|
|
|
|
 During FY05, Cluster meetings continued to be held monthly in all four regions of Cambridge led by trained Quality Facilitators. Reports from survey respondents suggest that the consistency of Cluster attendance is down. When asked to explain their low attendance, many respondents said they were "too busy" or "had scheduling conflicts". Others expressed that they hadn't been "invited" to attend.
Despite indications that overall attendance at Clusters may be down, reports from QFs suggests that attendance for some Clusters may have improved dramatically since last year. QFs report that some Clusters have had extremely consistent attendance by a core group of individuals this year. Survey responses suggest that this is true for at least two of the four Clusters. In addition, for one Cluster, it appears that quite a few participants are now attending meetings with other staff members from their program/organization.
This year Quality Facilitators participated in a three-part training series to learn a new approach, called "Appreciative Inquiry". This technique is designed to facilitate meaningful discussions and promote greater reflection and peer support amongst Cluster members. Reports from QF indicate that the nature and content of Cluster discussions varied somewhat across the city, but often included: checking in on what participants thought about L4Q training events, how program managers and staff have been able to use and apply these ideas back at their sites; peer-to-peer support in overcoming challenges at sites; and general sharing of ideas and promising practices. Some Clusters initiated collaborative projects, such as a "Cluster-wide Writing Competition" and a "Cluster-wide Resource Guide".
The shift towards having more meaningful discussions appears to have been effective for some Clusters. Participants from some of the Clusters saw positive improvements in "having substantive discussions" and "improving my understanding of high quality programming", when compared with last year's rating. But other Clusters appear to have made no progress in these areas this year. All Clusters received high ratings for "helping me learn about other Cambridge programs".
While the "Appreciative Inquiry" approach was also designed to build a supportive community, there are mixed signs regarding whether this goal was met this year. Ratings by participants from all four Clusters show a drop in "trust, collegiality and support", and "opportunities for networking and collaboration" as compared with FY04 ratings. At the same time, Cluster comments indicate that many participants still feel Clusters have given them a "sense of connection" with other Cambridge programs.
Combined ratings for all Clusters for FY04 and FY05 show an overall drop in peer-support related benefits for participants.
Despite overall perceptions that Cluster benefits may have been lessened this year, responses indicate that some Clusters have made strides, and that there are still many participants that see their participation in Cluster meetings as worthwhile. In fact, ratings of "my participation in Cluster meetings has been worthwhile" was ranked as #3 across a list of potential benefits (2.5 between "somewhat true and true"). For one of the four Clusters, "worthwhile" ratings were particularly high (average rating of 3 or "true").
Next Steps for Cluster Meetings:
When asked "What suggestions do you have for improving Clusters"? more than half of responding Cluster members offered ideas and suggestions for how Clusters could be strengthened. The most popular suggestions were to give meetings" a clearer focus" and/or give meetings "more goals". A subset of respondents (approximately 15%) indicated clearly that they no longer feel an interest or benefit to attending Cluster meetings.
Suggestions Regarding Cluster Meeting Content:
(in descending order-minimum of 3 comments)
- More focused agenda
- More focus on collaboration
- More interesting topics or have themes
- Shorten "sharing"/check in time or make optional (not everyone sharing)
- Sponsor guest speakers/presentations
Suggestions Regarding Cluster Meeting Schedule/Length:
(in descending order-minimum of 3 comments)
- Change or vary days and times of day
- Better and more regular communication about meetings
- Fewer meetings (less often than every month)
QF Perspectives:
Of the 7 Quality Facilitators this year, only 3 returned surveys, therefore a full understanding of QF perspectives is not possible.
Based on the three QF responses, the following strong trends emerged.
QFs feel that the expectations regarding their role and responsibilities this year were clear. However, their levels of satisfaction in that role were relatively low, average rating of 2.3 on a 4 point scale-or "somewhat satisfied".
When asked how they feel things went this year, all 3 QFs were able to identify at least one aspect of their work that they felt was going relatively well, but all 3 also expressed varying levels of frustration that Cluster meetings/discussions were not meeting their hopes and expectations.
 All three QFs felt that they had been "effective" or "extremely effective" in facilitating Cluster meetings. There was less confidence that they had been effective in guiding Cluster discussions and the lowest confidence that they had helped "guide Cluster member efforts to make changes in their programs". Interestingly, when asked "to what extent do you think Clusters are contributing to positive changes in participating programs?" the average response by the 3 QFs was 2.5-or between "some" and "quite a bit". This suggests that QFs do feel that Clusters are contributing at least somewhat to the goals of L4Q.
Reflection Sessions
 Reflection Sessions were a new component added in FY04. While two sets of sessions had been held in FY04, during FY05 only one set of Cross-Cluster Reflection sessions were held, both in the spring. Survey responses regarding Reflection sessions were only available for one of these two sessions.
When asked "What is your overall rating of this Reflection session?" on a scale from 1-5 where 5=Excellent, the average rating was 4.2 or "good". When asked "what aspects of the session had gone particularly well?" the most common comments were centered around the theme of "connecting with other programs" and "working in small groups".
Participants were asked to rate "how helpful" the Reflection session had been in four areas using a 4-point scale where 4=Extremely helpful. "Learning about what other Cambridge programs are doing" received the highest rating (3.38 or "helpful") while "gave me ideas for how to overcome barriers" received the lowest rating (2.6 or between "somewhat helpful and helpful").
Next Steps for Reflection Sessions:
Findings indicate that Reflection sessions were a positive experience for those that participated. It helped them learn about and connect with other programs as well as motivate them to make improvements. Findings also suggest that Reflection sessions may not have resulted in participants gaining concrete ideas for how to improve their programs, as hoped. Given the high "overall" ratings the session received and that only two participants offered suggestions for improvements, it may make sense to adjust the expectation and purpose of Reflection sessions to better reflect the results that they are clearly having--and utilize this component as a mechanism for maintaining motivation & momentum for change.
|
|
|
