PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 17

Lessons Learned

Under constraints and the influence of the evaluation team, the original vision for an impact evaluation had devolved into a lower level of investigation, program monitoring. Furthermore, much longer time frame would be required than was available even at the start of the project to show the type of program results that matter most. Nevertheless, the kind of practical, performance-oriented data that program monitoring offered The Center became the focus of evaluation efforts. That is what is called “a good start.” Simply being able to measure performance based on client perceptions is a huge leap toward more rational forms of accountability. Plus the habit of data collection is a good one to have. It not only sets a higher professional standard, it sends the message that programs that engage in it are to be taken seriously. Later on, that sets the stage for more elaborate forms of analysis, the logical conclusion of which could become a goal-oriented outcomes evaluation or even an impact evaluation if other agencies adopt the same progressive orientation.

On the whole, the experience of initiating and following through with the evaluation process has been a positive one, making my destination all the more enjoyable, confirming that the journey does matter. It has been difficult for me to single out the lessons that matter to me most. Certainly, some do stand out more than others.

1. Expect the Unexpected: Orchestrating a team can be rewarding and highly productive. However, the flip side is that it is frequently frustrating and involves many unattractive trade-offs, especially in terms of processing time. Teams offer many advantages including breadth of knowledge, wisdom and due caution. However, they can also squelch creativity and impede progress. In this case, the team experience was a mixture of positives and negatives. Overall, the team came through in the end and help set my project agenda for the semester just in time. What I did not anticipate were the turf issues associated with interagency comparisons. That, perhaps, was the most frustrating aspect of the experience.
2. Be Proactive: When it comes to project management, I have a tendency (like many of my generation) to procrastinate. In my own defense, however, it might be partly explained as a kind of self-defense mechanism I have developed given the crushing weight of my responsibilities. Arguably, I always get the job done in my own particular idiom. Nevertheless, I would never advise that anyone do things the way I do. I will say that when faced with such trade-offs, technology can be a real lifesaver. My use of the Basecamp to keep myself and the project on track is a good example of that. Even lo-tech solutions, however, can make a big difference, such as making to-do lists and keeping in touch.
3. Set the Bar Higher: When I started this evaluation, I purposely set the bar as high as it would go. I knew that compromises were inevitable and that disappointment was the rule and not the exception, especially where ambition exceeds resources. Regardless, I would not change a thing. As naïve as it might seem to some, having a vision gives one a reason to go on when things go wrong. Without the moment of force that accompanies hopeless idealism, one might just peter out before reaching up just high enough to achieve that personal best.
4. Become an Advocate for Your Mission: Having a just cause is everything. It sets the tenor for everything. If the cause is just, resources will not matter. As long as someone is a true advocate, it stands to reason he or she will encounter like-minded individuals. Resources will follow. In this case, anyone could see the needs were real and that the stakes were high. Though I may not be there to witness my success, I know it will come as long as I can get someone else to care as much as I do. After all, so much more depends upon this evaluation’s fruition than better performance data.

Ultimately, I keep in my mind the most important stakeholders of all: child victims. They are the reason why we do what we do. They are the legacy and mine is but one small part in righting one of the worst kind of wrongs. That bears repeating. Whatever challenge I may have to face, I will never have to bear the kinds of wounds that they always will. However difficult my role becomes, I have no better motivator than knowing that my hard work and that of the team will eventually help alleviate suffering and to take a stand for those who cannot stand for themselves. To me, that is an encouraging thought.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 16

Protocols for Toddlers, DC and Hearing/Speech Impaired Children

The staff at CC brought up an important point that needs some clarification. Occasionally, the surveyor will be faced with a child victim who is too young to respond accurately or, for other reasons, unable to respond. Examples of inability to respond could include developmentally challenged children or children with hearing and/or speech impairments. Potentially, this could be an issue since they would affect the accuracy of the sample by being excluded. Therefore, I should add several protocols about this problem:

1. Toddlers: Children whose answers are suspect should be excluded from the sample. Obviously, children develop at different rates. Some 2 and 3 year olds are more responsive and aware than others. This will be a judgment call on the part of the surveyor in consultation with the staff that is most familiar with the child. If the child seems reasonably responsive and focused in his or her answers, include that child.
2. Developmentally-Challenged Children: The same may be said for these children. In these cases, the surveyor should always confer with the service delivery staff to determine whether the child CAN respond appropriately and accurately. If yes, survey the child and then decide whether his or her answers can be trusted. Otherwise, exclude the child from the survey. The surveyor’s judgment is also key here.
3. Hearing/Speech Impaired Children: Obviously, every effort should be made to include these children in the survey. In these cases, the usual protocol of interviewing the child alone will have to be foregone unless the surveyor can sign or communicate with the child in some manner. Allowing literate older children (7 y.o. and up) with such disabilities to fill in the survey is permissible. Otherwise, a translating adult will need to be present. Allow this.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 15

Survey Training and Protocols

I met with Kevin and April today. I gave them a student copy of SPSS 14 and helped them to load it onto Kevin’s desktop computer. Then I sat down and trained them about how best to enter data into their new datasets. They both seemed very engaged and asked lots of good questions. I did not get to know April at all until recently. She has a keen eye and an outstanding memory for details. She will make an outstanding project manager.

I offered my suggestions to help make data entry a little easier. I opted to not build a separate Access database. That would lead to a lot of duplicated effort when it came to data entry and more opportunities for entry errors. It just did not seem worth the extra ease of data entry that it would create. Ultimately, an electronic form would be the easiest means of data entry and probably more accurate, too. That would not work with the student version of SPSS. I think only the full version would work with the SPSS form generator. It is out there, though.

I made a number of recommendations and went over the data collection protocols with them, as I had discussed them with Aly and Allison. In order to ensure that I have covered this thoroughly and we are all on the same page, I am supplying some explicit protocols to guide the survey:

1. Only ONE surveyor should talk with each subject.
2. This surveyor should ideally have NO core service delivery contact with the subject.
3. NO identifying numbers or names should be put onto the forms.
4. NO parent, guardian or family member should be in the room during the child’s survey. They can be filling out their survey at the same time.
5. For the child survey, the surveyor fills out the form based on the child’s responses.
6. For the family and team surveys, each subject fills out his or her form and hands it back to the surveyor when complete. The surveyor ensures all question are answered.
7. The surveyor should fill out a cover sheet with accurate information taken from the case file. Then, the surveyor should attach one copy of the filled out cover sheet to both client surveys. Then the surveys are inserted into the box.
8. After that, NO one except the person assigned to data entry should handle or look at the surveys until time for entry. To do so could harm objectivity and cast doubt on the results.
9. At data entry time, each case gets assigned a unique id number starting with 1 in the dataset. Each combination of child and parent/caretaker or other family member constitutes a case. Write the case number at the top of the form.
10. After data entry the forms should be kept together in numerical order for data checking later.
11. The forms should be sealed into manila envelopes and dated at the end of each week. The envelopes should be kept together in a safe, locked place.
12. Later on, a separate person from the data enterer will check the data entry during the data “cleaning” process. This will probably be an MPA student or other volunteer.
13. The forms are to be shredded after data cleaning.
14. There will be no attempt at connection between the results of the first two client surveys and the three month client survey. Anonymity must be maintained.
15. Any deviations from these instructions should be addressed with me or another MPA student ahead of time.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 14

Meeting with Center Staff 11/20

I met with Aly, Allison and April this afternoon. Kevin was unable to make it. We discussed progress toward completing the pilot and beginning to collect the first data of the evaluation. I presented to them copies of the newly revised MSW survey templates and the new SPSS databases. In particular, I stressed the importance of the new survey cover sheet. We went over this in detail to modify the questions according to the Center's needs.

April will be handling data entry of the completed surveys. This is ideal since she will not be involved in primary service delivery. She will however need to be adequately trained in using SPSS for data entry. I will probably need to sit down to give her a tutorial and enter the first data at the same time. I will have to schedule that with her. Today, April offered several outstanding suggestions and a few good catches of errors. She obviously has a keen eye which will make her an outstanding resource person when it comes to data entry and cleaning. Thanks to everyone's comments, several of the questions had to be altered. I will handle that tomorrow and upload everything to the Basecamp.

I briefly discussed plans for the future. In particular, I shared with them my intention to recruit another MPA Capstone student to complete the analysis next Spring. I will continue to volunteer for the Center in that effort as I am needed.

Once the data files are finished and uploaded, that just leaves five parts to complete my portion of this project that remain to be scheduled for next week:

1. Installation of SPSS v.14.0 on Kevin's and April's computers.
2. Training Kevin and April in its use (and anyone else who needs it.)
3. A set of written survey protocols based on our group discussions.
4. A written evaluation of my efforts by Kevin.
5. Final reevaluation of the pilot and presentation of my findings.

My final Capstone presentation of my findings will occur on Thursday, December 7 at 5 PM in Room 110 of Leutze Hall, UNCW. All project team members are welcome to attend. Thanks one and all for you help!

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 13

SWOT's the Problem?

Altogether, the UNCW Department of Political Science MPA Program has been an amazing experience for me. As much as it has been intellectually stimulating, mind-exapanding and intensive, it has also been difficult, stressful and, at times, bewildering. Thus, when I state that it has been amazing, I mean it in a somewhat ambivalent way, depending on how I look at it.

As an aspiring administrator, it has been a powerful introduction to a discipline about which, frankly, I knew precious little. As a mid-career professional, this program has given me a great deal to reflect upon as I compared the nexus of theory and application, demonstrating to me that there is no good substitute for experience. As a part-time, non-traditional student, I have found myself and my family tested and, occasionally, pushed to the limit of endurance. When I started the program in 2002, I had no children and was living in an apartment. Now we have a home and two young children. Thus, much of this stress has been simply the confluence of the MPA program and changing life circumstances. However, that is not to imply that the program is not sufficiently challenging. When all is said and done, it is, as with all forms of education, what one makes of it.

The question is: what could be done to make it a better experience? As a long-time consumer of the program, I am in a unique position to provide feedback about the evolution of the program, along with my personal reflections. I will start with the positives and discuss what I feel are the program's strengths. True to form, I'll turn to weaknesses. Finally, I'll combine opportunities and threats into set of specific recommendations on how to improve the program.


Program Strengths

When I started the MPA Program in 2002, one semester after its launch, my choices were fairly simple: Coastal Management (CM) or Nonprofit Management (NM). Given my creative background, nonprofit management was a no-brainer. My reasoning for entering the program in the first place: I wanted to be of some use to my society other than an aesthetic one. I was unhappy in my position as an art director and wanted more. I was already volunteering and serving my community in various supplemental capacities. I wanted to make an even bigger splash and rise above the limits I had set upon myself. Being a big believer in education, an advanced degree seemed the best alternative. That brings me to the first great strength of the program: Expanding Choice.

I chose the UNCW MPA Program because, of all of my educational choices, it offered the broadest form of preparation. Furthermore, much like an MBA in the business world, the MPA presented a more direct path to the upper echelons. I didn't know exactly what it was that I wanted to do there, but I figured it probably would not hurt to have three little letters after my name. The concentration options also offered some amount of specialization. Later on, the program evolved to include the Environmental Policy and Management (EPM) and the Policy Analysis (PA) Concentration. These new options now allow for a more in-depth study of policy specialties, emphasizing just the sort of practical applications that I feel will benefit us more technically-minded students most in such a broad course of study.

Being academically adventurous, I began to explore whether I might be able to secure a dual concentration in both NM and PA. There was enough crossover in the requirements that if I took the just the right combination of electives, I could meet the requirements of both. That remains to be seen. At any rate, the program will naturally become more attractive to prospective MPA students by increasing available choices that emphasize depth of study in conjunction with the breadth supplied by the core requirements. More programs will lead to more students, which will ultimately contribute to even more offerings. In the long run, that kind of expansion might lead to an amalgamation of multiple programs under a new school of public policy for the university.

Hopefully, such an expansion will not become unaffordable to average income residents of SE NC. The extremely affordable tuition in relation to program's offerings leads me to the next great strength: Educational Value.

Compared to most other graduate universities around NC, UNCW's graduate tuition is amazingly low. The cost is, of course, not strictly in keeping with the NC Constitution's admonishment to the legislature to “provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.” However, the operational word there is "practicable." At $1,851 per semester for full time graduate tuition, practically anyone can afford to attend. One wonders why more do not, since a master's degree can be a real career booster.

Of course, the value of the tuition has to be weighed against the product to be meaningful. I think that the full-time faculty members are what make the program ultimately well worth its salt. That leads me to the last program strength: Quality of Learning.

The MPA Program's accreditation by NASPAA this year was no small feat, but really not unexpected given the credentials and dedication of the faculty. In the classroom, this translates into worthwhile learning outcomes. I feel the theories and concepts I have been exposed to have broadened my world view and, even, taught me a little humility. The truly educated person needs not know it all--just know enough to become effective. Much more than that would be superfluous. Given the gargantuan breadth of topics that we must cover, eventually one must say enough is enough. Depth is a more a matter of individual study. This brings me to the touchy part. Inevitably, program design and reality part ways lots of little ways. I will only touch on what I perceive as ones that represent opportunities for positive change.


Program Weaknesses

Of course, depth of study is a function less programmatic and more academic. In other words, depth happens in the classroom and has more to do with the syllabus than the curriculum. Besides, an MPA is a generalist degree: it is not intended to create experts as much as administrators (though it can do both). Nevertheless, it might be possible to build in more depth into the curriculum by adding a few advanced courses as electives. In fact, it would be quite nice to have a few more electives from which to choose at enrollment.

The timing of certain classes also seems to be an issue for some. I have had problems scheduling a 5:00 pm class when I work full-time and do not have a sympathetic boss. Obviously this affects primarily part-timers like me, but we do make up a third of the students.

Another serious weakness/strength in the program has been the use of adjuncts. Obviously, it must be difficult to find and retain good instructors. The good ones seem to be drawn away by other more lucrative offers. To make matters worse, the bad ones seem to stick around. Even so, I have had the opportunity to learn from some outstanding "pracademics." That is why this qualifies as both strength and a weakness. I guess it might be nice if we witnessed some more accountability based on our Spots, but then we as students would never know it if there were. Thus, the subject does not deserve more elaboration.

In the classroom, it would benefit students like me to see a little more diversity: both economic and ethnic. I realize that much of this is way beyond even your control, but I was thinking that some of that responsibility must lie within the program. I think it is fair to say that some more efforts ought to be made to increase minority enrollment without breaking either the bank or the law.

Beyond this, I have heard a great deal of criticism of the types of things we learn in some of our classes. Most of it centers around two things:

1. Theory vs. application
2. Over reliance on peer evaluation

We, as working practitioners, would benefit more from learning that has practical applications, versus just theory. Do not get me wrong: theory is the basis for applications. It would be nice if more balance between them is preferred. Perhaps a needs assessment of graduates might help.
Many students have commented to me how they feel that peer reviews cause them stress and that the tendency is to not say anything bad to avoid some kind of knee-jerk reprisal by the instructor. Thus, social factors may cast some doubt on their validity as an evaluation tool. Furthermore, they are not standardized across the program like the Spots are. At least we might be able to be more comfortable with a generic form that we know and love, like the Spot form.


Recommendations

It would not be fair to cite the above criticisms without mentioning some solutions as well. They represent opportunities for positive change--we are talking about evolution, not revolution. Of course, it is difficult to make recommendations untainted by subjectivity. Perhaps they should be thought of more as jumping off points. Anyway, here it goes in no particular order.

1. Evaluate and hold adjuncts accountable. Reward the good ones and coach the poor performers more closely. If that fails, cut poor performers loose. The program will be stronger for it, rather than having a portion languishing because of sheer inertia. I do see some positive signs of this happening now.
2. Standardize peer review so that the instrument is more valid. Instead of the hodgepodge of forms that exist now, scores from multiple projects and classes can be coalesced into an overall score for each student. Also, prohibit their use for class-wide service projects. Maintain their use only for teams.
3. Offer a Saturday class every semester. It would seem a student needs assessment could easily gauge interest in the current student body.
4. Since our department is supposed to be on the administrative cutting edge, make it a model of IT efficiency. I recommend that the department look into Blackboard or some other IP-based form of classroom collaboration that would have ties to the department's master database. If the Program were producing nothing but technofiles (which it is definitely not) it could make a name for itself even though the interuniversity competition for academic outcomes is fierce. I'm thinking that a series of elective application courses would help out here: Working with Data, Statistical Applications, Internet Applications and so on.
5. Offer direct assistance to prepare papers for publishing and presentation at conferences. It would be difficult indeed for us to arrive at the conclusion that, yes, this paper is a good enough candidate. Many of us are so busy that it would take some extra incentive as a teacher's encouragement and advice. Otherwise, we all just assume our work is passable and nothing more.
6. Seek to encourage students to integrate skills learned in multiple courses in projects other than the Capstone. Of course, this could be difficult if students are at widely different points in the program. The use of teams for projects can encourage this kind of cross-pollination. In particular, I think there needs to be more emphasis on integrating basic scientific research skills.
7. Okay. Many students are cash poor nowadays, but some are worse off than others. I'm not convinced that it is a rule and not an exception. Thus, offer tools to help lower income and minority students apply to and succeed in the program. More financial incentives, such as departmental scholarships and outreach efforts to traditionally minority colleges and universities might help here.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 12

IRB Review Discussion

Hi Heather,
I went online last night after meeting with Kevin and found what you were referring to. (See the meeting notes from 10/8.) First, I want you to know that I appreciated your bringing this matter to my attention again. It actually helped solidify my understanding of IRB review. Second, I went through most everything and then wrote my summary of the issue with my preliminary findings, which you should have already gotten on the basecamp and by e-mail. Like you, I was led to believe by the information provided that IRB submission was almost a given.

However, my faculty supervisor, Dr. Imperial, reassures me that based on his long experience with IRBs and the regulations about review, there will be no compelling reason to submit the design for approval to the UNCW IRB. Since I trust his word, I believe that we can safely forego submission. The primary reason for this decision is that the data collected will belong to the Center, an independent third party who is the sponsor of the investigation. The data will be used for third party research. Third party collected data is simply exempt from the IRB oversight. Only if federal money were involved, which it is not, would the Center be required by federal law to submit a protocol for NIH-approved review. Hope that clears things up for you.

Were I to submit the evaluation to the UNCW IRB, Imperial informs me they would more than likely assert their authority over us needlessly, but ONLY because I submitted it. That would complicate matters immensely as you know. Unless another faculty member recommends otherwise, I believe we should avoid such a needless delay. I will wait on your response. Thanks again for the attention to detail.


Heather Sandala replied…

Chris,
Whether you choose to submit is your decision. But, as you pointed out in the original email that you sent last night, “All research projects involving human subjects must be approved by the IRB” and “Researchers may NOT make their own determination as to the appropriate type of review. Only the IRB Chair or designate, can determine which type of review is applicable.”

The material provided by the University concerning IRB review is quite ambigious and leaves much to interpertation. Much of my confusion in this matter stems from a lack of understanding of your research purpose and design. I am not an expert on IRB policy and procedure. Having gone through the process of submission and clearence I felt compleled to voice my concerns.

Good luck in moving forward in the project.

Heather Sandala

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 11

I met with Kevin today to discuss the delays. It turns out that the Center’s UNCW intern Heather Sandala has suggested that we submit our evaluation surveys to the UNCW IRB for review. I had planned on just such a submission early in the semester and even put it onto the original timeline. Basically, for any type of investigation involving human subjects, a protocol of the investigation may well need to be submitted for IRB approval. Specifically, any “systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” that meets certain qualifications must be submitted to an NIH-approved IRB, according to federal law. This is especially true where faculty, grad students and external research are involved, as in this case.

A Human subject is defined as a living individual, about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains:

1. Data through intervention or interaction with the individual
2. Identifiable private information.

“Systematic investigation” is defined as “a cohesive approach involving data collection (quantitative or qualitative from one or more individuals and analysis to address a question or test a hypothesis.” Certainly, identifiable information will be disclosed in the case of our surveys—at least to the interviewer, if no one else. Thus, at face value, it appears we will have to submit for review no matter what. However, according the Dr. Barth, we may be able to get thing expedited. We will have to jump through some hoops to to that in time, however.

In addition, any person(s) involved in the conduct of such research must complete an online human subject protections training program offered by the National Institutes of health. I, myself, have already taken this training. Since, however, I could not find a record of that fact, I am taking it again. As for the personnel at Carousel Center, I’m not sure that applies to them, but I am looking into that. The link to register for this training module is: http://cme.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/learning/humanparticipant-protections.asp.

Unfortunately, the next review submission deadline is November 22, 2006, and the next meeting that our surveys could be considered is December 6. Projects that qualify for exempt review are projects having such a low level of risk to subjects that further IRB oversight is not required with the exception of protocol amendment forms. Amendment forms are required on exempt studies since a change to the study may alter its exempt status. Projects qualifying for expedited review are also minimal risk to subjects, but may involve other aspects that require continuing IRB oversight and annual renewal of protocol approval. A project may require full review for a number of reasons such as the subjects belonging to a potentially vulnerable population or a higher degree of risk to subjects. Researchers may NOT make their own determination as to the appropriate type of review. Only the IRB Chair or designate, can determine which type of review is applicable.

I will get back to Kevin later this week about the final call on this, but I think it is a given that some kind of submission is necessary. This is a tad unexpected since I thought that our little study, being anonymous and strictly non-experimental, would fall outside the requirements. That is why I took it out of the original timeline. I look at as just one more hurdle to get over. We shall see what the call will be. Meantime, I also shared with Kevin the SPSS database design and went over the demographics I recommend be collected. There may be some minor adjustments to those. More on that later.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 10

The first-versions of the SPSS databases for the surveys have been completed. I purchased a student copy of SPSS which limits me to 50 variables and 1,500 cases. I figure those limits will not put too much of a strain on efforts to keep the evaluation short and inexpensive. The largest of the 4 survey databases is 36 variables. Furthermore, the Center can look into purchasing a full copy later on. Meantime, they will use my student copy of SPSS as a demo. I intend on sending these databases to Dr. Jones to put a more critical eye on the database structures. I am also continuing to look into MS Infopath as a possible data entry solution.

I have always been operating under the assumption that I will have some data to work with. However, it now the end of October and no data is forthcoming yet. That does not bode well for any kind of analysis, but I think we passed that thresholdd even before two months ago when I gave Kevin the original surveys. We estimated from the beginning that a monthly sample size of 15-20 would be the most we could expect to get, assuming 100% participation. Getting a large enough value of n that might result in enough statistical power to draw any kind of conclusions would no doubt take several more months than we had even at the beginning of the semester. The point of the pilot test has always been to get the surveys into their hands and figure out what the problems are implementing them. Then, once the surveys are finished, data collection could begin in earnest.

I contacted Aly and Kevin several times lately to discuss pilot progress on their end. Other hold ups have cropped up. I blame myself for not engaging the problems sooner. I have been trying to set up meeting next week with Kevin and his crew to discuss ironing out the problems. Whatever it is that needs to be done, I am sure I can accommodate their needs. I do not intend to abandon this group after this semester. I will continue to volunteer for the Center until they feel more confident about monitoring their own program themselves. They will certainly need assistance with the actual statistical analyses when it comes to that, probably next year. I will look for another Capstone student to take the reins, as well, one who can help bring this whole process to a proper conclusion. This is a worthwhile cause that needs my help. I will not let them down.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 9

What does it take to be an effective public servant? What are the practical limits of ethicality in service to the public interest? Can these two dimensions coexist peacefully or are collisions between them an inevitable hazard? Can administrative competence ever truly be politically neutral? We live in a society based on contradiction. Indeed, the whole Western Tradition is rife with contradictions. We accept religious principles as providing the foundation of governance, but reject dogma in the exercise of the law. We believe in the sanctity of individual freedoms within a framework of strong majority rule. We acknowledge the many failures of market-based economics, but extol market efficiencies. At all levels of the American system of governance, ambitions are counterbalanced by competing ambitions. For the public servant caught between contradictions, there is little hope held out for a respite between the various poles of administrative and political ambitions.

While it is doubtful that in such political soup one can swim without an occasional scalding, neutrality is still the ideal. By raising oneself above the level of common partisanship, by becoming almost "hyper-rational," the educated person is in a position to develop an almost intuitive sense of propriety. Since it has long been commonly accepted that politics comprises the administrative ether, education is still the best hope for neutral competency. In Peter Salovey's words that "An educated person has the ability to appreciate, learn from, and embrace contradiction, even when we might prefer closure." Service to the public interest is thus not for the fainthearted, but it especially not for the ignorant.

Kenneth Ashworth's collection of missives cum essays, Caught Between the Dog and the Fireplug, make this point abundantly clear. Ashworth extols the virtues of life-long education in both the formal and informal sense. If serving the public interest is comprised mainly of being conscious of of the policymaking process and sensitive to its effects, then reason and analysis are de rigeur to solving societal problems effectively. What develops these kinds of skills better than education? While the inevitable answer is "not much," Ashworth's whole trope of inveterate advice to the ingenue makes it clear that experience counts as well. After all, a student driver does not learn how to drive merely by studying the operation of a motor vehicle and the rules of the road. Those are essential but would be incomplete without actual time behind the wheel. Ashworth's literary form speaks volumes: experience is essential to competency, especially where the public interest is at stake.

Though much of his recollections he retells with tongue firmly implanted in cheek (making his argument all the more persuasive, I might add), there is an iron core of logic in every anecdote and proverb. Of course, were one to take him at his word, few but the deranged would be compelled to enter the Thunderdome of public service (let alone his beloved niece, Kim). To do so, pretty much requires one to suffer:

1. Derision and contempt
2. Unpleasant and difficult people
3. Corruption and temptation
4. Indifference and inequity
5. Favoritism and bias

Looking at that list it is hard to imagine that anyone rational would seriously consider going into public service. However, Ashworth makes a good case that ONLY the most rational should consider it. For instance, when faced with the derision and contempt of opponents, Ashworth points out:
"Your public life will be spent between the extremes on almost every important public policy decision you make....As a thinking person you will choose to favor in your mind and perhaps in your actions some groups over others. Such choices will put you at risk. But it will be your preferences about whom you seek to assist that will distinguish you from the chaff and flotsam that make up far too much of every bureaucracy in this country, public and private." (p. 36-37)

Thus, integrity and character will be determined as much by those whom you choose to oppose as by those whom you choose to support. Only the most rational decision-makers ought to put themselves into a position where not only their competence but their whole system of values is constantly under assault. Furthermore, the opposition's lack of competence and rationality offers hope.

The same may be said of the daily grind of having to deal constantly with unpleasant people. While this might tend to wear the hardiest administrator down, the rational one can find a sound defense in the weaknesses of such people. Essentially, they lack confidence in their abilities, use people as means to ends and exercise power clumsily. Leadership to them is about control and one-upsmanship--about keeping themselves "above" subordinates and colleagues alike. However, the experienced administrator has a secret weapon:
"Most of the time what they underestimate is your courage and your tenacity and your willingness to go to battle. As a result, if you are modest and quiet, your opponents will do a lot of bluffing." (p. 55)

Being above the fray much of the time means that enemies will tend underestimate the rational administrator. Then, when he or she has marshaled the substantive and instrumental sources of power, a sense of reason and proportion is never lost. As Lyndon Johnson points out, "The task of leadership...Is to avoid irreconcilable positions." In other words, it pays to study all positions and be prepared to defend on on hand and compromise on the other.

When it comes to compromise, however, professional ethics should never be on the table. The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Code of Ethics makes it quite clear that officials should always demonstrate personal integrity by avoiding conflicts of interest or the taint of partisanship. The experienced administrator keeps his or her personal needs out of the policy arena. To do that, you must be aware of your own weaknesses:
"Whatever your greatest personal need and desire is, there will lie your greatest need and temptation. Acknowlege what it is you want and desire most and take warning from that knowledge....keep yourself and your personal wants out of the picture and be governed by your social values and by actions that uphold the principles of our democratic society." (p. 87).

Otherwise, administrators risk losing self-respect and becoming their own worst enemies. In fact, responsible administrators have an even more acute obligation than the average decision-maker to do the right thing. They cannot sit back and let nature take its course. Such indifference cedes that the so-called "hidden hand" of reality shape events:
"In the modern world, no government can sit on the sidelines and permit some mindless social mechanism to define how we all relate to each other. Government must be the major organized intelligence in a society for pursuing the interests and progress of all the people. No other institution can do that. No hidden hand will do it equitably." (p. 163-164).

Thus, responsible administrators are obliged to use the power of policy making to make things better. His complete citation of Carl Schurz's aphorism is perhaps the most touching part of the book: "My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be set right," Policy making is, therefore, a primary means of setting things right. Ashworth claims that their is an intrinsic moral sense beyond all traditional sources of wisdom that requires such behavior. However, a truly humane response can only come from an informed moral center, one which takes into account the long-view as well as a more intuitive one.

When administrators act, however, they must be fully cognizant of the effect of their decisions. The complete implications of policy making may sometimes only be known in the fullness of time. Through concern for effects, administrators can minimize the human tendency toward bias and favoritism. Though the actions of boards are beyond the control of administrators, they are not beyond their influence. Ashworth describes his style of agenda-setting and problem solving as "tough." The E.D.'s job is to, in effect, make board members' lives more difficult. After all, no promises were made that everything would be peaches and cream. That means that to act democratically, leadership entails increasing openess in the decision making process as much as is practicable. Furthermore, it means reducing inequities and responding to the rights of the minority. This is especially true when faced with true evil:
"I refuse to be discouraged because I refuse to stand disarmed. We can never permit ourselves to be half-hearted for what is good as we oppose those who are wholehearted for what is evil." (p. 161).

Administrators can arm themselves by expanding their knowledgebase and rising above their specialty. Ashworth uses the metaphor of the iceberg in which one's specialty is just what is visible above the water line. I see an advanced degree and the education it represents as being affecting professional growth both above and below the water line. The MPA program in particular provides lots of opportunities to develop depth of specialty knowledge, including the use of particular tools and techniques to apply to problem analysis. Leadership, however, requires a broader sense of the mission of the organization and its place in the social spectrum. I think I have benefited most from that kind of broadening through studying theory and then applying it in case analyses. This kind of learning forces students like me to ask harder questions and think through the implications of their recommendations. That set the stage for real learning when I have been frequently confronted by the limitations of my own thinking.

Of course, the contradictions I have faced in the classroom are nothing compared to those I will face in the real world. That brings me back to my original questions. There are no easy answers to these. Indeed Ashworth spends 184 pages without clear answers, which is, perhaps, more a reflection of the complexities of public leadership than his ability to impart them. What I appreciated most about this book was the sense that reality is more complicated not just than we do imagine, but than we can imagine. Administrators must stand in awe even of just what exists above that waterline. However, Ashworth has pointed the way toward understanding: there is no substitute for experience.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 8

A Personal Manifesto

Artist, poet, free spirit, writer, sports fan, technophile and deep thinker--all describe what I am and have been. My working class roots are in the Midwest, but I have been baptized an honorary Tar Heel by my family. I am a father of two wonderful boys, a devoted husband to my generous and patient wife, Maria, and I am active in my community. Born in Akron, Ohio (former rubber capital of the world), I pride myself on my ability to bounce back. I have struggled over the years to shape myself as an example of competence and stability. Yet, I still cherish my imperfections. My success has been the product of family contributions, my upbringing and my own hard work. But I have a vision to serve the public interest that I must follow.

I believe in the journey and my ability to take myself where I want to go. I also believe that others will want to follow. I am a consummate planner, yet I am free from the constraints of conventional thinking. I am a critical thinker, yet I work and play well with others. I hope to put those technical and people skills to work so as to increase my opportunities for professional collaboration. After all that has happened in the world as of late, I am still an advocate for social progress. I believe in the power of innovation that the Third Sector can bring to that struggle.

I also believe in government as a servant to freedom and as a key actor where markets fail. I believe in "right" solutions, not just market or government ones. Furthermore, I believe in my training and natural ability to analyze and solve complex problems. The same qualities are also useful in the more important task of "problem finding," which requires the ability to generate and build consensus. Ultimately, I think I can parlay that into a leadership position--hopefully, one which requires ethics, vision, hard work and a huge helping of determination. To lead, one must be willing to serve and that suits me to a T. Therefore, I believe in service to my family, colleagues and community. I also am a firm believer in the power of love to unite people and save lives. I hope that by doing what I love for others, I will come closer to understanding who I am and why I am here.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 7

Data collection was supposed to begin this week. Various complications and delays have prevented recruitment of participants since one month ago when I delivered the first version of the surveys to the Center. Last week all stops were pulled out by Kevin and the staff. However, according to Aly, no willing candidates met the qualifications: a child victim of abuse or neglect who is a resident or former resident of New Hanover county where the crime took place.

I fully expect that trend will not hold and that interviews will likely take place starting next week. Hopefully, Dr. Imperial's dire prediction of data collection difficulty will prove to be pessimistic. Meanwhile, my conversations with Kevin and his staff have led me to make a few changes. I have come to realize that the original pdf versions of the surveys were simply inadequate, even after we edited them. First, they lack all but the most basic questions about demographics--some have none at all. Without a few basic demographic details, it will be difficult to assess the center's performance with respect to the particular needs of its clients.

This observation, though late in the game, led me to request that case numbers be handwritten on all surveys in their current pdf forms which were taken straight from the evaluation manual. I also requested that the surveys for each case be attached together. Then, as I enter the data, I will also enter the following details: age of victim, income range, primary ethnicity(ies), zip code, and, possibly, a code that indicates the primary type of abuse or neglect. Other case details are also recommended. I must sort through the possibilities to come up with the best combination of specifics for each of the instruments. Though this type of data endangers the anonymity of the responses, I feel that it is necessary in order to increase opportunities for meaningful statistical analyses and, consequently, improve the usefulness of the results. Moreover, the case numbers are meaningless to anyone (such as myself) without access to the Center's protected database.

Second, in order to transition the evaluation over to Center staff and volunteers in December, I feel it is imperative to give them the forms in an editable format, such as MS Word or MS InfoPath. That will tend to ensure that the practice of program monitoring will not become irrelevant and die out through disuse. The Carousel Center is by no means a static program design. Growth and change are inevitable and this evaluation will need to evolve right along with it.

Right now, the project is one month out from data analysis. A number of loose ends remain and this rewrite is now one of them. I plan to spend the next week working on the new and improved instruments and building the corresponding databases in SPSS. I already have the child victim database designed. I intend to build the other three this week. The following week, I would like to meet with Kevin and Aly to discuss data analysis and decide what it is that they would like to know specifically regarding the Center's performance. I will lay out for them at that time what kinds of information I expect to be able to extract based on the data. Furthermore, we need to discuss the implementation and collection of the multidisciplilnary team surveys. Ideally, those should be completed no later than mid-November.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 6

The Keys to Being a Respected Professional

John Shaw says the difference between a professional and an amateur photographer is that the pro knows what not to include in the photo. That brings up an interesting question about what it means to be a professional. Is it really fair to say that professionals are simply more dedicated to their craft and, by that virtue, more discerning? Perhaps--but not always. I contend that becoming a professional means something much more than merely having higher standards than non-professionals. It is really a marriage between compatible "parties." If both parties are willing, the outcome can be a lifetime of companionship and respect.

Recently, my wife and I were discussing what it means to be a member of a profession. She, being an attorney, naturally associated the term in relation to a specific set of occupations, hers included. Practitioners of medicine, law, social work, engineering and, even, teaching are required by the state to acquire some form of licensure in order to practice them. Along with licensure, they exhibit the classic features of a profession:

1. Specialized training (some definitions suggest at least a bachelor's degree, but this seems a tad arbitrary)
2. Advanced skills based on theoretical knowledge
3. Certification of competence through examination
4. Membership in a professional association
5. Adherence to an ethical code of conduct
6. Continuing education requirements

I, on the other, hand was a little more glib about it. The general connotation of the term profession, as I had always thought of it, is a paid, licensed vocation. Witness, for example, professional contractors and barbers. Though these are certainly worthy professions by all of the above criteria, they don't really fit into the classic mold. Nowadays, moreover, the definition has gotten pretty sloppy so that anybody who works for a living is now a professional: athletes, janitors, barristas and all assorted metiers. This generic sense has robbed the term of much of its cache. That is what bothered my wife most about it: overuse has cheapened the meaning.

I agree with her there. Those of us with pretentions of competence have worked hard to earn our titles. Besides, membership fees in these organizations can be downright painful. That set me to wondering whether public administration actually fit the criteria of a profession. After all, it is certainly not classically associated with the term, nor is it a licensed vocation as per my own debased definition. Did I just spend years and thousands of dollars getting my MPA to merely switch tracks, or have I really stepped up in the world? More generally, what does it mean to be professional in a world where that appellation has been reduced to near beer?

I suppose it makes sense to look at the root of the word profession for guidance. The word originates from Latin profiteri "to speak forward (in public)," whence we also get the word prophet (one who does). Profession in the modern sense arrives from Middle English from "professio," a declaration or vow made upon entering a religious order. It would seem that to become a professional, one must commit body and spirit to a set of beliefs. That certainly makes sense pertaining to law, which has its own zealots and apostates. But public administration? Can one get an amen for that? "Belief" itself comes from the Indo-European root for love (-leubh). Thus, to become a professional is, by extension, to publically express one's love of a field. In a real sense, one becomes wed to one's profession.

It seems fair to say that formal dedication to a chosen field, to doing things correctly and in accordance with standardized practices, should somehow be included in the definition. Just as in marriage, one cannot be a true professional without dedication. Furthermore, one need not be paid in return for that dedication, since it is one of the intrinsic rewards a professional "pays" him or herself. Some of the greatest exemplars of history were, by strict definition, rank amateurs. One would hardly call Schopenhauer an "unprofessional" philosopher, or Van Gogh an "unprofessional" painter, simply because they earned no money from their respective vocations. All agree, they were consummate professionals in their time.

Moreover, a pro loves, honors and cherishes his or her profession. To fail to do so is to fail at the profession in a very real sense. Many a "professional" has been accused of being unprofessional despite the fact that they meet all of the foregoing criteria. That is because there is a cultural aspect to professionalism--practitioners care for and nurture their professions. Furthermore, they stand as sentinels to the profession--to have and to hold. They not only control who enters the field, they also help to define what it means to be a good pilot or police officer on two levels. On an instrumental level, they literally help to decide the kinds of things that good professionals do through codes, procedures, enforcement mechanisms and so on. On a more substantive level, they help establish what pros ought to be simply be being a good example of one--the best practices model. Thereby, real pros model professionalism to others. Just as in marriage, actions speak louder than words.

How real is this professional bond? To answer that question, witness how many real marriages have suffered and snapped under the strain of animbalancee between the personal and the professional--forsaking all others. Truly, some professions are jealous mistresses. While it is also true, some pros go into a profession just because of the money, they are not held up as paragons. Just as in marriage, a professional bond built to last is based on its own rewards--for richer or poorer.

Finally, there is that commitment to a calling and a life's work--the till death do you part part. Though, perhaps, this seems less certain nowadays, I would argue that true professionals only give up until they themselves give in (retirement or death). The bond is so strong in some cases that it follows the paragon to the grave. One cannot think of Jonas Salk, for example, without thinking about his occupation as a life-saving scientist or his many signature accomplishments. Few would actually think of him in any other way. Famous and nearly famous names are cited and honored in perpetuity not for the human beings they signify, but rather for what their owners did and how they did it.

Choosing a profession, therefore, may even be more momentous, in some cases, than whom one marries. Lest I seem unduly cavalier about the institution of marriage, consider its declining state. With marriages failing at record pace, one wonders why practitioners do not always exercise good faith and make an honest effort to salvage their personal relationships as consistently as they do their careers. Like marriage, people now talk about "starter careers," and "second careers."

Ex-careerist notwithstanding, patience and self-sacrifice are the hallmarks of true professionals--the ones who make at least one significant contribution to a field and thereby get remembered. It is no coincidence that they are also the ones who, through their commitment, garner the most rewards and command the most respect from their colleagues. It is as if by sheer force of will they are able to create their own legacy. And all that takes to set such an upward spiral into motion is a simple "I do." Dedication, however, isn't enough. Nor is discernment. It all comes back to a romantic notion of Mr. Right and his refusal to take "no" for an answer.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 5

In Journal Entry 3, I explored my strengths and weaknesses. I also discussed some of the "career anchors" that have motivated me. Primary among these has been the search for technical competence, which I believe may be linked to an unexpressed need to reaffirm my overall competence as a human being. This issue may have driven the first half of my life, but I do not have to let it drive my whole life. In my conversation with Kevin Lee recently, I expressed my desire to commit to a cause. That is how I see my new anchor shaping up. Thus, what opportunities and threats exist to my changing anchors?

Technical competence will always be an issue, of course, especially given the quickening pace of technological change in all sectors of society. We live in an increasingly wired world and that will be reflected in our career paths. The computer network and web metaphor are becoming manifest in living reality. Long career trajectories are being replaced by a series of lateral or completely non-linear career "vectors." The simple will inevitably give way to the complex. The microscopic details of our careers and our lives, therefore, may lose a certain amount of originality and uniqueness under the pervasive influence of technology.

In my case, I see high tech replacing many of my job functions and rendering them irrelevant. While there will always be a need for art and design, much of the craft is being relegated to secondary consideration. It is becoming automated and "clipped" (as in "clip art") out of existence. This is a direct threat to my livelihood. While I am in no danger of losing my job to a computer any time soon, there seems to be a general degradation of professional standards from both inside and outside my field.

I theorize that more organizations than ever before place a low premium on design as mere surface detail. Though they appreciate good design when they see it, administrators and executives seem more willing to satisfice--to settle for something less customized to their needs, especially if there are resources to be saved. In other words, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Design. Not only do I see less aesthetic appreciation overall, I also see less critical discernment. Driven by pixels instead of ink, standards are being watered down to nothing. Craft is all but dead. In other words, design is becoming less of a profession and more of a "start up" career. Now, thanks to technology, ANYONE can be a designer. Indeed, our mass media is flush with the DIY concept. Being an "amateur" means being driven by the love of the thing. The hard fact is that you cannot fight love.

I saw the writing on the wall a few years ago when I was an art director at an ad agency. I saw what was valued and it was not craft. It seemed to me that change was inevitable and I had better be prepared when it hit. So, I enrolled in the MPA program. I have looked at other other successful examples in my chosen field--nonprofit management. Now, as Mintrom suggests, I must "model my career" consciously. That means spelling out goals and planning my career path.

CAREER GOALS
Choosing goals for my career change means I have to consider not just the "what?", but also the "how?" and the "when?" The idea is to create a model on which to base rational decision making about my direction. So here goes:

1. Develop a Case for transference of Skills: By the end of my Capstone project, I must be able to make a case that many of the skills I already use daily will help to make me an effective administrator. This means making the most of my strengths and opportunities with an eye toward my weaknesses. That brings me to my next goal.
2. Manage My Weaknesses: By the time I begin to search actively for another job, I will need to find ways to change what I can change about myself that will help to make me a better candidate. That especially means fine tuning my listening and speaking skills and trying to become a more effective communicator. It also means becoming more empathetic and less impulsive. I see commitment to a cause serving other people and their needs as a means to that end.
3. Gain More Volunteer and Team Experience: Serving on committees and teams has helped me gain a greater sense of my purpose at New Hanover Regional Medical Center and at UNCW. I feel that based on my own experience and the advice of my models that more commitment will benefit my career in ways that I cannot foresee. Thus, it is a goal to expand my roles after the completion of my studies and to involve my family in as much as I can. I am a role model now too.
4. Expand My Technical Repetoire: If I am to make myself even more marketable, I must continue my recent experiments in distributed computer networking, learn new applications such as Donor 2, Drupal and HTML, master ones I already know such as SPSS and Excel. By the time I am ready to change careers, I must become a font of technical knowledge that will help me to help others.
5. Increase Management Roles: I need to expand my responsibilities in order to gain more experience working directly with people in a supervisory role. I have some experience doing this, but I need more to help round out my skills.
6. Seek a Balance: I want to establish more of a balance between my family and personal life and my career. Upon graduation, I want to try to make up for lost time and recommit to being a better husband, father and friend to those that I love. Refocusing my attention on them and their needs will help reestablish the balance that has been missing for so long. Whatever aspect of nonprofit management I go into, the position had better take into account that family comes first with me.
7. Find a Cause: Whatever opportunity comes my way, the cause must be just and it must be of a strong benefit to my community. I cannot picture myself just being in something for the paycheck anymore. I need something more substantial to satisfy my needs. I expect market-based compensation, of course. However, I must set an example for others to follow, whether it be in resource development or in some other key role aimed at producing social goods. When that opportunity comes along, I will know what it is. Better yet, I may just have to go out and make it.
8. Continuing Education: I will continue to take tutorials and in-service trainings to help expand my skills. Furthermore, I will decide whether further certification from professional organizations would be of practical value. I cannot make that decision, however, until I know more about my career's new direction.
9. Reflect, Reflect, Reflect: In order to keep track of my goals and maintain perspective, I will continue my blogs on my progress and my life. Not only will this be a record for me to refer to, but for others who may be attempting to change careers as well. The challenge will be to keep it interesting and fresh. I don't want to wind up with a bad case of blog rot. Weekly entries will suffice.

THE FUTURE
It is supposed to be simple to project out five years where I will be, but not so for me. I have some idea of the areas of nonprofit management I will want to focus my efforts, but I am not entirely certain where this is leading. I am definitely interested in playing a key role in resource development. This is an area in which I am deeply committed to helping to make a difference. Where that might be is difficult to say. Most of the advice I have gotten is to try to start out at a small agency, possibly as a volunteer on a board, and to gain more experience in fundraising that way. The other possibility is to accept a lesser role in a larger organization, such as the New Hanover Health Network where I am now. I could also try to seek a position at UNCW or a large foundation.

At any rate, at the five year mark, I expect to be in a supervisory position at a small to medium sized nonprofit. I think I could make good use of my skills in an arts agency or organization, given my fine art undergraduate degree. However, I would definitely not restrict myself to that part of the job market. I am also quite interested in technology, healthcare and emergency management positions. Perhaps, I could start out in an analyst position and move up that way. Ten years out becomes pretty fuzzy. However, I think it is fair to say that I expect to be running an agency or organization in ten years. I fully believe that the combination of my MPA and a possible future certification will round out my qualifications to handle executive responsibilities. Once I decide where my best opportunities lie, I will follow Yogi Berra's sage advice: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 4

Excellence can be quite expensive. Just ask Aline Lasseter, New Hanover Regional Medical Center Foundation's new Executive Director. She understands this better than most. I interviewed Aline just recently to talk about her line of work and the challenges she faces. As the new kid on the block, she is responsible for spearheading the Medical Center's big push to raise over $10 million toward its biggest expansion ever. Indeed, the $190 million plans are well underway. Thus, there is little time to waste mounting a comprehensive new capital campaign.

Lasseter was tapped by NHRMC CEO Jack Barto last year to take charge of the campaign. He chose her, among lesser reasons, because she was a seasoned fundraising veteran who had recently raised $7.7 million in 16 short months. She had organized that $10 million capital campaign for Savannah's St. Joseph's/Candler Hospitals' expansion plans. That campaign included a $3 million naming gift. Such proven success brought her to Jack's attention as a natural fit for Wilmington.

The job he had in mind for her was daunting, but Lasseter is no shrinking violet. She is, after all, a Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE). The requirements for this certification, as laid out by the international Association for Healthcare Philanthropy, are fairly steep and only the most successful practitioners can qualify. Candidate eligibility for examination must be preceded by meeting specific point totals for employment, education, performance and service. In other words, candidates must be active, engaged and consummately successful at what they do. Lasseter has been certified to be all these things. Naturally, she is a busy person, meeting with donors, making appearances, serving on multiple boards, attending events or simply taking care of the business of philanthropy. Thus, her position requires her to wear many hats. Among the most important are hats for:

1. Fund Raising Strategy: How institutions approach fundraising.
2. Donor Development: How donors are cultivated and moved through levels of giving.
3. Donor Relations: How good relationships are maintained.
4. Fund Raising Management: How the business of fund raising gets done.
5. Fund Stewardship: Managing funds to satisfy donors and, most importantly, maintain the letter and spirit of the law.

A typical day for Lasseter is half-comprised of making contacts or, more precisely, making contacts of contacts. The technique might be aptly described as social snowballing. She relies upon her ample strength as a nouveau arrive. Since she is so new to the area, she has an "in." People want to meet her and donors often ride along. So far it seems to be working. Her new ideas and expansive vision have already had a positive impact on the Foundation's efforts. What is more, people seem to genuinely like her style which is thoroughly professional, yet always warm and accessible.

What does it take to be successful in such a highly competitive business? Lasseter lists fund raising experience at the top. To gain fund raising street cred, she says, one has to come up through the ranks and "pay your dues." Most times that means starting out small, like she did, and working the way up. Her bacherlor's degree in marketing laid her career's foundation. After that, she credits her experience in "fast food marketing," working for the likes of Wendy's International and McDonald's Corporation. Those experiences helped her to build her marketing savvy. Raising $1 million for the Savannah-based Children's Miracle Network in the mid-Nineties demonstrated her uncanny ability to form lucrative donor relationships. She later cultivated a $5 million gift for the Curtis and Elizabeth Anderson Cancer Institute campaign. That is the kind of donor cultivation success that gets one noticed.

Is it marketing savvy, donor cultivation or is it salesmanship? Perhaps it is all three, she suggests. A little PR experience doesn't hurt either. For her fund raising is all about the relationships she forms with people, which, if early returns are any guide, seem to be strong. In the managed care competition for healthcare dollars, relationships are what make the difference. Just as patients want to feel good about the institution or their physician, hospital donors want to feel good about not just the cause, but the most visible representative of it as well. The two are inextricably tied together. If one loses face, so does the other.

At the same time, she believes that a fund raiser's main job is to keep the cause uppermost in the mind of the donor. The more obsessive the cause, the bigger the gift. Eventually, one gets to mega-gift territory where the sky can be the limit.

Of course, it doesn't hurt to have the right personality. She recommends going into fund raising only if one is outgoing and has a LOT of energy. It is a relentless search for support that only the brave dare undertake. Just like the U.S. Mail, the search never stops. Of course, it doesn't hurt to be smart, upbeat and genuinely funny like Lasseter. Those kinds of traits can only serve one well when it comes to the merely impossible, which fund raisers must frequently contend with. A good sense of humor, in particular, can save one's sanity. True to form, she downplays the more difficult aspects of her job (and there are many.) Nevertheless, she has little patience for people who are not team players or who think nothing of wasting her precious time. She is too busy to put up much with that sort. Then there is the well-known pressure of working with CEOs and boards. That can be nerve-wracking for those without the stomach for it. To be a success, a fund raiser must thrive on it.

Would she still recommend a career in fund raising? You bet. Though it can be a real high wire act, there are many personal and professional rewards to be had. Fund raisers help connect donors to their passion. They are like the bodhisattvas of giving. The best ones can lead whole communities to enlightenment. What is more, they are legacy builders. They are instrumental to capital building and a force for positive change. They can help take a blueprint and turn it into an institution that will change lives forever and long after they are gone.

What could be more rewarding than that?

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 3

If you ask most people to describe their strengths, like me, you will get a laundry list of positives that desribe in glowing terms everything right about them. For example, I am an excellent archer. Now, what I might not tell you is that I mean 1 time out of ten shots I am excellent--a sin of omission. However, there is no denying, in my own estimation, that I have made some excellent shots. That I am not William Tell is simply "extraneous" information. Of course, even the blindfolded may score a bullseye once in a while. Thus it is with many self-assessing candidates. Asking me my strengths is easy, even without much in the way of reflection:

• 20 years of professional experience in design and marketing
• Life-long learner
• Pleasant disposition
• Helpful and knowledgable
• Thorough and dilligent
• Highly-focused
• Ambitious
• Strong project management skills and planning abilities
• Strong technical skills
• Strong conceptual ability
• Abundant creativity
• Strong writing and verbal skills
• Strong research abilities
• Works well independently or in collaboration
• Logical and organized
• Well-educated
• Open-minded and fair
• Highly ethical and considerate
• Naturally inquisitive
• Strong intuitive problem-sovling abilities
• Big picture thinker
• Commited to improving self and lives of others
• Flexible and highly adaptive
• Enjoys challenges... and so on.
  

Less easy and, as a result, less exhaustive is an honest account of weaknesses. Let's face it. Would you really want your obvious weaknesses floating out there, possibly sinking ships that might otherwise come in? Am I some kind of Rainman, boasting about his own driving while not mentioning that whole autism thing? Myers and Briggs tell me that though I am certainly all of those wonderful things above, I also have problems:

• Feelings of inferiority
• Highly critical
• Skeptical
• Stubborn
• Argumentative
• Impulsive
• A tad quirky
• Distractable...and that is enough.

You see what I mean? Short list! That was a strain. Of course, there is much more, but the nature of my weaknesses is not deterministic. For sure, these may be stubborn traits, but they are not character flaws. Indeed, they are mostly unexpressed and may even be fully surrmountable. For a prospective employer, the question might be put this way: how might these strengths and weaknesses translate into workplace performance? However, from my perspective as a career seeker, it might be better put as: what is the best career for someone with my gifts? Is there an apple out there that I can hit again and again?

All of my professional career, I have worked in a creative capacity--that is my forte. People are frequently touched by my work. I have even make them laugh and cry from joy. That makes me feel good about myself and brings confidence for my daily challenges. I have even been told that I have the "gift of excellence," a thing not to be squandered. These compliments notwithstanding, I know that, just like anyone else, I have my unique limitations. Finding my place in the world, therefore, means acknowledging them, controlling for them and, if possible, using them to my advantage. Then my strengths will take care of themselves.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Okay, ALL weaknesses ought to be acknowledged. However, a few can ONLY be acknowledged. I can always try to improve my aim, but improving my vision might be impossible short of surgery, which I reject. Glasses offer correction, but I cannot do well without them. Therefore, a position in which I cannot wear corrective lenses would not be well-suited for me. The same may be said of my quirkiness. The leopard cannot put off his spots. I guess I'm just a little spotty sometimes and that is that. Nor would it be easy to repress my impulses, which are significant. My gut tells something and I listen. Others may take that as being unreasonable. I take it as an opportunity for honesty: to express myself in the moment. Being aware of that, however, provides me with power to cut through to the heart of the matter which can make some folks a little uncomfortable. Finally, I am always the skeptic. Call me Thomas, but I think doubt does present a deficit of faith. Knowing that, I seek evidence to make the leap, which because I am an incurable intuitive, I do gladly. Some may take that as a burden that I impose on others. I just think it's the right thing to do. I ask questions expecting straight answers. I may choose not to ask, but the doubt will persist. Perception is one of my clear preferences for reaching my conclusions about the world. Judgment I withhold. Others may assume, if I do not tell them, that they have already been judged. Selah!

CONTROL
More weaknesses can be controlled. I may be inferior in some situations, but that does not mean I will always be so. Elanor Roosevelt famously said that "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." No matter how degrading the situation, one can always excerise personal freedom. Furthermore, one can always improve one's situation, as in my case through education, hard work and so on. In addition, being stubborn cuts both ways. In some situations it is strength, others, a weakness. The trouble is knowing which is which.

Technical/Functional: Enjoy using core skills; skills don’t have to be technical in nature; can be a human resources worker or a secretary and enjoy using the skills needed for those positions; motivated by learning new skills and expanding current knowledge base.

Type of Work: What turns these types on is the exercise of their talent; satisfaction with knowing concepts. If it is not a challenge, technical/functional types feel bored and/or demeaned. Content of actual work more important than the context of the work. In other words, it is the actual work they are concerned with not the organization or the overall mission of their work; teaching and mentoring offers opportunity to demonstrate expertise.

General Managerial Competence: view specialization as limiting; primarily want to manage or supervise people; enjoy motivating, training and directing the work of others; enjoy authority and responsibility, and when someone strips of control it is “demotivator;” thrive in three areas of competence – analytical, interpersonal/intergroup, and emotional.

Type of Work: high levels of responsibility, varied, integrative, leadership.
Autonomy/Independence: need and want control over work and want to be recognized for achievements; can’t tolerate other people’s rules or procedures; need to do things their own way; independent consulting and contract work would be a good fit for these people; want to be left alone to do their work; just give them instructions on what you want, when you want it and let them “go to it!”

Type of Work: seek autonomous professions such as consulting, teaching, contract or project work, or even temporary work; part or full-time acceptable.

Service/Dedication to a Cause: motivated by core values rather than the work itself; strong desire to make the world a better place.
Type of Work: high concentration of service-oriented professions, motivated by pursuit of personal values and causes.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 2

I met with Kevin, Alyson and Alli today to choose instruments and discuss data collection issues. Knowing that we are going to pursue a program monitoring approach vastly simplified the next steps. The essential questions I sought answers for included:

1. Who will be included in the population(s)? Parents/caregivers, child victims, MDT members, other agencies, the general public?
2. Will clients be sampled or will the entire population be polled? Will that continue in the future, or will a less-representative sampling technique be adopted later when it is more convenient?
   
3. Given those answers, which instruments will be best to use? Will data be collected through direct interviews, phone surveys, or self-administered surveys?
4. Who would best conduct the interviews or administer the surveys?
5. When would that process best occur so as to maximize usable feedback?
6. What privacy issues or issues of subject protection are there?
7. Who will enter the data?

POPULATION
After some discussion, it was decided that the including separate polls of the MDT members and parents/caregivers were essential for best practice comparisons. The question that I brought out was whether the value of the feedback that would come from child victims would exceed the opportunity cost of burdening the child with an additional interview (since that type of data collection would necessarily have to be via in-person interview). I pointed out that NOT taking the risk to invterview child victims would ignore feedback from the Center’s primary clients. That, in my mind, would be a costly mistake. After much discussion and review of the intstruments, we decided that child victims really ought to be polled since what they said could be essential to improving service delivery and fulfilling the Center’s mission. Other populations, such as those of cooperting agencies or the general public, were assumed to be beyond the resources and time available right now.

REPRESENTATION
All MDT members would be polled, of course. But what of clients? Since time is a premium, every single client will be recruited until mid-November. After that, recruiting on a time-limited quarterly or annual basis is always possible. Alternately, if the ongoing costs associated with program monitoring become too great, every fifth client, for example, could be sampled. While the Center serves over 15 Southeast counties, only New Hanover county clients, for the foreseeable future, will participate. The reason for this circumscribed population limit is that CAC certification is concerned with service to a single county. Furthermore, comparisons between urban and rural clients may be somewhat tenous since they are so qualitatively different. Lumping them together might be ill-advised. A separate poll is always possible.

INSTRUMENTS
After reviewing one-by-one the wide variety of program monitoring instruments that the DOJ evaluation manual offers, we selected the following instruments:

1. Parents/Caregivers:
   a. Family Satisfaction with CAC Services (Appendix C, page 76-77)
   b. Parent/Caregiver Questionnaire—3-Month Followup Telephone Interview
   (C-85 through 86)
2. Multi-Disciplinary Team Members: Agency Satisfaction Survey (C-11 through 13)
3. Child Victims: Child Satisfaction with CAC Services Survey (C-133)

Parents and caregivers should be interviewed twice, it was reckoned, to provide the Center with some longitudinal follow-up data that could yeild useful comparisons. Since the first survey would be conducted anonymously via a self-administered survey at the Center after initial interviews and services were rendered, it seems fair to assume that a more balanced assessment might be presented later on, given time to adjust to the experiences and digest them. This will help maximize usable feedback. On the other hand, further interviews with the child victim would probably be considerably less fruitful and, moreover, might tend to add to their stress unduly. They were ruled out.

DATA COLLECTION
In order to settle remaining issues regarding data collection, I asked Ali and Alyson to provide me with a revised flowchart of program activities such as the one provided in the evaluation manual. Based on their work, it was determined that the most efficacious time to administer the initial evaluation would be immediately after the second team meeting, before family and victim leave the Center. (A revised flowchart will be uploaded to the Basecamp soon.) Therefore, participants would have to be recruited during the initial interviews with each client. Of course, permission would have to be obtained from the non-offending parent or caregiver PRIOR to asking the child victim to participate. This is key to maintaining the trust of all parties. A script is available for this recruitment. Participation must be voluntary, of course, and strong emphasis should be placed on its anonymity.

This brings up subject protections. Subjects have the right to expect that all question and their responses to them have absolutely NO bearing on their own case and that they have the right to expect the same high-quality services either way. The responses are purely for the improvement of future service delivery. Furthermore, their private information will not be shared with any other person or agency, only their responses. Finally, if there is any objection from any party that NO participation will be assumed and that non-participation will not be penalized in any way.

In order to maintain privacy, only neutral, non-service delivering personnel will administer the evaluations. This entails also, that only Center staff, volunteers or contractors be involved in direct data collection. Volunteers and contractors, if any, will sign confidenitality agreements. No one from UNCW or any other agency will be involved. This last point is essential: NO ONE involved with direct service delivery to the clients can ethically collect the data. Not only will this ensure subject privacy, it will ensure that data collection is not skewed by interviewer effects.

Finally, I will be designing the database soon. As for data entry, Heather or some other neutral party may be available for this task. If not, I will certainly do it. We will make this determination later. Certain modification to the survey forms were discussed last. I promised to deliver those within a week or so. It is essential that data collection get underway by mid-September. That is our next milestone.

PLS 595 JOURNAL ENTRY 1

The Carousel Center Evaluation’s mini-retreat last Monday: Kevin Lee, Alyson Nowicki, Heather Sandala, David Timken, Kevin Tulley, Pat Jessup, and Lisa Savitts. The Team met downtown at the BB&T Building courtesy of BB&T.

The Team met to discuss the basic basic issues of evaluability and, ideally, choose which type of evaluation to conduct. This was intended to be a working session with lots of give and take. The meeting started with welcome and introductions by Kevin. This was followed by my reading of last meetings minute and old business. This led into a discussion of the agenda for the day (see the attached agenda).

Our objectives for this meeting were:

1. A list of target outcomes to measure
2. Research questions to answer
3. The type of evaluation to undertake
4. A specification of the target population(s) of the study
5. Selection of instruments
6. An experimental design
7. An updated timeline.

Because of time constraints, we were unable to cover all of these issues as a group, although, with your help, Kevin and I were ultimately able to make a meet 6 of these 7 objectives and that is a very successful result.

I reviewed the results of a national survey of CACs undertaken by the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center (see Cross and Jones’s PPT under the Files tab entitiled “multi-site outcome survey resultsmulti-site outcome survey results”). Since the Center aspires to attain full accreditation as a CAC, most of these outcomes would be crucial to accomplishing the Center’s mission. They are the starting point for designing this evaluation backward from its objectives. They will help form the questions we hope to answer about the Center’s operation and its interactions with its clients.

OUTCOMES
I then engaged the team in an excercise regarding the survey outcomes: The room was broken down into the five agencies represented and each of these agency reps were asked to priortize the outcomes with respect to their own agency experiences and knowledge of the Center’s operations. These outcomes were classified according to whom they accrued: Child and Family, Agencies and the Community. Then I brought all team members back together again to discuss the four lists and create one master list. The resulting list of top outcomes of the Center’s operation, broken down by beneficiary, include:

Child and Family

1. More thorough investigations
   
2. Less distress
   
3. More support and advocacy
   
4. Promptness of response
   
5. More available services
   
6. Sense of justice

Agencies

1. More thorough investigations
2. More expertise
3. More sharing of resources and interagency cooperation
4. Increased information sharing
5. Increased opportunities for joint training

Community

1. Increased resources for child abuse response
2. Increased child abuse prevention
   
3. Increased public awareness of child abuse

QUESTIONS
These three categories of beneficiaries suggest a basis for comparison among how clients, other agencies and citizens in general perceive the Center and its effectiveness. It was generally agreed that measuring some of these outcomes would be difficult. For example, how does one measure public awareness of child abuse? Furthermore, what kind of study could measure the Center’s impact on awareness? Furthermore, what basis for comparison is there to determine if investigations are more throrough because of the Center and its Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT)? Obviously, there would have to be agreement about how to define and operationalize the concept of “thoroughness”—not an easy thing to do.

Thus, we can begin to set about asking the right questions with these outcomes that will help us to design or choose both the right type evaluation and instruments. Furthermore, information shared by Pat has led me to believe that an impact evaluation is simply impossible given the lack of significant popluation of non-referred cases of child abuse in New Hanover county. For the purposes of this evaluation, only cases from NHC can be considered. Pat stated that DSS is in the practice of referring all such cases. In other words, non-referral would be unconscionable. Furthermore, whatever clients do NOT follow through the referral process could be significantly different from those clients who do. That might tend to render comparisons between the two groups invalid. There is no way of knowing for sure.

Finally, the resulting sample sizes would simply be too small to be very meaningful. As its current average rate of referral intakes, the maximum number of cases from NHC we might expect with 100% participation is 20—far too few in the short-term of this evaluation (two months) to measure impact. In fact, based on the reworked timeline, the maximum number of participants we might expect is 40. Furthermore, an outcome evaluation would require a much longer timeframe than two months. A program monitoring evaluation, would also suggest an ongoing type of evaluation that would exceed the timeframe. Yet, it could reveal some of the targeted reults in the short-term. I spent a few minutes laying out these issues and defining the three different evaluation types under consideration.

AN ANSWER
After all of these points were brought out in discussion, it was generally agreed that rather than approaching this evaluation as a one-shot deal, that Kevin and his employees should consider the ongoing evaluation approach that program monitoring offers. Simply put, the Center would monitor and maintain a database of evaluation results in perpetuity or, at least, on a repetetive basis. This information could then be used to track the Center staff’s progress in meeting set standards of performance. Those standards are established through a combination of feedback from the MDT and clients and best practices of other CACs throughout the country via the Nathional Children’s Alliance and the DOJ’s standardized evaluation instruments.

Shortly thereafter the general meeting of the team was adjourned. I stayed afterward to discuss timeline issues with Kevin and plan for the next meeting.