Blogs

I remade 'four_part_strategy' picture.

This page is original.

How about this?

Hello,

I'm Sam Lee and have worked at Tutor/Mentor Connection for 6 weeks.

I made the file intro.pdf which introduce myself briefly, so update right now. 

I'm so glad that I work with you :)

Thanks

Hi, my name is Minsub Lee. I am working at Cabrini Connection as a intern until the end of July. Through the intern, I want to learn about lots of things such as social skills, English and working experience. Thanks.

The other night I came across a link to this article from the Opinion Page of the New York Times.  In the article, Dave Eggers compares the way policies address the educational system and the way in which we address the military, with the teachers being equated to the soldiers on the front line.  He writes that if a military operation is not going as efficiently as hoped, that the soldiers are never blamed, but the strategy, the coordinators, and the planners are blamed for it, however in the educational system, if a school is not performing as well as hoped, than the teachers are blamed for the failure, and not the system that they are involved in.  As a result, those teachers are almost disciplined by having their resources lessened and are still expected to out-perform their previous years' scores.  Comparing this to the army once again, that would mean that if an operation failed, than the soldiers would then be blamed and have some of their resources stripped away, and then get sent back into the exact same conflict using the exact same strategy and expected to overcome...

To me that doesn't make sense, and I applaud Dave Eggers for this comparison, but I challenge him to take it a step further.

If a military operation fails, then the strategy and coordinators are blamed, not the soldiers.  In other words, the larger system that the soldiers are involved in is modified to increase their performance.  In his article, Dave Eggers is calling for an adjustment to the salaries of teachers, as if handing the soldiers larger guns will increase their likelihood for success if their strategy is flawed.  I say that the system that the teachers are working within should be addressed, and that perhaps outside assistance should be considered for those teachers in the form outside of the classroom assistance such as tutor/mentor programs  If the soldiers on the front line are struggling in the face of opposition, it is very beneficial for them to call in outside assistance in the form of an air strike or satellite imagery, but in the conversation of addressing the struggles that our educational system is facing, why is the topic of tutor/mentor programs not being brought to the table as a viable form of assistance for teachers and schools who are victims of a larger system that is setting them up for failure?

Hi Everyone,

I am from Surrey, UK (just south of London) and I am trying to connect volunteers interested in supporting tutor / mentoring programs over here. I have started to meet with people from university, community learning, business colleagues and they often would like to know more. 

I first came across Tutor / Mentor Connection on PLENK2010 and found this great tool called TrailMeme.

So I have started to create a short trail showing some areas that I would find interesting to either talk with colleagues about and share the trail with them so they can explore further.

Its really easy to create a trail, just add a short headline called a marker, then add the web address URL that it belongs to. Others following the trail can add to it, add comments, share with others in many different ways. I started by creating a Wordle based on the "Starting a Program" essay on Tutor/Mentor Exchange then went from there:

http://trailmeme.com/trails/TutorMentor_Connection

Any thoughts, feedback, please feel free to add directly into the trail or here,

Thanks

Nicola

Reposted from  email I receive:

Mentor Michigan Census Reports Available

April 12, 2011: Mentor Michigan, a MENTOR affiliate, has now made the latest Mentor Michigan Census (MMC) available online.

This is Wave VIII of the census, which is a survey of organizations operating mentoring programs in the state of Michigan. It was conducted in the fall of 2010, and 137 organizations responded for a 58 percent response rate.

Among the findings of this survey:
*  Various academic outcomes are an area of focus for more than 80 percent of responding programs, including school-based programs. Within academics, improved attendance and grades/GPA are the highest priorities. Additional focus areas reported included pro-social skills and health and wellness.

* The biggest changes in demographics since the last survey were a 4 percent increase in mentees between 12 and 14, as well as a 4 percent decline in African-American youth served.

* The biggest improvements in registry-based screening procedures were for use of SafetyNET, which increased by 8 percent since the last survey. (SafetyNET was the highly-successful pilot program that allowed youth-serving organizations access to the nationwide FBI fingerprint database in screening potential volunteers and employees. SafetyNET ended March 31, and a bill to create a permanent successor to it has been introduced in both houses of Congress.)

* Wave VIII showed a small increase in mentor retention; however, the percentage of male mentors — new and returning — has decreased.

According to Mentor Michigan Director Amber Troupe, "The primary purpose of the MMC is to understand the scope and nature of mentoring and mentoring organizations in our state. Specifically, we aim to identify, count, describe and track mentoring organizations, programs, mentors and mentees; understand program components, processes, resources and needs; and encourage and support program evaluation."

"The more information we know about the mentoring programs we serve, the more help we can offer them toward becoming even more effective," noted MENTOR President and CEO Dr. Larry Wright.

To hear more about Mentor Michigan's MMC, Wave VIII, register for the free, online webinar being hosted by evaluator Bob Kahle this Thursday, April 14, at https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/564339762. To access all current and past MMC reports, go to www.michigan.gov/mentormichigan/0,1607,7-193--110977--,00.html. For more information about youth mentoring in general, visit www.mentoring.org.

-------------------------------

Tutor/Mentor Connection comment: We would be doing this type of census for Chicagoland if the money were available. We'd use the information to support marketing that builds on strong programs and helps improve weak programs, while helping new programs grow where too few now exist.

This is a graphic that I include in many articles I write, illustrating the role individuals can take in reaching out to people they know to draw them to information we share on our web sites and to tutor/mentor program locations where they can be volunteers,  leaders, donors, etc.  I am speaking to a group of students from Governors State University tonight (4/5/2011) and at Loyola University  on Thursday (4/8/2011) and created this pdf essayto try to illustrate the ways they and others can help tutor/mentor programs grow.

While my mission and focus is on tutor/mentor program growth, these ideas can be applied to build more consistent and long-term support of organizations involved in any form of social problem solving where resources need to be consistently available in order for organizations to build the strength and knowledge to begin to have an impact on those issues.

I encourage anyone who reads this to share it. I also encourage you to create your own leadership essays so you can share your own thinking on these topics.  If you want to volunteer time and talent to help convert this idea to a video or a graphic animation we welcome your involvement.

Just as light bulbs require electricity to shine, the “new economy” requires theenergy of information and communications technologies (ICT) to illuminate local development. Around the world, billions of dollars have been spent oninfrastructure to give communities access to ICT. One of the non-profit organisations that put emphasis on connecting people with technology for social development is Digital Opportunity Trust(DOT) (http://www.dotrust.org). DOT is a low cost, high impact organization that secures these global investments to connect people with technology, build human capacity andprovide the tools to promote community-led economic and social development.

One of DOT's main programmes is the internship programme in which DOT recruits and trains talented young people (university graduates) from partner countries to become Interns. Because technology alone is not enough, DOT develops these technology ambassadors’ skills inleadership, project management, facilitation,communication and teamwork. The Interns then share and transfer their knowledgethrough practical projects led by communitymembers that respond to local needs andopportunities.DOT's success lies in our ability to leverage innovative partnerships. The people they work with, who represent local and internal organizations,government departments and the private sector, are all champions of local ICT priorities. DOT's global community of colleagues share a common vision of a connected world in the 21st-Century.

Due to my research studies, I was also involved in this organisation from time to time (not in terms of the internship programme, yet in terms of its corporate leadership development program for global companies such as IBM). With regard to Tutormentor, I think it might make sense to build partnerships with such non-profits as the aims are common. Similar programmes can be developed or customized based on mutual needs. Any thoughts on this?

In my Tutor/Mentor Blog I use graphics like the one below to illustrate our goal of helping inner city youth grow up over a period of 10 to 20 years. We all start at birth and it takes 20 years to get through the first formal stages of education and into the college, vocational or job stage of our lives. Yet, if you live in high poverty areas, you face more challenges.

Thus, tutor/mentor programs, if they are available, and well supported for many years, can provide extra adult support to help kids in these areas.

So how can non profit organizations build the support needed to fuel this year to year grow.  I've been following a set of blog articles written by Sean Stannard-Stockton, CEO of Tactical Philanthropy Advisors and I encourage you to read them  yourself.

These articles have helped me understand the difference between donors who give us small grants to support the "transactions" of tutoring/mentoring that we do each week and donor/investors --- who Sean names "Philanthropic Investors".  

"Philanthropic Investors"   invest in the organization, and its leaders, and provide the flexible, long-term support that organizations need to grow from good to great.

Below I've posted some excerpts I took from these Tactical Philanthropy articles. I've added some of my own commentary. Sean's articles were posted over several days, so I  have linked to each article where you can fund the full text that I pulled my comments from.

-------------------------

March 3, 2011http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2011/03/an-investment-approach-to-philanthropy

…The critical distinction is not between business and social, but between great and good. We need to reject the naive imposition of the “language of business” on the social sector, and instead jointly embrace a language of greatness.”

…before you become good, there are many stages of growth. Many businesses and non profits never reach the stage of being good because of poor ideas, poor leadership and lack of access to capital to develop their ideas.

Business-like investing means focusing in on the likelihood that an investment in a company will be rewarded by financial profits out of the company that are attractive relative to the investment made. If we simply replace “financial profits” with “social impact” we have a recipe for a successful approach to philanthropy.

I think philanthropy is most intelligent when grantmaking decisions are driven primarily by the questions "In what enterprise?” and “On what terms is the commitment proposed?”

“In what enterprise?” means that you don’t make a grant “to support education” but instead focus your attention at the nonprofit enterprise level.

“On what terms is the commitment proposed?” means that you make a grant if, and only if, you believe that the social impact generated by the nonprofit enterprise will be attractive relative to the grant that you’ve made.

The investment approach to philanthropy is wholly different from the problem solving approach to philanthropy. This recognition is critical because the two approaches require entirely different methods of implementation.

------------------------------------

March 4, 2011http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2011/03/the-four-core-philanthropy-approaches

One of the reasons it is so important for us to recognize distinct approaches to philanthropy is because doing so allows us to avoid “debates” that are really only a function of lack of awareness of the different styles. For instance, there has long been a debate about the value of general operating support grants vs restricted grants. But this debate falls away when we recognize the distinction between problem solving strategic philanthropy and an investment approach to philanthropy. The investment style seeks at its core to support the nonprofit enterprise. General operating support is the default choice because it is most useful in supporting the enterprise. But strategic philanthropy seeks to create a solution to a problem on the philanthropist’s own terms. The general operating support grant is only preferred if it best advances the strategic philanthropist’s solution.

Charitable Giving seeks to buy nonprofit program execution that will accrue to beneficiaries. It is classic “buyer” behavior as defined by George Overholser is Building is Not Buying. The Charitable Giver is concerned primarily with the value of the programmatic execution relative to grant size and cares little about the nonprofit enterprise for its own sake.

Philanthropic Investment seeks to invest resources into nonprofit enterprises in order to increase their ability to deliver programmatic execution. It is classic “builder” behavior as defined in Building is Not Buying. The Philanthropic Investor, like a for-profit investor, is primarily focused on the longer term increase and improvement in programmatic execution relative to grant size.

Strategic Philanthropy seeks to buy nonprofit goods and services in a way that aligns with a theory of change defined by the strategic philanthropist. It too is “buyer” behavior, but the funder is primarily concerned with the degree to which the net result of the programmatic execution across their grantees advances the solution that they believe is most likely to solve the problem they seek to address.

Social Entrepreneurism seeks to directly execute programs that align with a theory of change, defined by themselves. They are the enterprise with which the other approaches engage. They are primarily concerned with the net social impact that is a result of their programs.

In the comments section for this article, George Overholser  posted the following comments:

March 6, 2011 at 3:34 pm

We might boil it down even further by asking: (1) Who pays for the work?, (2) Who shapes the work? and (3) Who does the work?

“Buyers” pay for the work. They merely exchange money for program execution without asking the nonprofit to change what it does.

“Builders” shape the work. In effect, they say: “You are not equipped to enact our strategy, so we are unwilling to pay for what you already are capable of doing. Instead, we would like you to change what you do. Of course, it is entirely up to you. But unless you make changes, you won’t get the money.”

Organizations are the one’s that do the work. Sometimes they are entrepreneurial. Sometimes they are mature. Sometimes they are their own funders — as in an operating foundation.

Payers/Shapers/Doers = Buyers/Builders/Organizations

All three types are needed. And all three types need to be strategic.

The problem comes when multiple shapers converge upon a single organization. Everyone is being strategic… but unfortunately they don’t necessarily share the same strategy. So the result can be an organization that is shaped, and re-shaped and re-shaped again.

If the organization were well-capitalized, it might be in a position to say no to the chronic re-shaping. (“Sorry, that’s not our strategy, and we won’t go bankrupt by turning you down.”)

If our capital markets were more mature, they would aggregate the capital of like-minded shapers. Through syndicated capital campaigns, an organization’s shapers would be aligned for long periods of time with a single strategic plan.

This captures the goals of the Tutor/Mentor Connection!

But our nonprofit capital markets are not mature. Shapers tend to take turns, rather than pool their resources. For this reason, the organizations fail to stay focused long enough to build the capacities and track records they need to attract type of simple payers (buyers) that won’t try to re-shape them.

If you think about it, “strategic” shapers are actually not being strategic if they allow the organizations they support to be whipped around by other “strategic” funders.

I posted a comment myself .....Dan Bassill says:

March 11, 2011 at 8:10 am

George, thank you for your comments. Sean, thanks again for hosting this discussion.

This sounds like the Abilene Paradox. We all agree that lack of consistent revenue flow keeps organizations from building the strength and capacity to impact problems that are long term, yet aggregating resources and connecting donors around common goals seems to be an unreachable goal.

As a result the Good to Great theme might be summarized to say “they don’t get good, they don’t get great, and the don’t stay great long enough to do good.”

With that said, where can we find forums where different investors are connecting with social entrepreneurs focused on specific social issues? In one of Sean’s post “tutoring” was brought up as a transaction a donor pays for. If this were framed as “helping to raise kids living in high poverty areas” would more investors be interested in helping build the organizational strength needed for many organizations to provide the long-term support kids in many places need to grow up? There are thousands of tutor/mentor programs in the country, each spending scarce resources looking for scarce investors. Where is a forum where investors and program leaders who want to help kids living in poverty can be sharing ideas and working to “aggregate the large pools of capital” needed to support the entire universe of these programs over a quarter century or more?

Who want so help build such a meeting place?

--------------------------------

March 7, 2011http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2011/03/the-effective-charitable-giver

The Charitable Giver seeks to buy nonprofit program execution that will accrue to beneficiaries. It is classic “buyer” behavior as defined by George Overholser is Building is Not Buying. The Charitable Giver is concerned primarily with the value of the programmatic execution relative to grant size and cares little about the nonprofit enterprise for its own sake.

There is a sense in professional philanthropy that “philanthropy” is a superior form of “charity”. Philanthropy is often positioned as getting at the root cause while plain old charitable giving only addresses symptoms. I think this is both incorrect and confuses the purpose of charitable giving and strategic philanthropy.

Let’s take the case of a nonprofit afterschool tutoring program that provides services to inner city school children (a case study that George Overholser has often used). A Charitable Giver is a donor who wishes to purchase tutoring services on behalf of the children who will benefit. We call this “buyer” behavior, because the transaction is similar to a consumer who buys afterschool tutoring services for their own child from a for-profit tutoring service. The fact that the service is being bought on behalf of someone else makes the transaction a charitable one, but does not change the nature of the transaction. Both are a purchase of tutoring services.

Now the effective Charitable Giver, like a savvy shopper purchasing things on their own behalf, wants the best value for their expenditures. If nonprofit tutoring organization A provides more hours of tutoring or higher quality tutoring per dollar spent than tutoring organization B, the effective Charitable Giver should seek out organization A.

So the effective Charitable Giver needs to first decide what category of social value they are interested in purchasing (education, environment, arts appreciation, etc) and then comparison shop for the best value for their grant dollars.

This means that the effectiveness of charitable giving is dependent on the success of comparison shopping for the most/best program execution per dollar. For the most part, organizational analysis is not part of the equation, the issue is programmatic analysis. The Charitable Giver should seek the services of a theoretical Consumer Reports of nonprofits, not a Morningstar (investment advice) of nonprofits.

My (Dan Bassill) comment on this.  What this does not account for is the lack of needed services (tutoring) in many areas where they are most needed.  Or, the existing service is not as good as others in different parts of a city, or does not have the capacity to handle more kids than it already serves. A donor who want to buy services in this zip code would be limited to a) supporting a poorly run/small program; or b) not donating at all. The third choice is to help build the capacity of the existing programs in the zip code, or to help start new programs to offer the service. 

Unfortunately, a consumer report of non profit tutor/mentor programs does not yet exist. T/MC has been trying to find funding to do this for 18 years.

Without someone aggregating information showing where the need for a service is, and what providers are in that area, Charitable Givers may gravitate to brand name programs based on reputation, not based on their actual record of delivering the service the donor wants to buy. It also means that good programs go unnoticed, and under funded, so they never become great, or they cannot stay good or great for very long.

---------------------------

March 8, 2011- http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2011/03/the-effective-philanthropic-investor

When an equity investor in a for-profit or a nonprofit provides equity, their expectation is that the organization can use those funds to grow their organization in such a way that future earnings or social impact will be enhanced.

Whereas the Charitable Giver’s relevant metric is the relative value of program execution compared to grant size, the metric of importance to the Philanthropic Investor is social return on equity. The social return on equity is dependent on the degree to which the nonprofit is able to use the equity invested to expand and/or improve their program execution.

For instance, in the case of the nonprofit tutoring program I mentioned yesterday, the Philanthropic Investor is interested in the degree to which the organization can expand the availability of their tutoring program and/or improve the value of their tutoring services in relationship to the equity provided.

I believe the lack of understanding around the role of equity in the growth of nonprofits is a primary reason why since 1970 only 144 nonprofits have launched and grown to annual revenues of at least $50 million while in the for-profit field, 46,136 organization have crossed the $50 million revenue hurdle during the same time frame.

Philanthropic Investors provide the equity capital needed to create/build the organizations which can offer the best value propositions to Charitable Givers.

In the comment section of this article, George Overholser says:

March 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm

The philanthropic investor (Builder) assumes that current capacities aren’t able to solve the problem. And so, their strategy is to become a partner in re-shaping what organizations can do. They partner with the management team, the board, and with co-investors around a single coherent re-shaping plan. In the end, their strategy succeeds or fails depending on whether the organization eventually becomes so compelling that other (charitable giver) funders flock to pay for years and years of high-quality program execution.

Stepping back, you might call this the OPM strategy (Other People’s Money). “If my philanthropic investment works, it will attract other people’s money towards the program I like.” This is analogous to a venture capitalist that helps to build a company that other people (customers) then use to turn money into products and services.

I feel that our greatest opportunity may be for more philanthropic investors to realize that they must work together, and not one after the other, when they support the re-shaping of an organization. This is because it can take years to re-shape an organization. During these years, the organization must stay focused and not be jumping from one funder’s re-shaping agenda to another’s. By being willing to aggregate their capital around a single multi-year strategic plan, the philanthropic investors raise the probability that their investment will be successful.

Sean says in this final article, "Philanthropic Investor is interested in the degree to which the organization can expand the availability of their tutoring program and/or improve the value of their tutoring services in relationship to the equity provided."   

After reading the Tactical Philanthropy ariticles, I received the most recent copy of the Stanford Social Innovation Review. One article is titled "Increasing Civic Reach" and shows how non profits need to recruit board members who have influence, access to power and can help build high level support for the non profit. I think this is an obvious aspiration for any non profit, but most of us don't have the connections to recruit this type of leader, at least not in the context of our single, small non profit organization.

This is exactly what the Tutor/Mentor Connection has been trying to do for 18 years, yet we've not been able to find philanthropic investors in Chicago to support this vision.   I've not yet been able to build the network of leaders, the civic reach, needed to fully implement these ideas.

However, if we were to think of ourselves as a "connection of non profits who share the same vision" of helping kids living in poverty, we are a much larger enterprise and we work to help kids all over the world.  This Ning forum and other T/MC web sites are intended to be a meeting space and work space where we can work together to create a better operating system of support that helps each of us have the philanthropic capital needed to build strong organizations that grow to be good, then great, and can stay great for the 20 years it takes for kids to go from birth to work.

I hope you'll read this, and add your own time and talent to helping us shape this new operating system.

I finally feel as though I pretty solid grasp on what this program can do for people, and I had a revelation on how to graphically represent it.  Whenever I think about the Cabrini Connections or even the Tutormentor Connection organization, I find myself thinking of a Jenga block tower, in which some children have many pieces missing due to  lacking in educational opportunities, positive role modeling, or other influences as a result of living in a neighborhood of low social economic standing.  The more pieces that are missing, the more likely the tower (the child's chance to succeed) is going to topple over.  This is where tutor/mentor programs can come into play, by adding the missing pieces to the child's tower of success.  This process has to take place on every level of the child's life, as even one section missing many blocks can still cause the entire collapse of the tower.  This has to continue onward throughout the child's educational development, so one can envision many different towers for each stage of a child's life towards obtaining a career.

This same concept applies to non-profit tutor/mentor organizations, as they need to work together and funnel the appropriate resources to the appropriate places in the tower that need it.  The organizations themselves may also have pieces missing either in what they provide in services or in basic resources such as funding, volunteers, or networking.  A tutor/mentor program is able to utilize volunteers who will stick with the program for a series of years, and will become more and involved in a child's life as a result of personal commitment and attachment to not only the academic aspect of the program, but in terms of the other factors influencing the child's life.

This is just a first rough draft, and it will be modified to represent the ideas that I am presenting in the above text.  I look forward to any feedback on this project, both positive and negative, so don't hesitate, just be careful not to knock my tower over...JENGA!

This is a post a long time in coming, but due to illness and other academic related stresses, I have not been able to make mention of the fund-raising team that I am on.  My team is comprised of both staff and volunteers, and it is a part of the Cabrini Madness fund-raising event.  It's one of many fun ways that the staff and volunteers here come together and try to raise money to support the on-going efforts of this organization as it strives to address the academic challenges facing many children living in communities of lower socioeconomic status.

I encourage you, even if you do not wish to donate, to at least check out the organization's website, and perhaps there are others that you know that would love to help out those in need.

PS.  My team is in last place, and is in desperate need of some support!

Finally, I'm done my project. and  record voice on my project.

If you looking for some problems, I will try keep revised my project after my internship finished.

I'm so sad, time is too fast. Tomorrow is last day of internship work.

While I worked cabrini connections, I earned good experience and a lot of things.

The most interesting is that I met really good co-workers and president.

Thank you for giving me a chance to work together.

I will remember Cabrini connection and never forget everygthing.

Even though I am gonna leave in chicago, sometimes, I wish connect our website or facebook!

And If I have a chance to comeback in chicago, I will visit our company.

Thanks again, I will miss everything..............

rebuild_real.swf

The New York Times: "When voters go the polls Tuesday to pick Chicago's first new mayor since the 1980s, they can reflect on a lively campaign that featured topics ranging from education and crime to whether one of the mayoral hopefuls had smoked crack.

"But one issue dwarfs all the others: like most local and state governments, City Hall is facing a gaping budget deficit with few prospects for new revenue streams in the near future."

The true measure of the city's next mayor will not rest in the quality of his or her accounting skills.  As Paul Krugman rather lucidly pointed out in a recent New York Times column, budgets aren't about money (no matter how loud Republicans scream to the contrary), they're about priorities.  

The next mayor needs to realize this and frame the current budget crisis in a language that isn't primarily economic, but moral. In a moral-centric society, accounts accrued by the government to educate children; to ensure that everyone, regardless of his bank statement, has access to health care; to ensure that the streets are safe and that houses don't burn to the ground when they don't have to - these aren't considered expenses, but investments; not deficits, but duties. They're simply not amenable to a discussion that might take place in a shareholder's meeting.  

To quickly assess where the next mayor's priorities are, listen to his or her language.  The moment he or she starts aping party talking points like "fiscal responsibility" and "mortgaging the future," with no mention of cutting defense spending or raising corporate taxes even on companies whose pollution contributes to rising health care costs or the fact that the budget crisis is less a crisis in itself and more of an indicator of the real crises of education and unjust wealth distribution and disproportionate corporate influence on the democratic process, beware.

And remember the enduring words of John Maynard Keynes: "Instead of using their vastly increased material and technical resources to build a wonder city, the men of the nineteenth century built slums...[which] on the test of private enterprise, 'paid,' whereas the wonder city would, they thought, have been an act of foolish extravagance, which would, in the imbecile idiom of the financial fashion, have 'mortgaged the future'...The same rule of self-destructive financial calculation governs every walk of life."

Finally, I covered voice on this project. I have learned about flash for six weeks and experienced a lot of things.

Actually, tomorrow is last day of work. Thank you for accepting me and giving me a favor.

I will remember Cabrini connection and you forever. I hope you will not forget us "Jongseop" and "Inhee".

I am gonna leave here this friday. I have a plan to come back here to go to graduate school next year.

If I come back here, I will visit Cabrini connection again.

Good luck for your future, Cabrini connection and Stay well

Thanks again.

cabrini_second_final.swf

rebuild_real3.swf 

 without voice (description) ~

rebuild_real.swf

 Finally, I'm done rebuild project :)

 Of course, I don't I can voice recording and action(part of 3 icons in flash).

 I will be revise some elements and connecting from flash file to our website.

 Bradely halped me to record voice three days ago. I edit the voice by mp3 software and fix the volume and tune.

 In addition, I have modified flash time line to mach with voice. The process needs a delicate work.

 So I spent much time to complete this work.  Finally, I made it.

This morning in my Community Psychology class, one thing occurred to me: if I am to make a presentation regarding university involvement to actual universities, I will need to present it in an academic manner for it to be taken seriously.  The presentation would be much more effective if empirically supported, and if I could utilize the empirical data in a concise, powerful, yet user-friendly manner, the material would reach far more viewers.  After spending two hours in the Adler School library browsing their online catalouge of journals, I found several in the American Journal of Community Psychology that lend themselves to the topic I am concerned with.  I would link them here, but I am not sure I am allowed to due to copywrite regulations (as this site does not have subscriptions to those journals).  With these articles, my goal is to form both a detailed, written description of what T/MC does and why they do it, as well as why this program is needed, with all of the points being made backed up with empirical research data.  This data includes analysis of different types of mentoring programs, the effects that short term interventions have versus long term (T/MC strongly promotes long term commitment by all stake holders), and the different ways that empowerment comes into play during this process.

Along with this, I came up with a multitude of visualizations to demonstrate the powerful influence that T/MC can have on a system where individual programs competing with each other for resources and a voice is the norm.  I am excited about going through my brainstorming notes and finalizing some visual frameworks.

CabriniPhotoAlbum.swf

Hi~ Long time no see. I have not posted any projects these days. Because, I have studied about flash deeply.

I learned an interesting skill which is dissolve function. So I made a Cabrini Connection Photo Album by dissolve function.