Social Change, Songwriters and Ipods

On an unbearably hot August night, I recently went to see one of my favorite singer/songwriters, Jackson Browne in concert at an outdoor amphitheater in Kansas City.  One of the best moments of the night, or at least as far as my heat-singed brain could remember, was when he did a song entitled "Looking East" that's a statement of his concerns and hopes about this country as he sees it from his home in California.  The line that always catches me, and one of the reasons I love this song, is "these times are a famine for the soul but for the senses they're a feast."  He goes on with lyrics about the "hunger" underneath our social problems and the power that exists to change things. 

This song, as do many of Jackson Browne's songs, make me think of conversations I've had with a number of organizations regarding how to create social change.  I usually use an example such as this:  Social change comes about because someone, just one person frequently, stands up and points out the issue and offers an option to the way things are currently.  That person, and maybe a few others who have the same revolutionary perspective, offer a vision of how things should be...and some ideas about how to get there.  These people are the innovators.  Think of Steve Jobs (or whomever created the Ipod or Ipad) as a technological innovator.   If the innovators are loud and passionate enough, early adopters jump on.   Those are the people who had an Ipod while the rest of us were still carting around bulky CD players...or cassette Walkmans.  Eventually, when enough of the early adopters join in and start telling others about how great this new thing is, the early majority gets on board.  Those are the people who got an Ipod in about the 3rd generation (while their kids probably had at least a 2nd generation Ipod).   The early majority represents a critical mass or a tipping point where it's more normal to do the new thing than not.  But there are still some who stand back and view the new thing with suspicion or skepticism...at least until they see evidence that the new thing really works...or doesn't cost too much or isn't a fad.  These are the late adopters.  They'd be the people who only recently got an Ipod...or are still mulling over the idea and worrying that something will come along and make the Ipod obsolete.   Finally, there are the laggards.  Really, the laggards are the people who finally give in because they don't have many other options.  They're probably the people who argued with their car dealer about why they have to have a CD player when a cassette player or radio would be just fine. 

This example illustrates the Diffusion of Innovations model by Everett Rogers.  It's one of my favorite models because I think it perfectly illustrates how things actually happen.  We can think of all kinds of examples that are much more relevant than the revolution of the Ipod.  This same process has happened with such major social issues as recycling/environmental consciousness, smoking, civil rights...just to name a few really powerful examples. 

So why did I reference this particular Jackson Browne song in the beginning.  Honestly, I want everyone to go out and buy his music because I like him so much.  But more importantly, his songs always reference the power of the individual to create change.  To quote my good friend Jackson once again "...long ago I heard someone say something about Everyman."   In this song, called "For Everyman," he refers to the power and responsibility of all of us to care for others.  So it's up to individuals to be the voice for change.  Eventually, if you're passionate and have an idea of how to make things better, others join in...and then they bring others...until it's normal to do the healthy, caring thing. 

So these times may be a feast for the senses (thanks in part to the Ipod...or Ipad)...but they don't have to be a famine in so many ways.  It doesn't take a program or even a specific activity.  It just takes one person to start a movement that leads to social change.  And that person can be anyone.  As Jackson says "...power in the song being sung alone" (from "Looking East" again).

Just one last thing:  If anyone has a chance to talk to Jackson Browne, please thank him for being an innovator who inspires others to create change.  And also tell him that regardless of how great he was onstage, it's never, ever a good idea to wear a funky retro polyester shirt in Kansas in August.  I'm just saying... 

Written by Tara Gregory, Research and Evaluation Coordinator & Rock Goddess

Staying on Top of Change: The Value of Research and Evaluation Part Three | Tara Gregory

My last post considered why it is important to measure if your program has made a difference. The second issue is the importance of evaluation in being accountable during times when funds are tight.

It may seem like a luxury to implement an evaluation when people are in need of services. But implementing an inappropriate, ineffective or damaging program is clearly not a good use of funds. A common problem for organizations is not tying their programs to clear needs or intended outcomes.

A formative evaluation (i.e., needs or asset assessment) for example can help an organization identify what issues need to be addressed, the population most affected, or the potential for change. This is always a crucial step but even more so when social conditions, and funding attached to such issues, are particularly unstable.

A summative evaluation (i.e., outcome evaluation) can provide evidence that the program—and the funding that supported it—made a difference in the lives of recipients and/or the community. Again, in times of economic and social uncertainty, an organization that can point to evidence of need and effectiveness has an advantage in making the case that these programs are sound investments.

In the last few posts, I’ve tried to make the case that organizations can help sustain themselves in the face of societal and economic shifts by evaluating the needs and outcomes of their service population. I recognize that, as the Research and Evaluation Coordinator, I might be a bit biased toward my area of interest and expertise. But change is inevitable, both societally and in the lives of those served by non-profit, faith and community-based organizations. Making evaluation part of any program helps ensure that change isn’t an unexpected obstacle or trauma…but evidence of good, well-informed work.



Photo courtesy of David M. Goehring

Staying on Top of Change: The Value of Research and Evaluation Part Two | Tara Gregory

Evaluation is directly connected to organizational effectiveness.

There are two issues that are particularly salient here – especially when there are larger societal changes swirling around organizations. First, just because an organization implements a program or activities doesn’t mean it has made a difference. Social services aren’t just about numbers i.e., the number of people served, the number of sessions held, the number of resources provided. Those things are easy to count, and some organizations look at these numbers as evidence of doing “a good job.” 

But without true evaluation—which looks at the actual impact on recipients and the resulting changes created in their lives—there’s no real measure as to whether those served are gaining anything of value. If changes DO take place, and there’s been no evaluation, it’s hard to tell if the program contributed.   What’s worse? Not knowing if it’s done something harmful. 

Providing services without knowing their impact on recipients is like a doctor doing a procedure without paying attention to whether it helped or hurt the patient. Just like diagnostic or follow-up exams, program evaluations help outline and document:

•    the need for and purpose of the program (needs assessment and outcomes identification):
•    How it was implemented (fidelity measures)
•    How recipients responded (process measures)
•    How they were changed (outcome measures)

All of these evaluation elements help increase the likelihood that programs stay true to their intended purpose, do no harm, and are changed appropriately when they’re off target. 

My next post will look at the second issue that is important to consider when planning your research and evaluation.


Photo courtesy of Yasser

Staying on Top of Change: The Value of Evaluation Part One | Tara Gregory

Like most people, I don’t really love change…especially when it comes at me unexpectedly. But for our Research and Evaluation team at CCSR, change is the currency of what we do. Whether we’re looking for change in individuals, settings, organizations, or communities, it’s an indicator that something is “working.” I use the term working because changes can be positive or negative, but either way implies that an action has had an effect.

Right now, nonprofits and agencies who work with CCSR are thinking about changes related to the effects of the economy on organizational stability and conditions for those they serve. In changing economic times, many organizations batten down the hatches by cutting activities that may seem superfluous or not of direct benefit to service recipients—evaluation activities are often the first to go.

However, evaluation that documents change, whether for individuals, the organization or community, is key to maintaining effectiveness and in proving an organization’s worth.


Photo courtesy of Mike Baird

Change Part 2 | Kevin Bomhoff

Last post, I shared the story of the startling change my daughter experienced in starting first grade. I also introduced the “Productive Zone of Disequilibrium,” the term Ron Heifetz uses for the zone that promotes learning and progress in systems.

When the “temperature” or level of discomfort is too great, the organism can explode or implode.  When the temperature is too low, the organism stops learning and adapting. The activity does not result in the organism “blowing up” nor does it “blow off” what needs to be done.

Reading the temperature of an organization requires a certain amount of data gathering and experimentation.   Based on observations, what are all the possible interpretations to be made?  We need input from internal and external stakeholders.

CCSR is in the midst a deliberate process our director, Dr. Scott Wituk, has deemed “Listen, Think, Act.” 


Listen
We have visited over 35 partners asking probing questions about their needs and experience with our services.

Think
Using this data, staff members are now adding their own reflections.   The information will be used to develop as many interpretations as possible about our current and future activities.

Act
We will design experiments – perhaps new approaches or different processes based on what we have learned.   These “Acts” will inevitably turn up the temperature as we experiment with new ways to define our organization and help our customers.

Sometimes, of course, the temperature needs to be turned down -- while avoiding complacency. This is its own challenge.  When an intervention works, system functioning improves and the temperature lowers.  When an intervention does not produce the desired outcome, it is critical that data is readily available to inform a timely “course correction” before serious damage occurs.

Adapting in a timely manner using formative data reduces the temperature as new, more productive interventions replace those that did not work.    Beginning with research and using “evidenced-based practices” can give the system a great head start but does not guarantee success.   Our assumptions about the application of such practices in new settings and our ability to accomplish fidelity to proven models must be tested.     

What’s all this got to do with a six-year-old kid who’s already had it with “systems change” on her first day of first grade?   Well, later that night the ice did thaw a bit, and her nasty observations were interpreted though her own eyes with a little input from stakeholders (mom and dad).   Some of these rules worked for her.   Some seem to be made for other kids who appeared to be “out of control.”   That could help her too – indirectly.  Some rules clearly needed to change and probably would as the year unfolded.  It was, after all, just the first day. The first day of the rest of her life - observing, interpreting and intervening as part of one system after another.                                                                         
     


“Productive Zone of Disequilibrium,” courtesy of the Kansas Leadership Center   |    Photo courtesy of Couchlearner

Change Part 1 | by Kevin Bomhoff

When my daughter (now grown and managing pension funds for hospitals and medical clinics) was six years old, I remember picking her up after her first day of first grade.   She had loved kindergarten and all available data confirmed our suspicions that she was indeed a genius.

The new first grader walked slowly to the car and climbed in without a word.  We belted in and I waited for a report.   More silence.  She peered straight ahead; I could see a small simmering hole forming in the dashboard.   “So, how’s first grade?” I asked.   The silence broke as she announced, “Dad, there are a lot of rules.”

Despite my efforts empathetically strike up a conversation, she sank back into reflective silence.   I tried to comprehend the enormity of her dreadful discovery:  The joy of kindergarten had been systematically destroyed by some uniformed autocrat.   Not only did the system impose unnecessary constraints, the length of the day had been doubled.  Twice as much fun - not a problem.   Double the tyranny – unacceptable.

Change.  Ronald Heifetz  talks about the “Pathway of Adaptive Change” using terms such as the “Productive Zone of Disequilibrium” and “managing the heat.”   

Change is life’s (and work’s) crucible.   Much energy is spent managing, avoiding or complaining about change.   At CCSR, we often get called when organizations are on the precipice of change:

•    Increased demand for services
•    Reduced resources
•    Seeking to collaborate with others to address a common concern
•    Need to prepare for what’s next  

The lesson from Heifetz is this:  there is a productive zone of disequilibrium in every system.     The “productive zone” is a place where observation, interpretation, and intervention take place in a cycle that promotes learning and progress.  

I invite you to come back next week for a look at how knowing about this zone is helping CCSR - and, we hope, other Kansas organizations - respond to change.



Photo courtesy of Rachel

Change | by Scott Wituk

Welcome to CCSR. 

Change.  It is everywhere.  One only needs to look at the daily paper, newscast, listserv, podcast, or other favorite media outlet to see that this past year has been marked by some of the greatest social, economic, and political changes.  We’ve elected the first African-American President, witnessed and chances are know someone who has lost a job, and flocked to new forms of communication like Twitter and Facebook.  Locally, we have seen aircraft companies drastically reduce their workforces, a new governor and our share of Kansas weather—well, some things never change!  CCSR, like many organizations, has had its fair share of changes this past year, including my appointment as Director. 


Change can come from external forces and decisions that can be a source of frustration, stress and uncertainty.  These types of changes leave us with some options.  First, we could watch the change go by and potentially be positively or negatively impacted by it.  I’ve certainly been in situations when I’ve thought “now is not the time to jump in” or “if I don’t do anything, maybe nothing will happen and this will all just blow over.”  Unfortunately, more times than not, things did happen and it did not just blow over.  These past experiences lead to a second option:  Recognize the change, determine how to proceed and potentially harness the momentum of change. 

It is with this in mind that CCSR is currently conducting our “Listen. Think. Act” planning process.  Due to changes at CCSR this past year, the staff, many close advisors, and I recognized that we wanted to determine our future.  We wanted not to be changed, but to create change—both for ourselves, our organization and Kansas communities.  “Listen. Think. Act.” is one way we are responding and already seeing significant impacts on our work.  A brief review of the “Listen. Think. Act.” process:

Listen.  CCSR embarked on its largest “listening campaign” in more than 10 years.  We interviewed approximately 40 Kansas community partners, some whom we had worked with in the past and some whom we had not.  Secondly, we held a series of CCSR retreats for CCSR staff and consultants to provide their insights and suggestions about our future.  Finally, our WSU Advisory Committee has been very helpful in actively participating and providing suggestions to CCSR as we help in serving WSU’s urban-serving mission.  I’ve enjoyed and appreciated the candid remarks and believe these conversations will serve as a healthy foundation for the planning process.

Think.  CCSR staff and consultants continue to review the comments from Kansas community partners and WSU advisors.  We are looking for connections across the comments and ideas that were previously shared.  We are considering our mission, vision, and organizational values, especially in light of the identified needs and opportunities in Kansas communities.  This review will help us focus our future efforts. 

Act.  This spring, CCSR will present a summary of our plan for the future.  It will include and describe the direction of CCSR and its services to Kansas communities.  This plan will serve as a starting point and guide for our work in future years.  CCSR staff are known for taking action, and I believe this process will end no differently.

As the planning process unfolds, I and others at CCSR will provide additional updates.  What information would be useful to you in these updates? Please share your thoughts and ideas by email: scott.wituk@wichita.edu.  


- Scott Wituk, Director


--Picture courtesy of Aussiegall