaucracy the project interacted with attempting to build a partnership. In the beginning of the project, the Neighborhood Development Specialist position was in its infancy. Simultaneously, the project Coordinator and the Specialist learned about the neighborhoods and created relationships and became familiar with community resources. In time as the needs of neighborhoods were learned and the strengths of the Specialist and the Coordinator were developed, a natural matching of needs and strengths took place, with The Connecting Link Coordinator connecting strongly with the North End Neighborhood and the Neighborhood Specialist connecting with the Downtown and Historic Bluffs neighborhoods. About the time the project funding was coming to an end, the Neighborhood Specialist position became vacant. Suddenly there was a void of support, where there had been a team of support.
 |
Telegraph Herald article, December, 2000 |
| Our learning regarding Parents as Teachers |
|
Return to Parents as Teachers |
As a result of engaging the human service community in building and spreading the philosophy consistent with The Connecting Link, CYFAR project, when funds came under local control, the community decided to invest in the Parents as Teachers curriculum model. This model also embraces a building upon strengths philosophy. Originally the staff of Parents as Teachers were located in the St. Mark Community Center. As the program outgrew the office space, they moved to another location, but continued to use the Center for group meetings and family nights.
| Our learning regarding AmeriCorps Initiative |
|
Return to AmeriCorps Initiative |
Although coming to fruition a year after the end of project funding, the development of the AmeriCorps Initiative is the highest achievement that simply might not have happened without the groundwork completed as a result of The Connecting Link project. The Family Connections Task Force was the core group that developed the idea of pursuing funding for more after-school activities and family events. When one member of the group brought the application for the AmeriCorps Member award to a meeting -- suddenly momentum increased. The successes achieved through reaching out to families during family nights and the mentoring activities at St. Mark Community Center, provided an outline for the activities the group wanted to replicate at every school.
The Extension Office facilitated a series of meetings with representatives from every public and private school in Dubuque County. Also attending the meetings were representatives from the City of Dubuque, Foster Grandparents, Department of Human Services, Hillcrest Family Services, Parents as Teachers, and Dubuque Community Schools Administration. The City staff assisted in writing the concept paper and later the grant application. Writing was made easier through the coordinative efforts of Extension Staff and a VISTA Member. By the time the grant was developed the original idea had grown to offering before-, during- and after-school and summer educational activities which also engaged families and neighbors. Elementary school students were to receive the most resources, but the project expanded to junior and senior high school in-school learning supports.
| Our learning regarding Poverty Simulation |
|
Return to Poverty Simulation |
The Poverty Simulation became a fun and easy way to engage citizens and professionals from all backgrounds in the issues of poverty. This activity lays the groundwork for understanding the benefits of taking a strength-based approach.
Partnering with the local Community Action Agency was natural. This partnership has insured that the poverty simulation experience is held at least annually and experienced by a wide range of citizens.
| Our learning regarding computer access |
|
Return to computer access |
Through the use of federal CYFAR electronic connectivity funds, The Connecting Link project was able to place a computer with Internet access and a printer at the St. Mark Community Center, and Audubon and Prescott Schools. However, simply opening the doors to offer computer access was not enough. We quickly learned that neighborhood residents must be part of the project. With the assistance of the North End Neighborhood Council and the Project Coordinator, residents were surveyed to determine needs and programming decisions were made with citizen involvement.
In two cases these computers were the seeds that rather quickly grew into computer labs offering classes as well as open lab time for neighbors to access. We did learn that computers are much more interesting when connected to the internet. This allows for e-mail communication possibilities as well as locating information of interest. The one site that did not grow into a lab was located in a school targeted to grades K to 2. These children are much too young to be the catalyst to increase interest from parents.
If we had not been very observant, we would have missed a great opportunity. We noticed that some children brought grandparents to the lab and they were learning from each other. This sparked the beginning of our intergenerational internet classes (see above) pairing youth in middle school grades with senior citizens in the neighborhood.
| Our learning regarding Family Interaction Kits |
|
Return to Family Interaction Kits |
Implementation of The Family Interaction Kits or Book Bags required cooperation between Extension staff, classroom teachers, children and parents. Where this cooperation occurred, we received positive feedback from parents and teachers. It was difficult for some young students to return the book bags or insure that their family complete the activities. In some cases teachers found the checkout of materials too cumbersome to add to their weekly duties. Luckily in one case the school nurse supported the project and facilitated the book bags for some students.
| Our learning
regarding Surveys |
|
Return to Surveys | |
|
|
Our learning regarding North End Surveys |
 |
Return to North End Surveys |
Community building means a different way of doing business. In the past, a small group of agency representatives often met together to plan programs and services for clients who needed them. Clients may have been asked about their needs in a focus group or through some other form of needs assessment. But they were given little opportunity to influence the planning and implementation of efforts.
Participation means connecting "citizens" to the process of planning and decision-making regarding community-based programs and supports for children, youth, and families. The term "citizen" includes a broad range of possible stakeholders who have not traditionally been involved in collaboration efforts. Citizens include neighborhood residents, consumers of human services, parents of children and youth receiving services, and the youth themselves. Collaboration efforts also include representatives from a broad range of community institutions e.g., education, business, government, religion, and health care.
Getting first hand, citizen data is very important and can be gathered scientifically in a manner that focuses on strengths, consistent with project philosophy, through the use of the Search Institute Asset Survey tools.
Involving citizens in the process of gathering survey information under the Kretzman model of asset surveys is a way for neighbors to get to know neighbors and learn about their unique talents. We did learn that making use of the information once gathered was a large task for the neighborhood. If there were a way to quickly categorize and tabulate the information this would have increased the likelihood that talents could have been matched with needs more efficiently. In some cases persons willing to volunteer were overlooked. Also building upon talents or thinking creatively about how skills can be transferred is a skill for staff to teach neighborhood leaders. It may be difficult to see that a good cook has planning skills and a knitter has design skills that can be tapped for leading meetings and planning events.
| |
Our learning
regarding continuing activities after the end of funding |
|
Return to end of funding |
| |
Return to introduction |
The level of direct contact and involvement with neighborhoods decreased with the end of funding and resulting loss of staff. Although a new partnership developed with the new City of Dubuque Neighborhood Development Specialist, which provided a linkage between Extension staff (Project Director) and the neighborhood, there was simply less staff time community-wide to provide close support of neighborhood leaders. The leaders that emerged during the year (October, 1999 to September, 2000) did not receive the same intense support that leaders in previous years enjoyed. Leaders from previous years moved on to other pursuits --- a new job, addressing personal/family needs and were not available to support the new leaders. In some cases the new leaders had new ideas that did not seem to fit with old leader's vision and old leaders discontinued attending meetings feeling left out (or that the new leaders were leading the group astray). Of course, these are all natural growth and development phases of any group.
It is more difficult to make a wide impact without staff and funding. Although neighbors can give of their time and work to gather resources --- in time, the momentum and energy fades. Partnerships with other organizations that have staff working in neighborhoods can assist in continuing the impact of the work completed during the funding period, but when those staff change and the neighborhood leaders change, it is VERY difficult to continue that momentum. The learning cycle begins again with new leaders emerging. Without staff or a training series in place the new leaders that emerge will struggle to gain the skills they need to lead --- members may become frustrated, before the skills are mastered, and leave.
- Again we ask ourselves:
- "Are there times where it is appropriate for staff (of some organization) to perform duties or should we 'expect' neighbors to take responsibility for every aspect of their neighborhood?"
-
- As we think of higher resource neighborhoods and the roles of those neighbors, we see a pattern of citizens not organized, not taking on responsibility for resource development, not engaging in group activities, and we wonder:
- "Do we expect too much of people
just because they live in a low resource area?"
- "Why is it that we expect more of persons living in the target areas of this project, than we expect of ourselves/persons in non-target areas in the role of neighbor?"
