Post on 08-May-2023
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE
Community Center ExperientialLearning
Partnerships and Practice “As theCenter Turns”
Scott R. Miller5/15/2014
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
ABSTRACT
Service learning at the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center (LGBT
Center) has allowed an overview of the programs and partnerships
that the LGBT Center offers to its community. For this work the
author will consider collaborations and community engagement with
the Milwaukee LGBT Center, through a lens of service learning,
and its impact on the community. I will also look in depth at the
situational difficulties that caused the LGBT Center serious
1
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
financial problems that almost caused the LGBT Center to close.
Under the lens of the source material from the course Ed Policy
609, and by applying key concepts of the course, I will finally
extrapolate the parallels through the theoretical framework
covered.
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING AND THE MILWAUKEE LGBT COMMUNITY CENTER
Collecting data by of observation at the Milwaukee Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Community Center (LGBT Center), has
allowed me to learn outside of the traditional classroom. Being
an active service learner (Felten, H., & Clayton, 2011), I was
able to take classroom discussions of how partnerships form
develop and are maintained, and reflect them within the service
2
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
learning site. During this time, I attended staff meetings,
board meetings and one yearly meeting.
I also interviewed the Executive Director and the
supervisory staff to assess the way the LGBT Center views the
community it serves. Careful reflection has been taken to examine
how programing is facilitated and circulated to its members.
As an outside observer the author has been able to
experience the different ways the LGBT Center reaches its
mission, unencumbered by internal politics and external
pressures. As an experiential learner /service learner, I have
been able to analyze the LGBT Center with focus on partnerships
and educational pedagogies covered in the course Ed Policy 609
Community Partnerships. Finally in summary of my experience I
will l discuss opportunities of how the center has taken steps to
broaden its reach and expand its purpose by hiring me as the
Service Advocate for GLBT Elders (SAGE).
SERVICE-LEARNING
Without the experience of experiential learning I would not
be able to focus on the educational pedagogies used in connection
with the partnerships at the LGBT Center. The use of service 3
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
learning has cemented many of the courses core ideas and has
allowed me to be able to conceptualize and understand the
information outlined in the course on a deeper level. (Weil,
2005) The impact in the service learning environment allowed
significant positive results in self-efficacy and leadership
(Felten, H., & Clayton, 2011). The use of service-learning as a
tool can allow tangible engagement in the community to understand
how “Service-Learning is embraced as both a mechanism for
community engagement and high-impact pedagogy across institution
types and disciplines (p. 76).” This crossing of pedagogy allows
the optimum amount of learning while volunteering at the same
time. By allowing service-learning to exist one can benefit from
an extension of learning beyond the pedagogy itself. “The
interdependence of learning processes and outcomes with community
processes and outcomes … renders service-learning powerful as a
vehicle for learning and social change… community organizations
are not mere learning laboratories but rather realms of
significant problem solving and human interaction (p. 77)”. This
interdependence allows for the participant ability to focus on
the core concepts of the classroom to “become real and not 4
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
vicarious.” (Bowen, 2007) Where the “intention to equally benefit
both the provider and the recipient of the service as well as to
ensure equal focus on both the service being provided and the
learning that is occurring (p. 5).” Equal benefits are core of
service-learning. Bowen further points out that there are
different aspects to experiential education which include:
volunteerism, community service, field education, internships and
service learning as “a focus primarily on the service being
provided as well as the benefits that the service activities have
on the recipients (p. 5).” By examining the act of service
learning and by (Bowen, 2007) reflecting what one experienced
one can find an understanding of the connections of the pedagogy
of the service-learning itself.
SERVICE-LEARNING CAUTION AND OUTCOMES
With that drama out of the way it would be valuable to
discuss difficulties that arise that would address cultural
incompetency and blatant classism and racism. Due to the
intimate nature of service learning, its connection and
engagement with the service learning site, the individual and
recipient it is important to be cautious. In an article written 5
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
by (Taboada, 2011), who discusses the outcomes of cultural
competency, critical thinking, and civic engagement. In many
cases “a majority of [white middle class] students have not
experienced racial/ethnic disparities within their families…
these students are less likely to be aware of the link between
race and health outcomes” (p. 377). Service-learning students
may not be aware of their own privilege and power and may not
understand the reason for service-learning as a practice and
educational tool.
The introduction of the white middle class student to
populations and cultures unfamiliar with their own has ways been
part of the design for service learning from its inception. Bowen
represents this eloquently by reminding us of a quote.
“I slept and dreamt that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I
acted, and behold, service was joy”
- RABINDRANATH TAGORE, BENGALI (INDIAN) CULTURAL ICON (1861-1941)
Experiential learning can show that multicultural
involvement and reflection on culture can allow cultural
competency to grow that is not initially seen. By allowing
experiential learning to take place one can wipe the unseen and 6
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
wrongly perceived differences away with a glimpse of cultural
competency (Epstein, 2011; Minkler, 2012). There are many issues
that can get in the way to be able to become a shining student-
learner.
A main example is that we often taken for granted that
recipients are expected to accept the student as a gesture of
goodwill; even though the recipient sees glaring class and
privilege of the service learner (2011). I certainly would not
like a person enters into a service-learning agreement at the
LGBT Center to proselytize their religious beliefs indicating
that homosexuality is a sin and therefore I am damned to hell. I
would become infuriated due to the lack of understanding and
cultural incompetence. It is pointed out in the article seen
Careless service learning placements can perpetuate classism and
structural deficits that may not be of the best interest of the
recipients (2012). Careful review and understanding must
accompany a level of trust that must be achieved before entering
into a service site. Dr. Sandy discusses the need to
“participate fully as an entity in community development (Sandy,
2007).” By participating fully the service learner, the recipient7
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
and the educational facilitator can build a level of trust and
maturity that can carry the partnership during times of
relational fragility. By building trust, level the impact of the
learning can be palpable upon the recipient, educator, and the
service-learner (2007).
Minkler discusses the importance of building trust and
points out a significant roadblock toward authenticity. “Due to
significant levels of mistrust and fear from both sides, engaging
participants’ required considerable time and relationship
building within community groups”(p. 452). The context here is
focused on collaborations and partnerships but I would take the
leap and acknowledge that the same trust building would occur in
a service learning environment. As seen in an article from
(Weil, 2005) who discusses trust building activities of health
care workers through barbershops by creating culturally
appropriate, evidence based safe zones for people to interact (p.
230). By creating safe spaces not only was the line blurred to
be able to interact; the medical communities were also providing
a safe space to have conversations for issues related to social
justice along with health assistance (2005). The main point being8
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
made here is that for any partnership whether it between a
service-learner and the organization or the institution and
professor, it is necessary to build a level of trust to become
successful service learners.
In order to build trust I had to think about where I was
going to become a service learner. I wanted to impact the site
where I was going to go in a positive way. Questions were asked
based on my desire for enrichment. It was important to look for
sties that I had a similarity with, keeping in line with my own
internal mission statement/moral focus. By focusing on what
interested me I was able to make significant additions to the
service learning site.
PICKING A SERVICE-LEARNING SITE
The reason I chose to do my service-learning at the Milwaukee
LGBT Center was so “I could participate fully as an entity in
community development (Sandy, 2007).” I knew that I wanted to
make a difference and experience the diverse structure and
interconnectedness of the LGBT Center. It was also my desire to
associate and become intrinsically valuable to the LGBT Center
for a potential avenue of employment. Although my initial goal 9
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
was not employment but was how to understand partnerships,
relationships, and how the LGBT Center functioned. I did a lot of
pre volunteer research by looking at the website, reading the
propaganda and simply then filling out the volunteer application.
I met with the volunteer supervisor and began to observe. I did
this by attending by attending staff meetings, board meetings and
the yearly meeting. I also interviewed the executive director
indirectly and the supervisory staff microscopically to assess
the way the LGBT Center views the community it serves. I also
did some outside observations and interviewed past employees and
past participants of the LGBT Center. Of this I found the most
helpful information which I included in my findings under the
turnaround section of this paper.
THE MILWAUKEE LGBT COMMUNITY CENTER
The desire to connect with the center allowed the author the
ability to be focused and energetic. Taking time to read the
propaganda, look at the website and have conversations with the
members I had a rough overview. There were many questions that
needed to be answered for example; what is the mission statement?
What is the position on values, confidentiality and service? 10
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
What programs and services does the LGBT Center provide? Who are
the recipients of the services? What partners are associates
with the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center that assist to offer
unique resources for members of the LGBT Community and its
allies? To answer these questions, the author began by looking
at the mission, service, values and confidentiality statements.
Then looked at the different partnerships the center has within
its walls. Finally looked at the different supporters and
collaborative entities that are used to operate and continue the
goals of the center. Below are the four key statements that make
up the core beliefs of the LGBT Community Center.
“MISSIONThe mission of the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center isto further develop our vibrant lesbian, gay, bisexualand transgender community in the greater Milwaukeearea, thus improving the quality of life for all of us.The mission is supported by the Center’s leadership incommunity building, health promotion, advocacy, andcommunications.
SERVICE The Milwaukee LGBT Community Center deliverseducational, health promotion, and community-buildingservices that meet the needs of LGBT youth, adults andtheir allies in the greater Milwaukee area from itsprimary facility and other sites. Center programs aredeveloped with a consideration of community need,diversity and inclusivity, community development,
11
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
availability of resources, and the Center’s mission andvision.
VALUESThe Milwaukee LGBT Community Center believes in thegoodness of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenderpeople. As an organization, the Center seeks to fostercommunity development and agency partnerships. TheCenter values leadership, both formal and informal, andit supports responsibility and accountability amongindividuals and organizations. To achieve its mission,the Center acknowledges the value of diversity andinclusion and of proactive and responsivecommunications. The Center knows that the LGBTcommunity’s long-term quality of life requires theCenter to prosper financially and developorganizationally to meet community needs.
CONFIDENTIALITY The Milwaukee LGBT Community Center has a commitment toprotect its client’s rights and privacy. All employees— paid staff, non-paid staff, volunteers, and thosecompensated by other sources — are bound by law(Wisconsin State Mental Health Act, ss. 51.00) as wellas the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center’s policy toprotect the privacy of Center clients. In addition,professional persons are bound by their code of ethicsto develop and exercise sound professional judgment inprotecting client confidentiality.” (Milwaukee, 2014)
By looking at the statements above the LGBT Center have a
very broad range of individuals they serve. The LGBT Center for
the most part serves all people in any stage of their life who
identify as an ally or member of the LGBT demographic. The LGBT
Center provides services by supporting groups under its
12
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
organization. The information above talks about the mission
statements but I wanted to find out the real meat of the
organization. One can understand by reading but I was a service-
learner I needed to be in contact with the members of the
organization so I began to look at the individual programs to see
how they fit with the above.
PROGRAMS WITHIN THE MILWAUKEE LGBT COMMUNITY CENTER
The groups that are directly supported by the LGBT Center
are; Project 944.20, Project Q, SAGE, and Mental Health/ Anti-
Violence assistance. Smaller groups include; The Gallery, Legal
and Financial assistance, HIV Prevention, Media Art and Library.
Not only does the LGBT Center provide assistance for the LGBT
population it also has other areas of focus that include outreach
and education. What did these organizations mean and how did
they interact with the mission and the scope of the center. I
sat with the employees and had discussions. Simple discussions
of the outlying groups were easy to understand.
OUTLIER GROUPS TO THE MILWAUKEE LGBT COMMUNITY CENTER
There are many different groups that occupy the space of
the LGBT Community center. These include Milwaukee Women’s 13
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
Chorus, Wisconsin Rainbow Alliance for the Deaf, and Pridefest.
(LGBT, 2014)There is also a large gallery space that displays a
rotation of artwork from community members. They also have board
game night, a lounge for drop-ins, and movie night that is a pot
luck sort of thing once a month. Staff regularly provides
outreach, and education local and governmental municipalities on
LGBT rights and specific needs.
With the brief overview of the different programs and
organizations that use the center as a hub one can see that it is
a very busy place. Hora and Millar (2011) discuss the need to
have people employed at the center offer a wide variety of traits
and are genuinely equipped to be boundary crossers and uniquely
prepared for the different demands (2011). Different educational
demands require a unique perspective which allows for the use of
the space. Many discussions must take place to emphasize that
there is not a one size fits all way for an organization to
approach its partners, and that guidelines and procedures are
custom made for each group and organization affected which allows
for the center to facilitate a full range of activities that
14
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
serve the larger and somewhat fragmented LGBT population (Butler,
2007).
Because of the fragmentation effect as seen in large groups I
wanted to explore the other programs that had a more significant
relevance. I next examined the offender program that outlines
state statute 944.20. It is not on any propaganda and is not
advertised anywhere. One can’t find it in any literature due to
the nature of the program and when discussing it we talk in
whispers and in very private circles. The nature of the program
is extremely confidential.
WISCONSIN STATUTE 944.20 OFFENDER PROGRAM
Through collaboration with the LGBT Center and Milwaukee
County Sherriff, a program has been developed to lower the
incarceration rates for those who are caught have sexual
relations in public areas. Due to Chapter 944 Section 944.20
(Wisconsin, 2011) of the Wisconsin Statute that prohibits “lewd
and lascivious behavior.” This provision makes it a Class A
misdemeanor to “commit an indecent act of sexual gratification
with another with knowledge that they are in the presence of
others,” and to “publicly and indecently expose genitals or pubic15
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
area.” (2011) If someone is arrested in a local park because of
the above, instead of becoming a sex offender and jailed.
Milwaukee County offers a program to teach alternative ways of
expression. This program can be very delicate when dealing with
those who don’t identify with the LGBT Community; those who are
closeted (i.e. not externally expressing their sexuality) for
whatever reason. Therefore confidentiality in these matters is
paramount. The program is designed to reduce the public shame for
the perpetrators and intervene by exploring healthy ways to
express sexual desire without having to resort to public
displays. In a theoretical framework I would attribute this to
a freiereian (Minkler, 2012) approach to helping members curb
their behavior by education. The next group I looked at was the
youth. This was an interesting mix of people whom have all had a
lot of instability in their lives.
PROJECT Q
Project Q is an organization that helps youth from the age of
13 through the age of 23 understands aspects of their gender and
sexuality in a safe and nurturing environment. With the use of
education of life skills, Project Q again uses the Freiereian 16
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
(2012) approach through experiential educational techniques that
are skill building for applications to navigate the diverse
culture and oppression felt as a marginalized individual. These
life skills have an impact on social interaction, outcomes and
continued development of social, spiritual, and educational
outcomes of the youth. Project Q uses microlevel solutions as
found in (Kendall, 2010) to help solve the problems that LGBT
youth face in the culture today. With a one on one approach the
staff “engages in face to face emotion based interactions over
extended periods of time” (p. 376). This approach can breach
issues of sexual relations, drug use, family issues support and
the delicate nature of sexuality and gender issues.
During the last week, the Director of Project Q was walked
out of the building. I did not think this important but once
getting backstory from the staff I understood the implications of
the decision. Project Q, provides, case management, interactive
social enhancement, and the development of social skills. Part of
the grant that is received must include case notes on every
individual that is being seen. These case management notes must
be uploaded to the reporting institution by a specific program. 17
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
This program oversees the funding and operates on a grant that is
very strict in its reporting. One can see why by looking at
(Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2013) who discuss how important
data collection is in chapter 13 and again in chapter 19.
Further study indicates that Project Q staff may not even
understand why the data is being used an independent subcommittee
may be examining the trends and statistics for the people
involved in a confidential manner (2013). The point is that the
notes are a requirement of the grant and without the notes the
grant goes away.
The Program Director was telling the case managers not to
input notes or supply case evaluations to the grant writing
agency and therefore was asked to leave of the building. From
what it looks like the person was sabotaging the work due to an
internal conflict with the Executive Director. To our knowledge
the Program Director was hoping the money would be pulled from
the LGBT Center and appropriated at a different organization with
in the community of which the Program Director had significant
ties. A subordinate of the Program Director decided to bring this
conflict of interest up to the Executive Director whom 18
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
immediately rectified the situation by removing the Program
Director. She then immediately called the grant company and
discussed the problems and now everyone is backlogging the case
notes for the study. From all indications the Executive Director
did the correct action by being honest and upfront. The
implications for practice here are clear when trust and shared
understanding are violated. When key elements are not implemented
and data is damaged or unavailable one must become available to
become fully engaged into rectifying the situation. (Israel,
Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2013) It looks favorable that we may be
able to salvage the grant; however it was certainly a close call.
In the above example one shows how the LGBT Center has faced
many internal and external difficulties that not only threaten
the people it serves but the LGBT Center itself. By removing this
player from the employment of the LGBT Center they used the
conflict of the situation as an opportunity for change. Success
can be achieved and positive outcomes can be felt within the
institution. (Hora & Millar, 2011, p. 180) With the use of
communication a successful interaction took place that allows the
19
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
LGBT Center to grow and prosper. Next, a discussion of SAGE would
be in line with the conflict and resolution theme.
SAGE AND THE NATIONAL RESOURCE ON LGBT AGING
An underserved population includes those who are over the age
of 50. Service and Advocacy for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and
Transgender Elders (SAGE) offers outreach, support and community
building for the LGBT elders in the community. (SAGE, 2014) SAGE
serves over one thousand elders in and around Milwaukee County a
midlevel approach (Kendall, 2010) through a grant initiative
through the Milwaukee County Department of Aging. The National
Resource on LGBT Aging (Services, 2014) supports local SAGE
organizations and provides training, advocacy and assistance for
elders in the LGBT population. SAGE Milwaukee uses micro and
midlevel approaches to solving solutions. (Kendall, 2010) As
indicated above the solutions are many of the times one-on-one
that discuss individual problems and advocacy issues are
developed to maintain individual goals. In the SAGE group
however outreach occurs at the midlevel level which allow for
social movements and organizations that can act collectively to
promote change in the organization. (Kendall, 2010). By 20
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
conducting outreach and support the more people can be served on
a one on one basis assisting the needs of the elders on a
microlevel.
The Milwaukee branch of Service and Advocacy for GLBT Elders
(SAGE) is the second oldest chapter in the United States and has
been an active group for many years. The program was its own
nonprofit and ended up losing momentum because there was a lot of
mistrust, bad blood, and separatism between Gay men and Lesbian
Women. The inability to maneuver within the emerging LGBT+
community had become too much for its aging membership and the
Board of Directors would not surrender its grip or change with
the times.
The discovery indicated that surveys dated 2010 shows that
SAGE Milwaukee was in trouble. In the book Exploring Leadership
Understanding Change (Komvines, Lucas, & McMahon, 2013, p. 424)
discuss the importance of changing with the times. SAGE
Milwaukee had come to a tipping point and virus of dissemination
had spread which caused irrevocable damage and leadership was
abandoned. SAGE Milwaukee could not find a new Executive
Director that would work under the Board of Directors events 21
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
happened in one dramatic moment causing the absorption of the
nonprofit into The Cream City Foundation. With SAGE Out of the
picture and the Milwaukee LGBT Center in severe financial
problems the care and outreach for LGBT members in Milwaukee
County seemed bleak. The LGBT Community as a whole did not know
if there would be a LGBT Center and without SAGE many of the
population depended on each other for networking and support and
many just become isolated and are considered lost.
As aforementioned tough questions were not being talked
about and people felt threatened and underserved. This
information is in the records in the new office which I serve
under the LGBT Center. I have sifted through bylaws, letters,
complaints, and evaluations of SAGE and found it lacking. At one
point a group of 35 Lesbians simply walked out and never returned
because of the reckless abandon of the male leader.
Recently I was on Facebook and an old SAGE member reached
out to me. Dated Wednesday May 07th 2010 she said “I'm afraid
you have an uphill battle with older women, Scott. There are
several men in SAGE who are very alienating. I do not need to go
to an informational presentation on the ACA, for example, and get22
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
lectured about how unfair it is that men have to pay for
maternity care. I went to a change support group that was
shanghaied by a man who thought he was running an AA meeting,
criticizing the women for cross-talking and showing up with food.
We as a group have much better support from LAMM.” (Female
Member, 2014) As the new SAGE Program Coordinator under the LGBT
Center I responded with honesty and care. I realized that it was
my chance to plant a new mental model. (Hora & Millar, 2011)
(SAGE, 2014) By allowing her to be heard, thanking her for her
candor, letting her know that I fully agreed with her, I was able
to plant the seed of change. I settled back and discussed with
her the meaning of SAGE being Service & Advocacy and had nothing
to do with a good old boys club. That hopefully we can make a
sincere effort to allow all members to participate and allow sage
to be the simple act of listening, and inviting her to be of
service for others allowed me the ability to gain a new advocate
and ally that was previously alienated.
LGBT FRAGMENTATION AND INTERNAL PHOBIA
Fragmentation of a population occurs due to the multiplicity
of the individuals served. These individuals although identify 23
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
with the community as a whole are in many ways limited to small
groups of individuals within the group itself. The center must
deal with fear, rejection, and different types of phobia(s) i.e.,
Trans, homo, gender, marriage etc., most importantly not all
groups get along. Judith Butler discusses that gender and
sexuality seen as the same and binary predominant heterosexual or
in this case hegemonic culture (2007). This is due to “limits
that are set with the hegemonic cultural discourse predicated on
binary structures that appear as the language of universal
rationality” (p. 12). While speaking with the Executive Director
Colleen Carpenter she discussed heteronormative binary (the way
culture views marriage and heterosexual norms as described in
(Butler, 2007)) and understands that even in the diverse
population of the LGBT community phobias occur and at times are
more visceral than outliers (people on the periphery) that don’t
see the nuances of the differences. For example: As Ms.
Carpenter discussed it is perceived that the idea that Bisexuals
can’t be trusted because they can’t commit to a sexual
preference. This can be a misdirected phobia due to another
person’s fixed sexual orientation. This fragmentation can be seen24
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
as phobia and oppression may occur within the in divergent
culture itself (2007). Another example was while at a monthly
SAGE brunch one of the members who identify as a Gay man
indicated that he just doesn’t get Transgendered individuals,
reckless sentiment that felt closed and matter of fact in its
delivery. With the use of some of the techniques learned in class
for effective group process we as a group discussed this and I
became a boundary spanning leader.
SOLUTION FOR INTERNAL CONFLICT
I became a boundary spanning leader (Hora & Millar, 2011)
which allowed me to establish trustworthy dialogue buy
“establishing effective and respectful communication thus laying
the groundwork for trust to develop (p. 83)” in this case with
the different genders in the group. I was able to have my “feet”
in both sides of the issue and facilitate a dialogue. This in-
depth dialogue that was at times difficult but this author was
able to provide needed education for the members that were at the
brunch. I did this with setting guidelines and boundaries and
succeeded in a small demonstration of the perception of gender.
I asked the members of the group to design a bumper sticker sized25
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
piece of cardstock that reflected their gender. After everyone
had had a chance to make their ideal quote we went around the
room and discussed it. We made the decision that everyone had the
rite to reflect anything they wished and all of the answers were
correct. Adapted from (Bowen, 2007) we then took the time to
discuss probing questions to what makes a gender and how gender
differs from sexuality. Upon reflection to this exercise we
noted that there were many similarities that included feelings,
fears and misrepresentations not usually discussed. The outcome
was a more clear understanding of a person who identifies as
Transgender. The exercise really emphasized how people are
viewed in our society and showed that identity is a personal
construct based on internal experiences feelings and desires
(2007).
ENGAGEMENT OF ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION
In the above analysis of the Transgendered people in our
group allowed for a deeper understanding of the subgroup
containing the T of LGBT for many in the group. By establishing
norms in communication that includes mutual respect, overall
participation of a small art piece and an explanation component, 26
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
most of the participants made the decision to listen which
allowed everyone ability to agree or disagree internally upon
their own reflection. (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2013) I
was surprised at how many people praised other peoples design but
disparaged their own because of their own perceived inability to
create art. Our group found commonalities not initially seen. My
role as facilitator was to keep the discussion moving and smooth
the rough spots by interjection and positive reiterations of
personal beliefs. When someone would bring up a negative that
could be considered a negative it was my duty to acknowledge the
comment but to give the person speaking respect. This strategy of
influence allowed the group to stay focused on the topic.
REFLECTIVE TECHNIQUES USED IN EVALUATION
Careful reflection has been taken to examine how programing
is facilitated and circulated to its members. The author used
reflective techniques found in (Bowen, 2007) that included art,
and written reflection. The use of techniques like “What Was it
Like?” and “Collage” (p. 73), allowed the author to see a broad
overview of the center itself. Another analysis tool was 27
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
creating a mind map of the organization. By looking at an
overview of the organization the author was able to become better
aware of the center and its mission. I started to understand the
heartbeat and lifeblood of the organization itself.
INTERVIEW OF CARPENTER
To understand the organization further I met with, Coleen
Carpenter the Executive Director. Colleen and I discussed the
need for individuals that are either volunteers or staff at the
center to use the mission to protect the individual. Carpenter
reported that “The safety and anonymity of the members that use
the space must be maintained to be able to continue the cultural
advancement of our people.” This becomes a challenge to educate,
empower and further equal rights among the people they serve and
maintain privacy. The center itself walks a fine line between
privacy and awareness. There are occasions where lines are
crossed which can lead to heated debates and social challenges
within and outside its community. As (Israel, Eng, Schulz, &
Parker, 2013, p. 73) discusses the importance of equitable
participation and open communication being the one of the most
important factors for facilitating groups to achieve their goals.28
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
All members must have opportunities to participate openly in
group discussion and action. (Forsyth, 2009) This shows that the
multiplicity of the organization function to facilitate every
member. Further research shows that there is always conflict
within organizations, and without conflict change does not occur,
and is often necessary.
“Discussion of conflict explicitly before it occurs in one
way to encourage group members to see it as a norm in our
work is to “agree to disagree; and conflict that stems from
histories of oppression may benefit from the sharing of
experiences and efforts by all members to understand the
others’ experiences” (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2013, p.
86 - 87). These shared experiences become the bedrock for
future development and trust.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND CARPENTER
One of the best ways that conflict resolution occurs is with the
semi-closed, open door policy of the Executive Director. Her
single mission is to keep the LGBT Center solvent and on a
forward momentum that the Board of Directors maintains. With the
use of boundaries, expectations and awareness Ms. Carpenter works29
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
magic on the many individuals that are employed at the LGBT
Center. A boundary spanning leader (Hora & Millar, 2011), Ms.
Carpenter works tirelessly to engage in the community, interact
with the different bridges formed by the LGBT Center, its allies
and partners and is aware of leaning on staff to improve climate
and culture. (Wheatly, 2002) It was clear that Colleen was a no
nonsense woman who told you what was what. She had no problem
articulating blunt and capable action.
YEARLY STATE OF THE LGBT CENTER MEETING
By attending the yearly I fully understand what Colleen
Carpenter has done for the LGBT Center. In the meeting titled
“2013 at a glance: The Momentum Grows” The author listened to the
information presented, took notes, and examined the direction of
the LGBT Center as a whole and the board. The following are the
milestones captured in 2013. First, SAGE became a program of the
center as before it was its own non-profit and was dangerously
close to folding. Volunteer hours were up %300 totaling 10,274
hours. Over 100 volunteers helped at Pridefest in the Center
Stage area. The center was over $750,000.00 in the rears with
the landlord and the legacy fund, with the support of key friends30
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
and the negotiation of the space, the LGBT Center paid it off the
money. This savings gave the LGBT Center a chance to continue.
The financials show that the center had a total income of
$700,449.27 with expenses of $647,440.13 which allowed the center
a net income of $53,009.14. Colleen Carpenter was hired during a
nationwide search for a new Executive Director. The LGBT Center
provided counsel to elders in the community and had a successful
anti-violence program which impacted 108 members. Outreach with
partners and collaborators with different community members,
Board of Directors was vital to save the LGBT Center. Proudly the
LGBT Center has come out of the shadows of being closed for good
and is on track to achieve its mission once again.
What the LGBT Center had to do was create a design for
adaptation of the problems that were unique to the LGBT Center.
(Hora & Millar, 2011) The LGBT Center learned that there are no
“one size fits all solution” (p. 21) for the individual
organization and its partnerships. Careful planning and
identifying how to save the center took tireless volunteer work,
commitment from the Board of Directors and a willingness to
succeed played a key role in remaining solvent. By building 31
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
trust and equity (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2013, p. 561) by
what the text refers to as “ground truthing” Ms. Carpenter under
the Board of Directors has succeeded in bringing what was once
paralyzing inaction into valuable momentum. Referring to ground
truthing (p. 561) is to get the climate on the ground literally,
find out what is happening and what are really the perceptions of
the community by using triangulation techniques (p. 378) problems
that were once uncovered became the third space of indigenous
knowledge (p.52). Surveys ad interaction, in multiple areas of
the LGBT Center were conducted to explore solutions in a more
comprehensive manner in conjunction with the working group which
developed into a valuable and solvent society on which
programming has developed new problem solving partnerships.
During this meeting a few tokens of appreciation were handed out
to signify the gratitude of the LGBT Center. The United Way has
been one of the largest sponsors of the center who believes in
the mission and is a valuable ally for the LGBT Center. This
coordinated partnership has allowed a working group to form and
develop an understanding of the underlying mechanism of what was
needed to survive. (Hora & Millar, 2011, p. 07) . The working 32
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
group looked at the underlying problems of the center and
reported to the Board of Directors. The working group looked at
key features of the LGBT Center and did analysis based on current
financials, population of the members, activities and overall
soundness of the center. Focus groups were used to indicate how
the members were unhappy or disenfranchised and further
recommendations were made. The financial analysis was done by an
outside entity that partnered with the Board of Directors and an
analysis was done similar to (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker,
2013, p. 447). A strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats
(SWOT) analysis was done which uncovered deficits in programming,
funding, implementations of programming and runaway spending.
Questionnaires were circulated but did not generate much support
due to the long term negative outcomes seen by the active members
of the LGBT Center. (2013)
THE TURNAROUND
The outcome of the working group provided a conceptual
framework to move out of debt by aggressively addressing the
damaging mental models that were present in the sociocultural
environment and remove financial waste. The center was four 33
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
floors and was being underutilized. These stumbling blocks
present happened because of lack of leadership of the Board of
Directors because of the actions of the previous Executive
Director. Under the direction of the working group the Board of
Directors removed the Executive Director from power and reduced
the space from four floors to two floors in the same building.
Key staff members were removed and replaced. Emphasis was placed
on a more nurturing, accepting cultural model for the space and
the momentum slowly began to improve.
SOCIAL POLITICS AND HUMAN NATURE
The author is fascinated that the bureaucracy that followed
the LGBT Center and SAGE but the transitions of both
organizations have come out of danger of dissolving. With the use
of many of the techniques outlined in the readings of Ed Policy
609 one can directly apply the theory and practice outlined. For
example by using a working group partnership, the group could
step back, take an inventory, and examine the best way to
cultivate and grow the organization. Many leaders of non-profits
often are weary of evaluation (Grobman, 2011). Grobman discussed
that fear of evaluation is often unfounded. (p. 283) Yet on the 34
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
other hand if one is not committed to the organization, wastes
money and the organization forgets that it is liable to the
community they serve. An evaluation can be disastrous for the
staff. This was the case for the LGBT Center. The working group
looked at the best practice for service which indicated a change
in leadership. The working group was successful to recommend the
need for change. (LGBT, 2014) In connection with communication,
trustworthy behaviors and action these groups foster a better
understanding of the processes and dynamics of the real world
experience seen by service learning. (DiNitto, 2011; Felten, H.,
& Clayton, 2011; Grobman, 2011; Hora & Millar, 2011; Komvines,
Lucas, & McMahon, 2013; Wheatly, 2002) Another example is the
change of the leadership while it is important to negotiate the
tension between self-interest and the interests of the collective
in this case the LGBT Center one must examine the entire
partnership as a whole. The removal of the Program Director from
Project Q was a direct response to the needed leadership the LGBT
Center must have. (Hora & Millar, 2011; Israel, Eng, Schulz, &
Parker, 2013) Further research shows that boundaries must be
determined to allow for clear delineation of partnerships and the35
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
role each partnership takes. Frequently when organizations get
into trouble either a partnership is not regulated, data
mismanaged for grant initiatives, or the members do not speak the
same language. (Epstein, 2011; Sandy, 2007) Once down the rabbit
hole it is difficult to see one’s way out and the organization
can suffer. This shows why evaluation is paramount for continued
growth and development.
Despite all of the efforts many have been frustrated when
dealing with the bureaucracy of the LGBT Center before the change
of leadership. (DiNitto, 2011, p. 44) This bureaucracy created
tension which unhealthy partnerships and relationships among
acting members. One had to take a holistic perspective of all of
the groups involved the L’s G’s B’s and the T’s, and whoever fit
in the middle of them. One of the main reason of holistic
nurturing of all sub groups is that “culture is too complex and
multifaceted to allow for a labeling of an entire organizational
type of culture” (Hora & Millar, 2011, p. 70) this can complicate
the mission. Even today there is some kickback that the label
misses some of the population it serves.
36
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
CONCLUSION
By looking at the LGBT’s and other groups involved with the
LGBT Center as a whole I was able to holistically look at the
center as a functioning hub for the assistance of a category of
individuals. I uncovered the difference and the similarities of
the groups provided. As the new SAGE Program Coordinator, I have
the ability to try and mend the fences that have been beaten down
by the differences and focus on the similarities. With the use of
focus groups, surveys, interaction and gentle care I will be able
to function as a liaison for those isolated and oppressed.
Touching on oppression, this work discusses what happened
and why. What steps were taken to overcome challenges through the
framework of the course work in EdPol 609? It has been made clear
that of utmost importance and basic necessity is the ability to
communicate. By using boundary spanning leadership, and
communication techniques found in our source materials one can
facilitate and foster communication. “To foster progressive
communication among group members one must be able to set clear
ground rules for debate and discussion and actively guide cross-
cultural and cross organizational interactions so they can 37
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
proceed in a progressive manner” (Hora & Millar, 2011, p. 164).
It would be my desire to continue to pursue goals in challenging
cultural foundations of organization to achieve leadership
outcomes based on the wishes of the community to allow for a
different type of guidance. It looks like the staff at the
Milwaukee LGBT Community Center is in the process of that
interactive change that causes synergistic growth.
38
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
Works Cited
Bowen, G. A. (2007). Reflection methods and activities for service learning a student manual and workbook. Debuque: Kendall/Hunt.
Butler, J. (2007). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge Classics by Routledge.
Carpenter, C. (2014, 03 28). Executive Director Milwaukee LGBT Center. (S. Miller, Interviewer)
Damore, S. J., Kapustka, K. M., & McDevitt, P. (2011). The urban professional development school network: assessing the partnership's impact on initial teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 46:182-207.
D'Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities, the making of a homosexual minority in the united states, 1940 - 1970. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
DiNitto, D. M. (2011). Social welfare politics and public policy. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family and community partnerships. Philadelphia: Westview Press.
Felten, P., H., & Clayton, P. (2011). Service learning. New Directons for Teaching and Learning, 128, 75-81.
Fisher, R., Fabricant, R., & Simmons, L. (2004). Understanding contemporary university-community connections: context, practice, and challenges. The Hawthorn Press, 13 -34.
Fluehr-Lobban, C. (2006). Race and racism an introduction. Lanham, MD, USA: AltaMira
Press.
Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. Belmont ,CA: Walworth,Cengage Learning.
39
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
Grobman, G. M. (2011). The nonprofit handbook (Vol. 6). Harrisburg, PA, USA: White Hat Communnications.
Hora, M., & Millar, S. B. (2011). A guide to building education partnerships: navigating diverse cultural contects to turn challenge into promise.Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2013). Methods for community-based participatory reseach for health (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA, U.S.A: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, C. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: casting light orshadow. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kendall, D. (2010). Can social problems be solved in social. In D. Dendall, Can social problems be solved (pp. 371-388). Boston: Pearson.
Komvines, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2013). Exploring leadership for college students who want to make a difference (Vol. Three).San Francisco, CA: Joss-Bass.
LGBT, M. C. (2014, 04 01). Sage, discussion groups, library, cybrcenter, project Q. MKE LGBT Community center pamphlet. Milwaukee,WI: LGBT Community center.
Milwaukee, L. (2014, (na) (na)). Milwaukee LGBT community center. Retrieved 04 2014, 2014, from Milwaukee LGBT community center: http://www.mkelgbt.org/
Minkler, M. (2012). Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Welfare. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
SAGE. (2014, 05 10). Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE). Retrieved 05 10, 2014, from SAGE USA: http://www.sageusa.org/
Sandy, M. (2007). Community voices: a california campus compact study on partnerships. San Francisco: California Campus Compact.
40
Community Center Experiential Learning 2014
Services, U. D. (2014, 05 10). Servie and advocacy for GLBT elders. Retrieved 05 10, 2014, from Service and advocacy for GLBT elders: http://www.lgbtagingcenter.org/index.cfm
Taboada, A. (2011). Privilege, poeer and public health programs: A student perspective on deconstrucitng institutioal racism in community service learning. J Public Healthe Management Practice, 376-380.
Weil, M. (2005). The handbook of community practice. Thouisand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Wheatly, M. (2002). Turning to one another. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishing, Inc.
Wisconsin, S. o. (2011, May). Chapter 944 crimes against sexual morality S.35.18 944.20. State of Wisconsin.
41