We have jokingly called Vera the "mother ship" because it is, on some level, the origin of your journeys as John Jay - Vera Fellows. For those of you NOT interning at Vera, you have really interesting perspectives since your greater familiarity is with the work and space of the spin-off (the child and not the parent, to keep the metaphor going). So what did you learn today as you returned to the mother ship? What immediately struck you in what you saw or heard?
If you need more of a prompt than that (and I'm thinking most of you don't!), here are a few specific topics that occurred to me:
Did last week's conversation give you a greater attention to language and, if so, what were your thoughts? For example, I jotted down phrases such as "school-disconnected youth," "post-conflict," "resistant," "strengths-based" and "population." We routinely use the word "population" in our seminar to discuss the folks served by your agencies and yet Dr. Elkin was eager to clarify his use of that word by saying that the youths are not just a population but "are people we care about." What work is each of these phrases attempting to do? What implications are they hoping to avoid?
Not all non-profits look like Vera. From the bejewelled Woolworth Building to the polished, rather swank conference room (admit it, you wanted to take a mug, too), the aesthetic style of a place communicates a message just as much as our language choices. What does the style say to you? How does this contrast with the aesthetic of your agency? What message is communicated by your agency's aesthetics? (And since I'm an English professor, I'd love to open this space to vivid, detailed descriptions of the places you work. Remember, we haven't visited all of them -- make us see what you see!)
All of our speakers admitted to altering or abandoning various career choices on their pathway to Vera. For some, it was realizing grad school was the wrong fit, or that the direction of the field had changed (I love the phrase Dr. Elkin used: "professional dissonance"!), or that grad school wasn't even necessary to pursuing one's vision. Hester Lyons shared my favorite revelation of the day that it wasn't until decades later that she realized how one choice led to another. I think it is tempting to think, when you are young, talented, ambitious and anxious, that those of us doing what you want to do had some great plan all along. We don't (I'm using the royal "we" here -- I'm not accusing any of you of wanting to be English professors!). We make choices, we quit jobs, we eat ramen, we avoid military coups, and we work hard to make those questionable decisions the "right" decision. What did you hear in this conversation that helped or confused you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hello Professor,
I really enjoyed the trip to the Vera Institute of Justice. It was interesting not only to learn about the process by which the spin-offs occur, but to also listen to our guests speak about their contribution in Vera and the impact that their work has left in society. Their perspectives were intriguing and from my limited time spent at FedCap so far, I’m surprised I was able to relate to them to an extent.
I was extremely interested in Sian Casey’s segment about Adolescent Portable Therapy. I felt that this approach to helping children and family in conflict with the law is very helpful and successful in leading towards a positive reentry. It was fascinating to hear the dynamics that the child, his/her family and therapist shared, in regards to assessing the effectiveness of the therapy and the results.
I was also inspired by Haley Reimbold’s segment, when she told us about the nonprofit organization that she started upstate. In my opinion, she is still pretty young and for her to have accomplished so much already is beyond motivational! Her work upstate and her work now at Vera definitely correlate and I am moved by her passion to continue fighting for social justice.
Last week’s seminar definitely allowed me to pay more attention to language. I too caught when Dr. Elkin referred to the individuals as a “population,” but quickly apologized and clarified. I definitely admired him for that. I noticed that all of the speakers were very careful in how they addressed the individuals they served. I feel that by not referring these individuals to the harsh words which society usually places on them, (for example: “delinquent,” “offender,” “drug addict”) the gap is starting to get bridged, in that society is attempting to connect with them and reintegrate them back into society. I think it is great how the people of Vera really try to help the individuals by not marginalizing them, or isolating them as being “different.” In our society, we all want to build community and keep harmony. By not shunning these individuals out or labeling them as something negative, we are starting the process of building community and helping their reentry by allowing them to feel part of the “us.”
When I initially entered the Vera office, I thought “wow!” It was beautiful in there and if I didn’t know beforehand, I would’ve thought that this was a very private, rich company, with high-up administration and men all in business suits. A bit stereotypical, but that was the image that had popped in my head. The Vera building definitely has a sharp contrast to the BankNote Building, where I do my internship at FedCap.
Cont....
As I’ve mentioned, FedCap and Wildcat recently had a merger. The BankNote building is located in the South Bronx and it is a relatively new building. Not all the floors have offices yet and this office location is new to FedCap as well, since the Wildcat office is located in downtown Manhattan. On the floor that FedCap is on, the whole hallway is under construction. There are wooden boards scattered throughout the floors (similar to the ones of the floor when the New Building was under construction) and men doing work in the back all day. If compared to Vera, one would think that perhaps FedCap does not have as much money, is not as well funded, etc. However, that is not the case. When really examining the finances at FedCap, we are doing great and the employment placements we provide are steadily rising!
From listening to the speakers stories about how they ended up in Vera, it made me think about where I will end up years, or even decades from now. Currently, after I graduate from John Jay, I plan to attend law school in hopes of becoming a public interest attorney. All of the speakers spoke as if they were sure of the path they were going, until they suddenly diverged and ended up somewhere else, ultimately at Vera. That whole discussion just made me think, “where will I end up?... Is this really what I want to do?”... etc. I guess only time will tell. I do know that public interest work and advocating for social justice is what I want to pursue. However, the career that revolves around passion is still unclear.
As the “mother ship” has been my home base for the last couple of weeks, I cannot really make a comment from our last get-to-together. But, having worked with several non-profits in the past, I was blown away the first time I visited Vera about six months ago. It’s very pristine…the bathrooms are immaculately clean…and they have a mini-library. It was pretty sweet. And they also have a functioning AC (something the last non-profit I worked for did not have hah).
It’s a different experience for sure. Vera, not directly serving the public from its offices, can come off as ivory towerish—that is, out of touch with the “populations” they intend to serve. The amount of brainpower and dedication that goes on behind the scenes, however, has greatly inspired me. They get out in the field and work very closely with the systems we all seek to change and the individuals we seek to represent. These people are very good at what they do, and their passion has been contagious.
In regards to Dr. Elkin’s clarification, it definitely got me thinking. For me, “population” (in research speak) implies that there is this large, homogenous group that we are studying…which is true, to some extent. The wording, though, can come off as depersonalized and generalized. Yes, many of these children (using the APT example) face similar circumstances and share similar characteristics, but they are individuals, too, imbued with idiosyncratic feelings, thoughts, and emotions. Perhaps, using the term “population” so frequently can verbally disconnect us from what we really hope to represent. In Orwell’s mind, I also wonder if the use of the word “population” would be considered euphemistic (i.e. using a broad umbrella term, and covering the blunt truth—intentionally or not—about the people we work with).
I really enjoyed hearing the personal experiences from the speakers. It was, in a way, comforting to hear the struggles that some of these individuals faced (from Dr. Elkin’s decision to almost leave the field of psychology to Ms. Lyon’s realization that grad school wasn’t for her). I think we live in a society where we all want a master plan for the future; to know where we’ll be in five years, ten years, twenty years; to have 2.5 kids; to be “successful.” I heard and felt a theme of serendipity throughout all of the speakers’ experiences. That is, do things you like and are passionate about, and you’ll find your way. There will be bumps along during the ride, and the decisions you make will probably shape your future ones (possibly unbeknownst until later, like Hester), but that’s how we learn. I think my serendipitous philosophy was solidified.
I would like to first thank the professors for organizing a trip to meet with Vera's board members. It was a very insightful and enjoyable experience.
I could not help but notice that Vera Central had a very different feel to it when I first walked in than my internship at housing and services. “The Mother ship” was very structured and reminded me a lot of corporate offices. I was taken aback when I first walked in to see this resemblance but I was equally surprised by the compassion of their members. I expected them to be very stern and business oriented simply because they held so much power and I was happily mistaken. Michael Jacobson was very passionate about the outreach of Vera and how they operate with government. Karen Goldstein was very knowledgeable about the spin off process and how new ideas turn into social change. Evan Elkin expressed great enthusiasm about how Vera begins planning for new social justice models. They may do their work in offices that resemble business and corporation but they are definitely driven by passion rather than money.
I mention this simply to show how Vera has truly found a way to bridge the gap between non-profit outreach and government outreach. Their ability to partner with government and breed new leaders into individual communities is amazingly strategic and truly unique. Their strategy provided me with insight for my career goals, as I have been actively thinking of methods to start a non-profit organization sometime in the near future. Upon talking with Karen and Hailey after their presentations, I realized that my goals would not move forward until I myself begin making them reality. Hailey expressed the importance of mobilizing community and making demands on local politicians to listen to community members concerns. Karen expressed the importance of building a strong legal foundation and finding the right partners to help with the project’s progression. These two pieces of advice rocked my world because they were so obvious but I have been so ineffective in beginning either of them.
The trip to Vera may very well be what I needed to begin building a foundation for my career goals. I realized that through my dance initiative, I have already begun laying a good foundation for advocacy but I still have a ling way to go. I am increasingly anxious to start this non-profit organization and I cannot wait to tell everyone in Vera whether I succeed or fail in the near future. Thank you again professors for this opportunity.
Last Thursday was my second visit to Vera’s headquarter, and my impression of its interior design remains—its office environment seems to leaned toward a corporate theme rather than the conventional “frugal looking” non-profit setting. I became more skeptical of Vera’s principal of operation as I learned about Vera’s preference for individuals of Ivy League backgrounds. I had to question how could these individuals, most of whom probably from a well off, if not elite, social background, able to understand the struggles of individuals living desperately at the bottom of the social ladder. If I were given an opportunity to use a straightforward metaphor to describe my concern, I would say how could I possibility generate any appropriate solution to social issues in France if I have never lived a day of my life in the shoes of French common folks? Similarly, how could our prestigious Vera employees, most of whom probably never know what is it like to be constantly worry about the next meal, the anxiety of not being able to find a job due to one’s criminal record, and what is it feels like to be a test subject of various social programs, ever able to provide these similar yet diverse populations with what they really needed?
After listening to information presented by our guest speakers, I managed to find the answer to my question. Just as Joseph and I have suspected, it remains true that Vera’s principal of operation is relatively ivory towerish, however, it seems like they do have an effective remedy for this reputation. To use my words, they began to manufacture innovative ideas by turning a product designs submitted by innovators, people who have substantial amount of firsthand knowledge of what can be done for those socially disadvantaged folks, and turn them into actual pilot projects. Then it is up to those prestigious Vera employees, I would call them social engineers, to plan the best approach to implement these blueprints. If these projects were well received by the society, Vera would plumb in additional resources into the project and “mass produce” it. Therefore, in addition to the title “mothership”, I have came up with another heading that, in my opinion, precisely depict Vera’s role— the Social Manufacturer!
I must say that when we arrived at our “mother ship’s” headquarters I was at first thrown aback by the glass entrance and the elegant atmosphere that received us. However as we walked through and entered the conference room I realized that it was not so much an elegant feeling, that was being displayed, but rather an open and transparent working environment. The offices are all made up of glass front walls, for everyone to see what is going on inside. As I sat listening to the speakers I realized that Vera employees are very much like all of us, people who have searched for that particular work which will allow them to leave their mark in this world. The employees, particular those who we had the privilege of meeting, seem just as clear and transparent as the offices they work in.
In my particular agency, Urban Resource Institute, I also feel that transparency being portrayed by the people who work and help the residents in our shelter. The doors to the offices at URI are always open, unless a client wants to speak about something in private. The atmosphere is that of everyone being just like everyone else, and that same feeling is replicated at the mother ship’s offices. In the URI shelter I am interning in, the building is secured in order to keep the women safe. However as soon as you enter and pass security, the atmosphere is totally different is more as if you are working from home, well this is also because for the clients in our shelter this building is their home, but the staff makes it seem like it’s their home as well. The doors are always open and anyone can see what you are doing, there is no sense of secrecy, but rather a clear and obvious transparency. For me this sense of transparency inspires confidence and openness.
In regards to language and its use, I took particular interest in how the projects and spin-offs which are tested at Vera are first thought of in terms of how many people they can benefit? How can it be duplicated or replicated? How can we pull it off? Then after all of the pertinent questions have been answered then they ask how can we get backing and financial support? What I got out of this part of the lecture was that what counts, first of all, is the people they are looking to help and the language used is that of people first. “Strength-based” programs that help families focus on the strongest parts or abilities, in their family or in their children, in order to lean on and built upon, for a more sound and structured support. The focus is always placed on the positive side of every individual and never on the worst possible scenario. To me this emphasizes the need for a clear and better use of language in order to behave in a more positive manner and to portray a better understanding of human nature. As Orwell expressed in his writing, the words we say or write can affect how we, as well as others, think and behave. It is important that what we want to do and what we want to portray, is also how we express ourselves in our everyday language.
The physical appearance of Vera Institute office is much different than CEO’s. From the outside of the Woolworth Building to the swanky conference room and delicious pastries it seemed to fill the image of ivory tower. CEO on the other hand is quite large, and for that reason it consumes portions of the 5th, 6th, 15th, and 16th floors in a Manhattan office building. I myself constantly get confused and walk off an elevator just to turn around, walk back on, and go down another floor (similar to all the stupid “L” levels in the new building). As for offices, some higher up employees at CEO have small offices while others have small cubicles, just enough room to interact with a participant. One thing I noticed at Vera was the amount of glass doors, we at CEO have steel doors, not quite the same elegance. One possible explanation for the pristine condition of the Vera Institute could be because they are kind of the role model of non-profits. For new non-profits or people with good ideas Vera gives off a positive vibe.
As for our speakers and their different career paths, it was good for me personally to hear. At this point in my academic career I want to attend law school (LSATs this weekend). But it is reassuring to hear that being a lawyer is not the only way to advocate for social justice. I think that hearing that graduate work wasn’t the right fit, not wanting to take a managerial role, and even thinking about leaving the field all together helps us as young adults realize that we will choose the wrong options throughout our lives but we can rebound from that.
All in all I think last Thursday was a great way to see what it is that Vera actually does. It develops and produces inspirational ideas and turns them into practical and scalable agencies.
Hopefully I can tailor a brief response to the thought-provoking questions Professor Reitz has asked.
First, the appearance of the building: absolutely gorgeous. From the building's lobby to the Vera Office, everything about the place was crisp and...well, perfect. The bathrooms were pristine; the office spaces were neat and well maintained. The "aesthetic," as Prof. Reitz said, was stunning. I must be honest, however: the area was a bit intimidating.
To be honest, I couldn't help but compare the "aesthetic" of Vera to that of CASES, my agency. The difference would be quite stark, actually. While the courtroom space and administrative offices are reminiscent (to a lower degree) to Vera's halls, the classrooms (the Education Department area in general) is more humble. Old classrooms, limited space, old offices in need of renovation, etc. Don't mistake these descriptions as a complaint, however. Despite its appearance, CASES still offers a very open, welcoming atmosphere. It is not as shockingly intimidating as Vera is, and the cozier quarters allows for some sort of closer connection between educators and the clients. I guess, in the end, such an arrangement works out. We don't need the "swank" of the Vera Office; I guess it would be superfluous to the job we have to do.
Second, let me address the whole "abandoning careers" conversation we had at Vera. I guess that discussion helped me, because I've shared a similar experience. Because of branching passions, I don't exactly know what I want to do as a career. This fellowship has given me a goal to complete. The speakers often brought up the word "innovation." It made me think--what could I do that is innovative and extends the cause of social justice? Vera has given me an answer to that question, and it does not require me to drop my passions at all. In fact, it has focused those passions into a sharp goal. I don't want to expand on this right now, but let's just say I'm very thankful for my experience in Vera so far...
Professor(s),
Thanks for the post and for the trip to Vera, it was amazing. I want to open by describing my work environment at Common Justice is like. For one, the feel of the entire space, which is more of a “hub” of various non-profits and agencies, ranging from voting advocacy and being more “green”, and of course the alternative to incarceration demonstration project, Common Justice, is extremely welcoming. Everyone is unique; from bow ties to bright colored shirts to neat ripped jeans to Jordan’s is so apparent and out there that it screams “be you”. The “almost professional” and “not too casual” look is one I personally love, because I feel as if my appearance is a portrayal of who I am as a person. I can express myself without having to hide behind a suit or the rules of a weekly groomed haircut and the choking tie. There is also a dog, named Ella, who only pays attention to you when you have good food, vibrant colors of red, blue, green and orange, a high ceiling, and large windows that allow the outside to be part of the inside. There is no real sense of “privacy” in the office, given the glass doors and glass walls, open spaces, and the tight proximity of every office. It fosters a sense of community, warmth, and even family. Needless to say, for me, I would love to work at Common Justice.
Vera was very different, both in the aesthetic sense and in how the environment felt. It was friendly, warm, but I did feel as if the “mother ship” was more part of the “high roller” world of social justice, in a tall tower overlooking the city that hid so much injustice. The building itself is beautiful and the area gives you a sense of New York glory, and perhaps a too good to be true aura. The offices itself felt a bit too “Justice” oriented, and what I mean to say is that it seemed perfect, clean, and that it gave you (or at least me) the thought that it was all going to be okay. At Vera, anything can be fixed. Of course, that isn’t true, but it felt that way, to me. And while it did not remind me, or look like Wall St., it may be a distant cousin.
So what am I trying to say? For me, it is the sense of our core individualism. I can be who I ultimately want to be at Common Justice, because everyone is not afraid to be who he or she is. At Vera, you can be who you are, as long as it fits within the framework of how the “mother ship” actually functions. So, in a sense, Vera is the parent who has rules, refrains from being too outlandish, and is more of a player in the social world. Common Justice seems to be more of the rebellious teenager, doing things differently, pushing the envelope, and wanting independence (very much like we discussed at Vera – the spinoffs projects want to be independent). For me, I would like to remain the rebellious teenager, because it’s a better fit and seems to try and make real change by working closer to the ground. I am sure not every spinoff agency is like Common Justice, but each in some way is like a child, some may be the model son or daughter, others the wall flower, and some the next president of the world. Who knows?
A large part of this is also language. The language I used when at Vera was not the language I use, or hear, at Common Justice. This is also how we make decisions, by paying attention to the language of a contract, of our bosses and supervisors, and especially the language we like to use. There is a time and place for everything, but I don’t think anyone wants to be somewhere where they can’t stand listening to themselves. Language does not only help define our emotions, it helps guide us, and as the speakers last week said, the road to Vera was not a direct one, and I am sure language played a role in their decision to be at Vera.
I'd like to start off by saying that the trip to the Vera Institute of Justice was very helpful and it quite enjoyable.
The conversation regarding language forced me to scrutinize the language I use more and more. I’ve realized that language and the use of particular words can change the meaning and direction of an entire conversation. For example, in Safe Horizon, when someone talks about a victim, she constantly brings up the person’s past. However, when an individual uses the word survivor, she brings up the person’s future and provides an encouraging narrative to stay positive.
When I first arrived at the mother ship, I turned to David and Andre to say that this place was not your typical non-profit. The marble security desk combined with the flat screen television elegantly placed along the wall made me feel like I was attending an entrance to see a royal family. The nice floor layout made the place seem more like it was a corporate office rather than a non-profit. Contrastingly, the Safe Horizon Office I intern at only has one floor and one conference room. Moreover, there is hardly any interior, and the walls are orange!
Like Aaron and Andre, I was very happy when Professor Reitz and Professor Stein asked the speakers about their personal journeys. When I first entered college, I wanted to go to law school; however, over the years, I began to second-guess this decision because I have little faith in pursuing social justice issues with strict focus on the law. After taking numerous courses, I realized that law school wasn’t the only answer to social justice. I was glad and reassured when the speakers connected us to their personal journeys, which in turn reinforced my view that that law school was not the only passage to social justice. All in all, the trip to Vera was helpful in understanding the spin offs.
First off I think Amara hit the nail on the head (expression) when it came to appearance, “gorgeous” was one of the many words I would use to describe Vera. The presentation definitely surpassed my expectations; Vera was different from Esperanza in the sense that the environment invokes a corporate appeal whereas at Esperanza you get a comfortable, warm appeal. As Niko stated in his piece that one would get the impression there is a framework to follow in order to get things done at Vera. I think the framework works for them because of what they do as social innovators who turn ideas into reality, which requires a process. From what they explained at Vera, I agree with the approach they follow turning demonstration projects into spinoffs. I like the idea that Vera nurtures the demonstration projects until it becomes successful (hopefully). Their success rate is an indicator that their blueprint works. I also like the idea that Vera can always play the role as a consultant as a board member to ensure that the spin off stays successful. However what I found most touching was when even though one of the Spin-offs failed Vera didn’t just let the project die but instead incorporated some of the spin-off into their own work. It shows that Vera is quite flexible as well as being able to go through constant change somewhat like a parent who wants their child to succeed.
I agree with Sylvie that they are “Social Manufacturer” and their approach of turning ideas into reality. Mr. Jacobson even mentioned that nearly everyone has P.H.D. and I could get the impression that Vera was similar to a research institution. One of the best examples which illustrate this was the Ohio Green City initiative. Mr. Eilken explained the process of this initiative and I thought it was fascinating that an ordinary individual can play a role and are able to approach them with the ideas for change, my impression before the meeting was such opportunity was given only to the higher ups. It was also interesting how far they expanded from New York to New Orleans to California. I think that expanding their reach is a good thing because Vera can then analyze the problems going on in each area and respond with a new demonstration project that tackles the problem head on.
I also found it interesting hearing each one of the speaker’s tales to their path at Vera. Each of the speakers didn’t have a firm footing into Vera that was somehow predestined; instead they managed to find their own way there. Which then only made me think what I will be doing in the future I always knew since the beginning of college that I want to attend law school but their experiences show that the future is never set in stone and that anything happen and I can end up in a completely different career field then I intended to however like Michelle I know my career will revolve around my passion.
Nico's comment reminds me of a conversation that we had in previous years about how metaphors shape our thoughts (a la Orwell). For example, using military metaphors (war on drugs) can shape our attitudes and policies. In calling Vera a "parent" organization, we are assigning it certain qualities (responsibility, rules); in calling its spin-offs "children" (or "grandchildren" in the case of the Peace Institute) we assign it certain qualities (rebellious individualism, risk). Another way in which language shapes our thoughts. Imagine how we might envision the relationship if we called Vera the heart/brain and the spin-offs the ... limbs? What is we called Vera the core and the spin-offs the peripheries? Vera the engine and the spinoffs the...?
Professor Reitz,
You make a very interesting point, one that I had not thought of. If the context of Vera had been framed differently, I am sure I would not have even referred to Common Justice as the "rebellious teen". If Common Justice was another organ I might have expressed my discomfort in having to be so reliant on Vera, because if Vera fails than Common Justice fails. But there is the commonality that Vera is in a very large and imperative way is responsible for the spinoffs. Vera has the tools, the wisdom, the experiences, and the resources to make a spinoff work.
If we are very self conscious of what language means, than I also feel that we may be giving a few words a complexity that they didn't have. Now that I think about "what if", I have gone down this spiral of analyzation where I can get very lost very quickly. I can come up with almost endless ways of what it "really means", whats the "true intention" of using that type of language, or think its a clever way of using language to make otherwise mundane things understandable. What I'm trying to say is that being self aware of how influential language is can become extremely problematic.
I see Nico's point that the more aware we become, the harder it is to just "be." Once our eyes are opened to something, it's impossible to go back (to blissful unawareness). I know we can't go around deconstructing everything we say or see or read or hear all the time (not enough time in the day), but it's good training so we are on our toes when it does matter (for example, calls to war in the name of security, or freedom, or democracy, etc.--political rhetoric and manipulative language makes it all the more easy to get large numbers of people to agree to war, to agree to go to war, to agree to send their kids to war). If we did more consciousness raising around language, it would be harder for power to get away with the big, bad stuff that they do, and the big, bad stuff that is ubiquitous.
I know this is moving away from the week's topic on our visit to Vera but this is where that discussion led me.
Also, I liked reading everyone's detailed descriptions of their sites. I now have a better feel for them. I also think we often gloss over descriptive detail, dismissing it as irrelevant. I think the devil is in the details (sorry for the cliche!).
My apologies for getting to this so late in the week. I really just wanted to hear your detailed descriptions of agency spaces. The pictures were evocative, and useful in terms of imagining the environmental consonance/ dissonance with the aims of the various organizations and the populations (staff and participants) that inhabit them.
I wondered, how would a CEO participant feel in the Vera space and how would that effect the way the services were delivered and received? Is there something about the URI space (aside from the security apparatus) that just feels safe to women who have lived with violence in other habitats?
Other fellowship placements, like NDSH and CJA, are not in offices but in courtrooms, or behind the court’s holding cells. When we have visited them, needless to say, the vibe is vastly different and changes our perception of clients and staff. It is hard to appreciate the full humanity of a “participant” when he is in a holding cell and, likewise, difficult to remember the good intentions of staff when they are conducting business outside those bars.
Post a Comment