|
|  |

This topic feels very close to the bone to us at
CompuMentor. Our original core concept, in 1987, bore obvious parallels to
what is discussed here and over the years we have thought a lot about if
and how the concept of volunteer mentors can be scaled in the direction of
a national, comprehensive effort. We haven't moved toward such an effort
for various reasons. Some of these would be obviated by an approach such
as the one that is being broached here. Other issues, however, would still
apply. We've discussed this at some length in our staff, which includes
three alumni of TeamTech (now called Teaming for Technology). We like the
distinction between program expertise and technical expertise. Both are
needed to create necessary buy-in from communities to volunteer-based
intervention. We also appreciate the awareness of the post-volunteer
piece--what happens when the volunteer leaves? We are concerned about the
quid-pro-quo aspect of corporate sponsorship in return for work
commitment. This seems intuitively 'off' to us. We see the right payoff
structure as follows:
- the community gets...technology help
- the volunteer gets...a sense of contributing
skills to public benefit, a taste of nonprofit life, a meaningful life
experience, some level of financial support while gaining all the
preceding.
- the corporation gets...good corp. citizenship
points suitable for publicizing and an intangible but real asset in
the employee attraction/retention effort.
If you overstress the payoff for corporate
sponsors we think the whole equation gets skewed. Or as one of our
TeamTech alumni, Joan Heberger who ably helps lead our mentoring program
put it: "The idea of asking corporations to "sponsor" a
volunteer sounds good b/c you could pay the volunteer reasonably, except
for one glitch... My hunch is that mid-career professionals who sign up to
be digital divide volunteers are looking for a path *out* of the rat race,
and would therefore be hesitant to commit to X years employment in a new
corporation."
We like this point of Mario's particularly:
"We suspect there is a changing attitude toward such participation in
the younger folks coming into the corporate workforce and we've seen
indications that there is growing need within firms like McKinsey,
Andersen, and we suspect others like them." We are seeing this
changed attitude all the time and it is sharply increases our labor pool
(downturn in dot.conomy gets us more applicants too!). Let me note that it
is this changing attitude *on the ground* that makes a project like this
feasible. We have had our fill of poorly thought out corporate efforts to
free up staff on alternate Thursdays assuming no paying projects
interfere. I exaggerate but only slightly. But there is indeed a new breed
of technically (in the broad sense of the word) astute people who are not
motivated to cash in on their skills as much and as soon as possible, who
want to feel that being technically astute does not sentence one to a life
behind a CRT, and who would welcome such an initiative. This wasn't true
five years ago. The wise corporations will recognize that it's not an
issue of freeing up some problematic downtime but of positioning
themselves as aligned with the increasing public service zeitgeist in a
truly meaningful way.
We are also concerned at what seems to be an
underestimation of how wide a skill set is necessary in order to deploy
both programmatic and technological expertise in meaningful fashion.
Let me offer this case history from our
experience. For several years we have been working with ESL
populations--primarily Latino and Southeast Asian--in California's Central
Valley. This work, funded by The James Irvine Foundation, could be
categorized as "circuit riding with volunteer mentor support".
For the first years of the project, we staffed it with technical
staff--smart, committed people, but not particularly versed in Central
Valley issues-- and achieved good results. For the past year, we've been
fortunate to be able to staff the project with a project manager who has a
strong background in organizing, immigration reform and farm worker labor
issues, as well as strong technical skills, and who is himself Latino
..and the results have been outstanding. As our project manager, Erick
Recinos-Rojas, puts it, "I believe my previous expertise and
experience in organizing, immigration reform and farm worker labor issues
has been key to our success in the Central Valley. The rural communities
don't see us as 'tech outsiders' and we have been able to build strong
longstanding relationships that have allowed us to leverage local
resources to support our work."
This point--the need for trust based on some
degree of cultural relevancy--has been made often on this list. The
Digital Peace Corps model adds the point of programmatic expertise. And,
of course, there is the need for technical expertise, and this expertise
has to span quite a range. So this leads us to a suggestion of thinking of
this project from the outset as demanding a team-based approach. Here is
how Tom Dawson, one of our senior program managers, put it: "Not to
overgeneralize, but it is rare to find one person with expertise in the
program area, a strategic vision for the project, and a strong technical
skill set. A team approach would allow Digital Peace Corps to bring all
these different areas of expertise to bear on a project. The team leader
would need to have a clear idea of project objectives, resources available
to the team, and the timeframe for the work. The team leader would be
responsible for meeting objectives, managing the team, and communicating
with the client. Team members with expertise in the required project
discipline (health, education, etc.), and some technical training would
work with the clients to do the analysis. Technical members of the team
then could then work on developing and implementing technical solutions.
The team would work together during implementation, training, and
rollout...."
Daniel Ben-Horin, President
CompuMentor
<<To previous post
| To next post>>
Back to summary
| |
 |