Looking at the prospect of utilizing the funds we are awarded or allocated wisely is a very important topic and one I reflect on often.   I worry that sometimes people do get complacent and expect that those funds will just magically appear year after year.  What roles do I and others on the SNAP-Ed team play towards holding ourselves and others accountable to spend those dollars in the best and most impactful way possible?

Strategic planning and being much more explicit about the intended results and items to be delivered as well as the strategies created to achieve said outcomes is gaining importance year by year (Bradach, Tierney & Stone, 2008).  Increasing the social impact has really gained a new threshold of importance as indicated in the Bradach, Tierney and Stone (2008) article.  The four questions stated in this article are ones I believe should be asked by all organization receiving taxpayer dollars.  Achieving results and holding the organization accountable for those results rank highly in my mind.  Are we as a program creating the results we should?  Are we generating enough results?  How long standing or sustainable are our behavior changes?  Are they short lasting or are we really helping people make long term changes in their health and wellness?  Are we the organization we need to be to deliver these results or do we need to rebuild certain sectors of our program to increase our effectiveness?  One example is refocusing our attention on those counties with the greatest SNAP population and pockets of need.  Putting more program assistants in those places with true needs is being done.  This takes time, energy, and effort to get personnel hired and trained.  This should allow for more impact and cost effective and efficient programming.  This may mean exiting some sites that are unable or unwilling to implement the most effective programming (Bradach, Tierney & Stone, 2008).  The idea of “Intended impact” that Bradach, Tierney and Stone (2008) use is a great descriptor for me.  Are we delivering and therefore making the intended impact our programs were designed to make, or are we just a fill in for bingo or a check in the block for a regulation to be completed? 

We are part of a federal grant that is issued through the USDA and FNS.  Looking at our purpose and mission as stated by Dr. King is of utmost importance.  Are we continually designing our programming and therefore the supplies for programming in a thoughtful manner, or with increased funding will those contemplations be done in a more impulsive manner?   Are we using our dollars to create greater value? (King, 2014)

This year of rollercoaster funding has been stressful to those of us on the team that have been impacted by all of the ups and downs such as the Tax Payer Relief Act and the stagnation that occurred during the Farm Bill debates.  To the degree that personnel were almost sent home without pay, the need to be appreciative as Dr. King (2014) stated could not be emphasized enough.  Now that our funding has been restored with the 5 year Farm Bill and the new formula which will take our budget from a 3.5 million dollar per year to over 10 million per year how will we assure all taxpayers will get the best and most impacts for their investment?    Will our actions convey this strongly?

Our team has really looked at trends; most importantly the future environmental and societal trends are now on our radar (King, 2014).  With the amount of growth we will need, new initiatives, programs and contracts are all being brainstormed and discussed.  Ideas such as the hiring of a graphic designer and social marketer to broaden our reach have been proposed.  Other ideas such as webcams for more personal communication between staff have been discussed.  Replacing worn out computers with laptops to better allow school programming and work out in the field when away from the office is also on the drawing board.  New programming and collaborations with groups such as Cooking and Local Matters is being explored.  These are a few of the many ideas that we are exploring and discussing. Some of these new ideas will hopefully replace and redesign the face of our program and funding useage.

Bradach, J., Tierney, T., & Stone, N. (2008). Delivering on the promise of nonprofits.  Harvard Business Review. 

King, J., (2014). Budget and Finance Video PPT.

I really enjoy the teams I am a part of for the most part.  That being said, do I really do my fair share as a part of the team?  Am I too hard to work with?  Expect too much of myself and others?  Not define or set the standards clearly?  How different are my roles on the various teams I am on?

 This weeks’ PowerPoint and readings were really interesting to me.  I was able to reflect not only on the diversity of the team members on the teams I am on, but the leadership structure and style as well.  For example, I am part of the state Community Nutrition/SNAP-Ed team, the SNAP-Ed Regional Specialist team, the Northeast Region SNAP-Ed team, the FCS Marketing team, the Live Healthy, Live Well team and a Community of Practice for eXtension for Healthy Food Choices in School Meals team, to name just some of the teams I am a part of.  Within the NE Region SNAP-Ed team I would say we have subteams or subgroups.  Each county office is really their own team and if the office has an FCS Educator and EFNEP, for example with an EFNEP Program Specialist, I would define that as its own little county Community Nutrition Team.  Do all of these teams in the NE Region function collaboratively and cooperatively?  I can honestly answer it depends. Not only does it depend on the county but on the day and project as well.  Some of the factors on which it depends are: the stage the team is in as defined by Dr. King in his PowerPoint, the personalities of the members, the type of leadership the team is functioning under, and the ways the members handle conflict.   There are county teams which I work with that are stuck in the storming stage and do  not appear to be moving too quickly to the norming stage.  (King, 2014)

  Learning about the Five Dysfunctions as described by Dr. King (2014) and the idea of conflict being a difference of opinion and way to learn more about what is happening is very enlightening.  Another really interesting topic to me this week is the information on virtual teams.  Our SNAP-Ed team fits the definition of a virtual team as defined by Yukl in Chapter 10 of his book (2012).  Our team is geographically separated and face to face meetings generally occur once to three times yearly.  A great deal of our communication occurs via email and Carmen Connect.  In fact, one of the first purchases that our Community Nutrition Leader plans to make when our funding from USDA is released is to purchase Videocams for all the Program Assistants and state staff in SNAP-Ed.   In counties that are a long driving distance from the Regional Program Specialist we will now be able to communicate by at least being able to see each other face to face more frequently.  Our leader and team believe that being able to see someone’s face and determine from their facial expression if they heard and understood will hopefully lead to improved communication and an increase in trust and transparency.

Yuki points to the lack of face to face making it more difficult to monitor performance, influence members and develop trust and collective identification (Yukl, 2012).  Also mentioned is a great point about coordination problems in a dynamic and unpredictable environment.  As an example, one county in which I interact frequently has a FCS Educator, SNAP-Ed Program Assistant, 3 EFNEP Program Assistants and an EFNEP Program Specialist, who functions across five counties.  Much of the online and phone communication involves members of the community nutrition team complaining about one another.  I see several of the five dysfunctions Dr. King discussed in this scene.  I see and hear some of the status and ego/ inattention to results in several of the statements made.  For example, we are approaching summer food programming delivery in community nutrition.  SNAP-Ed has delivered this programming in this county for 9 years.  The amount of programming is enormous.  This year I have been told there are approximately 60 sites that qualify for educational programming.  With only one SNAP-Ed Program Assistant employed in the county and the EFNEP program assistants available to work with youth, the combining of programs seems only logical to me.  The calls and emails I receive are not supporting this.   In some minds this is only a SNAP-Ed program.  My question is when only a few sites are served are we really doing the best we can for the county?  Can we collaborate and make a better effort to serve those in need?    Another of the five dysfunctions that came into play as I attempted to have the Educator initiate a meeting to work on this plan included the invulnerability/ lack of trust.   Neither supervisor was eager to arrange a time to sit down and strategically map this out so that everybody’s best interest could be met.  Fear of conflict was also readily apparent to me.  Although during a meeting they can be cordial most of the time, in conversations to me and others the same cannot be said.  Neither of the supervisors wants to be accountable for the lack of communication and cooperation in the county team (King, 2014).  Additionally, the conflict went further to even lead to conflict over use of kitchen equipment.   As our FCS Assistant Director often states one plus one is always greater than two—teamwork is the foundation of our success.  We have a long way to go to leave that storming phase and move into the norming phase.  Patience and trying different empowerment processes with more communication and transparency is what I know to try.  Small and steady steps will hopefully move this team inch by inch.  Am I handling the team dynamics the best way?  Can I get this team to move forward for the good of the whole group?  The jury is still out at this time, but enthusiastic efforts are being put in place to try!

King, J. (2014). Working with Teams/ Team Science Video PPT.

Yukl, G. (2012) Leading in Organizations, 8^th Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.