BY THE HEARTLAND CENTER
Introduction
This overview provides a factual and interpretive summary of the process and outcome of the MIRA program during its first round of implementation. The purpose of the overview is to disseminate the lessons learned through this program so that they can be applied to future MIRA Clusters, as well as other community development initiatives. The document is based on information provided by Cluster evaluations conducted by the Heartland Center for Leadership Development during 1998 and 1999.
MIRA set out to achieve seven capacity-building objectives in rural areas:
Focus on people and participation first, technology second.
Value local skills and resources that community people have to apply
technology.
Connect communities and the people in them and help them work
together in new ways.
Value diversity of people, ideas, and perspectives.
Encourage development of shared visions and collaborative strategies to
influence systems change.
Promote the sharing of information and ideas.
Provide time to reflect on approaches to complex issues.
All of the above objectives were achieved during Round 1 of MIRA, to a greater or lesser degree of success in each of the six Clusters. The following overview examines the significant characteristics, challenges, and success stories of the Round 1 Clusters and documents emerging models for achieving four sustainable outcomes:
- Identifying and recruiting emerging leaders
- Developing new partnerships
- Securing leveraged support
- Managing information technology
[back to top]
Regional Characteristics
Round 1 of MIRA was implemented in six rural regions throughout the United States: Southwest Virginia, Southwest Iowa, Southwest Nebraska/ Northwest Colorado, Southern Texas, Western Idaho, and the big island of Hawaii.
These regions are broadly diverse in natural, human and economic resources, ranging from Virginia, the most "developed" cluster in terms of population, industry and technology, to rural Hawaii, where some residents live in open air huts, without telephones and running water.
Together, 55 teams of community volunteers participated in a series of workshops designed to build individual, community and technological capacity for the six rural Clusters, In the end, 45 technology projects were launched that ranged from information resource centers to transportation dispatch centers, and from community web sites to community voice mail systems.
Hundreds of additional volunteers participated on a secondary level as these projects were implemented within individual communities. New alliances among schools, churches, service organizations and local governments have been created, and hold full promise of sustainability. These outcomes demonstrate that Round 1 of the MIRA program achieved phenomenal success.
For the purpose of program improvement, however, it is valuable to look at the strengths and the weaknesses of each MIRA Cluster, and to examine the processes and relationships that developed not only between the Foundation and each Cluster, but more importantly, within each Cluster.
It is also important to note that the W.K. Kellogg Foundation did not establish any quantitative criteria as a measurement for Cluster success. However, most Clusters did, to a certain degree, measure their own success by the number of community teams that were eligible for project funding once the workshop series had concluded. The prospect of project grant awards was a major motivator for the majority of Clusters and MIRA community teams.
If we choose to apply this self-imposed criterion, some interesting observations can be made by studying the following matrix and comparing significant characteristics of each cluster:
- The capacity of preexisting technology did not determine final outcomes.
- Although distance between communities may have played an important
role in workshop attendance for the "close-in" Texas and "far-flung"
Hawaii Clusters, those teams that traveled one to four hours to attend
workshops experienced both success and failure in recruiting members
for attendance.
- The variety of locations for workshops did not seem to have an impact
on team eligibilities.
- Neither the size nor the diversity of the communities seemed to dictate
eligibility trends.
What we might conclude from these measurable characteristics is that the "success" of teams with respect to workshop attendance was likely dependent on the variables of dynamics and process within the groups that participated.
[back to top]
Cluster Personalities
From the onset of the MIRA evaluation process, Heartland Center evaluators noticed differences in general attitudes among the six Clusters.
Texas, though initially somewhat disorganized, emerged as a highly positive and motivated group. Members of the Steering Committee and teams took to heart the MIRA goal of "putting people before technology." The Cluster produced newsletters, sponsored community events, and collaborated closely with its Community Service Organizations (CSOs). It recruited large numbers of students, and maintained a constituency of diverse ages and occupations. Initial project ideas were based on the human needs of the communities, such as bilingual information and the need for youth recreation. The Steering Committee opened its process to any team member who wished to become involved, and it was not unusual to have 25 persons attending the frequent meetings. Above all, the learning process was as important to Texas members as was the final product of the technology projects. One Texas team member explained how his group recovered from internal tension by using techniques learned through the workshops: "We as a group thought back to each workshop, reviewed our notes to see how we could begin handling the problem. We were able to take something from each workshop and apply it to our situation."
In contrast to the Texas Cluster, Iowa's "personality" was much more reserved. All of the right pieces for a smooth organization were in place, but the spirit of enthusiasm and teamwork seemed to be missing. Leadership and responsibility was concentrated among just a few individuals. One of the ten original teams failed to attend the first workshop. This led to a shift in immediate attention on the part of the Steering Committee. Instead of focusing on how to benefit from the MIRA trainings, the committee spent considerable time attempting to recoup the disqualified team's $15,000. This shift in emphasis from "learning" to "earning" spread and persisted throughout the Cluster.
Local politics affected the progress of two Clusters early on: Idaho and Nebraska/Colorado.
Perseverance characterized the Idaho Cluster. The MIRA initiative promoted two separate proposals from Idaho, however, the Foundation funded only one. The successful Cluster invited several of the communities who had been part of the unsuccessful parallel proposal, and three did participate. Although there remained an internal feeling of disunity, two skilled Steering Committee leaders were able to keep the members on task with delegated responsibilities. As the project implementation phase of the program approached, all the teams expressed unanimous appreciation for the learning and networking opportunities they had been afforded.
The problematic Nebraska/Colorado Cluster nearly dropped out of the MERA program at the urging of some disgruntled participants. The Cluster was comprised of 80% youths who were responsible for all the manage-ment details, including budgets, trainers and facilities. MIRA workshops competed with many of the youths' activities, and it became apparent early into the workshop series that several teams would not meet attendance requirements. Through intensive intervention on the part of the Foundation and the evaluator, the Nebraska/Colorado Cluster stayed with the program, and four of the ten teams remained active.
Virginia and Hawaii are the Clusters most distant and different from one another. It is interesting, however, that members of both Clusters repeatedly mentioned "isolation" as a barrier for inter-community collaboration. Virginia team members had a mere 75 miles to drive to workshops. Hawaiians traveled up to a half a day in order to attend. While rivers, forests and lakes separate Virginia teams, lack of roads, telephones, and automobiles are the barriers that isolate Hawaiian communities. Both Clusters overcame many real and perceived challenges throughout the MIRA program. And several individual teams from both Clusters determined that their grant awards would best be spent by developing comprehensive plans for the use of existing and future information technologies.
With this brief profile as a backdrop, let us take a closer look at the challenges, the solutions and the lessons learned by citing examples from the six MIRA Clusters.
[back to top]
Steering Committees
Lesson Learned: Provide more time to develop a strong Steering Committee.
Although Texas teams are at the most only 20 miles apart, members of the Steering Committee were generally unfamiliar with one another. This unfamiliarity was consistent among all of the Round 1 Clusters. In addition to being strangers, many communities, such as those in Virginia and Iowa, actually considered themselves "rivals." Others, like Idahoans, had never even visited one another's home towns.
Because of distance, several Steering Committees communicated mainly by e-mail and met only at workshops. For future Clusters it may be beneficial to allow more time up front for team-building exercises, to clarify overall MIRA goals, and to provide some extra technical assistance.
The need for these improvements was clearly articulated by members of the Iowa Cluster. Several months into the program, and after two workshops, Steering Committee members admitted that they had been unprepared to work together as a team. One member suggested the Foundation might consider providing information on the best practices for logistics, organization, and trainer selection for workshops.
Although organizational structure was not imposed by the Foundation, Clusters might be advised to take minutes of meetings, develop contingency plans to deal with internal problems, and share leadership responsibilities as much as possible.
Steering Committees should be encouraged to utilize the Foundation and evaluation team as resources. This was successfully done in Nebraska/ Colorado when the Cluster was faced with near disintegration. Intervention by the Foundation and evaluator led to two successful final workshops and the rescue of four qualifying teams.
Steering Committee members should be encouraged to articulate and reiterate the overall theme and goals of MIRA to team members. While positive comments about the capacity building potential of MIRA came from team members throughout the program, those who attended sessions in Battle Creek exhibited a stronger commitment to MIRA's long-term objectives. Certain Clusters as a whole seemed to have
a deeper understanding of the program's significance. Texas and Idaho Steering Committees, with their shared and idealistic leadership styles, may have contributed to the mainly positive attitudes expressed by their constituents.
Steering Commmittee members should understand that leadership style varies greatly. Steering Committees in Texas and Idaho, for example, demonstrated the positive effects of a shared style of leadership. Participation from all members was encouraged, resulting in a sense of shared ownership. Other Steering Committees relied upon a more directed style of leadership. Although efficient, authoritarian styles detract from the shared leadership experience. Such Clusters saw diminished program effectiveness.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Steering Committees were warned in advance that this was the first MIR A round. Difficulties encountered along the way, it was said, may partly be attributed to "kinks" in the system that still needed to be worked out.
[back to top]
Workshops
Lessons Learned: The success of the first workshop is critical. Preparation between the trainers and the trainer selection committee is absolutely necessary for effective presentations.
The three Clusters whose number of teams at the outset decreased by the last workshops reported significant problems during their first workshops.
In Nebraska/Colorado the training was held in an un-air-conditioned room on an intensely hot day in June. In Hawaii the lighting and sound systems were so poor that people complained they had not seen or heard anything at all. In Iowa, the all-purpose room that had originally been requested came under construction, and the training was held in a huge auditorium with stadium seating. Teams of people sat far apart from one another, and the trainers had to adapt their presentations, which took on the feel of a lecture.
In contrast, the first workshop in Texas set the tone. As one participant commented, "It was a lot of fun and very interesting. It was a great opportunity for us to meet new people and practice communication skills." Perhaps the difference was preparation. Trainers who facilitated Texas workshops were interviewed extensively before selection and presentation. The active "student body" that comprised more than 30% of the Cluster membership put the trainers through a battery of questions and suggestions, both by phone interviews, and in person when the trainer arrived a day ahead of time to prepare for the workshop.
Another lesson to be learned seems obvious, yet it may be necessary to mention it:
Lesson Learned: If something doesn't work, change it.
Several instances serve as examples:
Although the auditorium in Creston, Iowa, did not encourage group interaction, the Iowa Cluster continued to use it for four consecutive workshops. Instead of changing the location, they changed the structure of the presentation. They divided the teams into two groups and demanded that the trainers present concurrent sessions. This structure may have discouraged further the development of Cluster cohesion and identity.
On the other hand, when Nebraska/Colorado was struggling to hold itself together, they revamped their approach to workshops by making them festive occasions, with decorations, lots of good food and door prizes. These amenities, simple as they seem, helped the Cluster conclude its problematic workshop phase on an upbeat note, and helped to revitalize sagging morale.
Various methods of presenting technology demonstrations were also tried among the Clusters. Once again, Texas shines for its exemplary effort. In Texas, a committee was assigned specifically to arrange technology demonstrations. They were not necessarily "high-tech;" they were "hands-on" tech, with topics such as the South Texas web site, an introduction to e-mail and basic computer skills.
In Idaho and Virginia, technology demonstrations were initially offered as "add-on" sessions during lunch periods or before the workshops began. These sessions were poorly attended, and were eventually incorporated into the general workshop agenda.
One final observation on technology demonstrations concerns the value of local presenters. While MIRA regulations required non-local workshop facilitators, Clusters were free to utilize local presenters to demonstrate technology applications. These local presentations drew high praise from Cluster participants. Across the board, participants reported learning more from community based presenters than from "companies who wanted to sell a product," to use the words of one Iowa participant. As an example, a local teacher featured at a Colorado/Nebraska workshop explained his avocation as an e-commerce entrepreneur. One of his products was a disk containing the list of web sites selling Beanie Babies, a $10 product that he had sold in a quantity of 2000 during a six-month period. Needless to say, this captured the imagination of all participants, especially the high school team members who are eagerly seeking technologically-based employment opportunities in their rural communities.
Lesson Learned: Written evaluations tend to be more complimentary than oral comments.
Heartland Center evaluators observed a distinct discrepancy between written workshop evaluations provided as feedback to the Clusters and oral comments offered during personal visits and phone interviews. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating, overall trainers rated between 3.09 and 4.63 on written evaluations. Even in Iowa, the Cluster that exhibited the most dissatisfaction during interviews, the scores were uniformly above average.
The conclusions to be drawn are open to interpretation. Three Clusters-Iowa, Virginia and Hawaii - expressed disappointment that local trainers were not utilized. Yet their evaluations are not significantly different from those of other Clusters, These discrepancies may be due to the fact that the written evaluations asked respondents to rate specific attributes such as pacing, organization and knowledge of the presenter. During interviews, people made general comments about their personal reactions. Discrepancies may also be the result of peoples' tendency to be more polite on paper, Or it may be that people used the opportunity of personal interviews to vent frustration over the workshop attendance requirement, which was a challenge for nearly every team participating.
Also important to note is the decline in the number of evaluation forms completed and turned in as the workshop series' progressed. This was the case in every Cluster, with the most dramatic decrease recorded in Nebraska/Colorado, where, at the final workshop, only 20% of the participants completed evaluation forms.
[back to top]
Cluster Teams
The most exciting evidence of MIRA's potential to achieve sustainable outcomes can be found within the success stories of individual teams and Clusters. This is where the people who live together are learning to work together more effect! velybecause of the MIRA experience.
Depending on the size of the community, team members either knew one another well, or were completely unfamiliar, but almost across the board, team members from different communities were strangers to one another.
In Giles County, Virginia, for example, MIRA was the first project through which several communities worked together. One Floyd, Virginia, team member commented, "individuals were forced to cross the rickety bridges that marginally linked us and strengthen the ties in the interest of reaching a common goal."
In Iowa, where Lacona and Milo came together to form a MIRA team, members noticed a break down of traditional rivalry. One person credits the program for bringing community leaders from each town together to finally resolve a troublesome school bond issue. And in Idaho, one member observed, "Central and northern Idaho had never worked together before. I've never seen this happen among these towns."
Nearly every team interviewed praised the program for encouraging new people to join the pool of community volunteers. Youth were highly involved in the Nebraska/Colorado and Texas Clusters. And because of MIRA's technology focus, many teams reported that they were able to identify and recruit many technical people who had never been involved with community projects before.
Most teams were comprised of a wide diversity of age and occupation, and all were representative of the general ethnic population of their respective regions. This diversity provided an opportunity for members to form countless new relationships. The strongest of these team relationships was noted among those who worked on additional community projects beyond the MIRA program.
In Texas, for example, the San Carlos team organized three community wide events: an Easter celebration, a Christmas gift distribution, and an event during the annual Oktoberfest These additional projects greatly increased team visibility within the community, as well as team pride and identity,
A much less demanding team-building exercise was put to good use by several teams: driving together to workshops. In Idaho, five teams who traveled together displayed strong feelings of camaraderie and identity. Clarinda, Iowa, also used drive time to build team spirit and brainstorm project ideas and details.
Although not all teams qualified for grant awards, several report continued efforts to strengthen the technological capacity of their communities. Hawaii used its web site to provide encouragement and continuing assistance to disqualified teams. One member from South Puna, a community with high unemployment and no public water system except for roof catchments, is working to provide additional access to information. Currently her community has only one computer with e-mail.
[back to top]
Team Projects
Building Capacity through Information and Collaboration
The pages of individual Cluster evaluations are filled with examples of capacity building through creative collaborations on three levels: within teams, between teams, and with the community at large. Most of these new partnerships are the direct result of MIRA's funding for information technology projects.
Some new relationships developed early as project ideas emerged. This was the case in Idaho where projects were formulated early, which helped to recruit members to the teams. In Wray, Colorado, team members utilized newspaper and radio advertising, offering a prize for a winning project idea. The Floyd, Virginia team decided to complete all the workshops first, and then hold two community-wide meetings during which project ideas were publicly advanced and voted on.
The majority of project ideas, however, emerged toward the end of the workshop series. Fifty-five teams were awarded money from grants committees established by Cluster Steering Committees. Of these, 45 projects involved creating educational technology resource centers and/or community web sites. And of'these, the majority utilized schools, libraries and other community resources as project partners.
Ten projects took different avenues to increase technical capacity. Projects such as establishing a bilingual radio station, providing community-wide voice mail, and conducting comprehensive plans for future technology needs, are examples of MIRA projects that answer specific and long-term community needs.
As project implementation unfolded, several teams used one another as supportive resources. Such is the case in Texas where the Folklorico Ballet team will benefit from publicity provided by the KBUZ team, Idaho teams reported that they sought out advice from one another. And interdependence has developed between two Texas teams involving Edinburg and Edcouch-Elsahigh schools, where students regularly connect by e-mail.
All teams interviewed experienced dramatic increases in public visibility and support during the project implementation phase. In Hawaii, for example, the Na'alehu/Pahala MIRA team has leveraged funds, physical space and computer equipment to make their Rural Roots Technology Center a reality. They are collaborating closely with Huliau O Ka'u, Inc., the Atherton Foundation, and the Na'alehu Main Street organization.
Stories of contributed space, furniture, telephone service and equipment abound throughout the Clusters of Idaho, Virginia and Iowa. And in the Nebraska/Colorado Cluster, the Grant team is soliciting major funding from various government and private agencies for a long-distance learning center for tele-medicine, tele-radiography, high school curriculum and more.
These are only a few of the big MIRA success stories. There are many others to be found throughout the stories of each Cluster. It is worthwhile, however, to consider the small scale achievements, as well. The ones that were too numerous or too similar to include in an overview document,
One simple, small accomplishment, however, warrants mention at this point of closure. As a result of MIRA workshop attendance, for the very first time, one Village Board began using a flip chart at its meetings. This poignant anecdote illustrates the basic need that the MIRA program addresses in managing information with rural America.
[back to top]
|
