Has the Torch Been Passed? A Review of the 2008 Annual Conference

trounstineanddever robertwaxler 

Note: We bring you an account of last year’s annual Changing Lives Through Literature conference in advance of this year’s conference on February 26, 2009. The deadline to register for this year’s conference is February 12. For more information, stay tuned on the blog or send an e-mail to Tam Lin Neville at tamlin(at)rcn.com.
 

by Allan McDougall
 

On January 29, 2008, the Changing Lives Through Literature annual conference brought together the Executive Director and Co-Director of the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities,  the Director of Consulting and Training from the Center for Teen Empowerment, a representative from the Maine Humanities Council, five English professors, one Theatre Studies professor, one Education professor, three representatives from the Connecticut Center for Non-Violence and Peace Studies (including a professor of Peace Studies), 23 probation officers, four judges, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, one attorney, and three graduate students. I was the only non-American.
 

This post will highlight key questions raised during the conference and initiate a dialogue about the progress CLTL made during 2008. This post will provide discussion questions based around the 2008 conference; for a comprehensive review the conference, see Tam Lin Neville’s detailed meeting summary in the Spring 2008 issue of the CLTL Newsletter (available by emailing Tam at the address listed at the top of this post).
 

Structure
  

Bob Waxler’s welcome speech began by posing a question: is CLTL an organization?  “Its uniqueness,”said Waxler, “is both its problem and its beauty. There is no CLTL chart, no Mission Statement, no usual structure imagined for a program of its kind. There is also hardly any funding.”  Jean Trounstine’s welcome speech called CLTL’s current system a “loose structure” and posed a different question: “CLTL needs leadership development and training programs, is this possible? Next, the panel discussion began with two questions, which were opened to the group.
 

Ann Watt, a panelist and Co-Founder and retired Co-Director of Primary Source, began by discussing sustainability. Watt shared that the mission of CLTL is comprehensible within its own domain, but may be unapproachable for outsiders. She asked, “Where can CLTL find committed people and how does it foster diversity?” And further inquired, “Does CLTL require a Board of Directors?
 

 

Audience
 

Maria Karagianis, panelist and CEO of Discovering Justice (DJ), shared that her organization’s success hinged on its status as a crime prevention program, rather than an alternative sentencing program—the latter being less approachable (and fundable) for hard-line incarceration advocates. She stressed the importance of inter-organizational partnerships, citing DJ’s partnership with Citizen Schools, government officials, judges, and local celebrities. David Tebaldi, panel moderator and Executive Director of Massachusetts Foundation for Humanities, said that CLTL takes place in a classroom or courtroom away from the public eye. He advised CLTL not to “hide your candle under a basket.” Has CLTL formed any new partnerships in 2008?  Are we ‘hiding our candle’?

 

Measurement
 

Sapna Padte, Director of Consulting and Training from the Center for Teen Empowerment, felt that a Board of Directors is critical for any organization like CLTL. “For CLTL,” argued Padte, “this would provide a network, a way to sell the program and raise funds.” Like Karagianis and Tebaldi, she felt CLTL needs a better system of reporting reduced recidivism. Tebaldi continued, “in the funding world this is called outcomes assessment. People need to see that their dollars have made a difference.” Has 2008 generated any new ways for CLTL to report reduced recidivism?

 
 

Legacy
 

Kristin O’Connell, a board member of the Clemente Program, discussed Earl Shorris, the program’s founder. “Earl is an energetic, charismatic leader,” said O’Connell, “but recent health concerns have forced the board to consider the future of our administration.” “Founder centrism,” said Karagianis, “is a concept that Discovering Justice is moving away from.” Both O’Connell and Padte agreed that the Clemente Program and the Center for Teen Empowerment are struggling with this as well. O’Connell continued, “This has brought up such questions as: what will happen after the retirement of core personnel, how do we replace the genius of our founder, and how can we maintain a central vision as we move into a new administration?” “Founders,” Karagianis added, “tend to be visionaries. But a program also needs those who can implement and sustain it.” Is CLTL set up for this future challenge?
 

A lively discussion ensued upon the end of the panelists’ presentations. The first topic was hiring CLTL staff. I assume the byproduct of this is the hiring of grant writer/blog meister, Jenni Baker. Have other staff been hired? Will there be more hires? Job descriptions and consultancies were also discussed. Have job descriptions for all volunteer and paid positions been written? Have we established the need for a consultant’s five-year plan?
 
 

Funding
 

Much of last year’s discussion centered around money. Probation Officers pay to participate in the program—in the form of parking and gas. Taylor Stoehr brought up that the small amount of government funding available shows that at least the government believes in the vision, but the state should be funding more. Stoehr wants to use probationers themselves as volunteers. The men he works with want to be working with us, but there are legal reasons why they can’t. This is a huge resource that is seen as inappropriate for this type of work. How is CLTL’s funding position? Has anything changed? Have any new funding initiatives been made?
 

Waxler asked, “Why is raising a lot of money so important? I’m not convinced there is a need for it,” he continued. “The program is developed from inspiration; it is a grassroots organization. There isn’t a need for a great deal of money. The challenge is convincing judges and courts to support this program. The money isn’t the main issue. Again and again, the issue is communication and recruiting judges.”
 

“But,” Tebaldi replied, “effective communications are expensive.”

 

Conclusion
 

To me, the most important issue for CLTL at present is what David Tebaldi called outcomes assessment. At the CLTL Annual Conference, I was in a room of experts in teaching, law enforcement, and fundraising; but where were the empiricists? Where are the statisticians or the psychologists who can demonstrate the reasons why this program is so successful? Must it only be qualitative accounts and research that disseminate this program? Certainly, the Jarjoura paper is one example of quantitative evidence for the program’s success. And I think there is exciting work being done in the psychology of reading and aesthetics that can contribute greatly to CLTL’s outcomes assessment. But, from my perspective, the main problem is access to information. These aren’t guinea pigs; these are people. How can further studies from different theoretical standpoints provide added depth to this program?

 


 

 

Allan McDougall is a graduate student from the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Allan is a staunch believer in language as social action, with a focus on reading and writing. Allan is currently writing his MA thesis on Changing Lives Through Literature, and writes about professional and academic issues on his blog: allanmcdougall.wordpress.com.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Has the Torch Been Passed? A Review of the 2008 Annual Conference

  1. Hi Allan,

    Thanks for this nice recap. I look forward to (hopefully) attending this year’s conference.

    Additionally, I think your questions in this post would be excellent starting posts for blog entries of their own–if any CLTL members are interested in writing on one or more of these questions, don’t hesitate to email me at jbaker1(at)umassd.edu.

    Jenni

  2. Allan, many thanks for this excellent report — so helpful to me as a newcomer to CLTL. Much food for my reflection.

    I discovered CLTL online during research for my Peace Through Fiction dialogue method and nonfiction book project. Will be presenting on my research at several conferences in 2009, first one being the International Reading Association convention in May – to the “Bibliotherapy and Reading” special interest group, of which I’m a member.

    Am working with Bob and Tam to arrange my April visit to CLTL –one purpose of which is to enhance my knowledge of CLTL and thus what I can share at speaking engagements. (also, will return to Boston area in late May and will be available to meet)

    Second purpose: I’m on board of directors at Project: LEARN, Cleveland, OH’s largest org for adult literacy. We’re part of an alternative sentencing program with Cleveland Municipal Court, which currently offers GED instruction only. So I’m also interested in proposing CLTL to Project: LEARN and our judges and PO.

    I welcome anyone to e-mail me directly at nicole.hunter.books (at) gmail.com if you have ideas to share or want to find out more about Project: LEARN or Peace Through Fiction.

    So glad to have found CLTL and to be part of the blogging community here.

    Nicole

  3. Thanks Allan: Helpful reminder of where we’ve been, and some good thoughts on where we might head. We do have some studies, of course, other than the Jarjoura report, that have helped define our success as we’ve moved forward. But a comprehensive study of CLTL at this histoircal juncture would certainly be welcome and worthwhile. On the other hand, though, I have seen some amazing transformations over the 17 years of CLTL, and I am not sure that any statistical study can measure exactly what that kind of transformation means. For me, literature primarily stirs the human heart, and that, I am glad, is beyond the net of quantitative data.

  4. Pingback: New Guest Post for Changing Lives, Changing Minds « Allan McDougall: Copywriter

  5. Allan,

    I tend to agree with Bob’s last comment, that it is difficult to give a true measure of our achievements in quantitative terms. But I’m interested in your angle which seems to lie between quantitative and qualitative analysis — in other words looking at CLTL from the new work being done in the psychology of reading and aesthetics. I look forward to hearing more on this.

  6. Pingback: Changing Lives Through Literature part 1 of 4: What is Changing Lives Through Literature? « Polymorphology: the blog of Allan McDougall

  7. Pingback: Changing Lives Through Literature part 1 of 4: What is Changing Lives Through Literature? « Allan McDougall's blog

  8. Pingback: Changing Lives Through Literature part 2 of 4: Interview with Ken, CLTL student, Boston, MA « Allan McDougall's blog

  9. Pingback: Changing Lives Through Literature part 3 of 4: Interview with Sheila, CLTL Student, Boston, MA « Allan McDougall's blog

  10. Pingback: Changing Lives Through Literature part 4 of 5: Interview with Sheila, CLTL Student, Boston, MA « Allan McDougall's blog

  11. Pingback: Changing Lives Through Literature part 5 of 5: Can literature change lives? « Allan McDougall's blog

Leave a reply! Filling out your name, email, and website is optional.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s