pep wellness triage: a strength-based, solution-focused, multi-dimensional program

Running Head – Final Project 1

PEP Wellness Triage:

A Strength-Based, Solution-focused, Multi-dimensional Program

Myrna Davis-Washington

University of the Rockies


Abstract

This paper presents a finalized proposal for the

“Performance Enhancement Program (PEP) Wellness Triage,” an on-

site health and wellness program requested by school board of a

low-income school district in an area of high urban community

violence, Montbello, Colorado. The school board is seeking a way

to promote resilience among students – ideally with active

involvement by faculty and staff – who have a high burnout rate.

It is the board’s hope and the program’s objectives that this

program will improve grades, decrease attrition, and reduce on-

site bullying and criminal activities. The goal of this

assignment is to integrate research, awareness of evaluation

needs, and ability to structure and anticipate program and

organizational needs into a proposal for a new wellness ‘triage’

(in times of war, the sorting of and allocation of treatment to

patients according to a system of priorities designed to maximize

the number of survivors: us, our youth, and our communities).

PEP Wellness Triage will take a strength-based, solution-focused,


multidimensional approach to use the available resources in the

community and within the stakeholder base to assess, address, and

administer preventative and rehabilitative measures to those

victimized by urban crime (i.e., on-site bullying), burnout,

attrition, and job dissatisfaction.

Executive Summary

I. Vision Statement

To promote resilience and excellence among and between students

by assessing strengths and assets to use as problem solutions; by

fostering involvement and encouraging students, faculty and staff

to initiate active, healthy lifestyle choices; by providing

wellness resources and strategies that meet diverse personal

health needs; by improving student grades, decreasing attrition


and reducing violence and crime; and by creating a positive

environment that is focused on celebrating and improving the

morale and quality of life for everyone.

II. Objectives

(1) Improve grades

(2) Decrease attrition

(3) Reduce on-site bullying and criminal activity.

III. Strategies

Strengths-based, Solution-focused, Multi-dimensional

IV. Design and Timeline:

Three months to complete four phases: Discovery, Planning,

Implementation, and Benefits Realization

V. Stakeholders:

Team managers, parents, faculty and staff, business owners,

residents, and students

VI. Key Team Members:

District Manager, Site Managers, and four interchangeable

Class Managers.

VII. Cost/Benefits:


Costs may be offset by state or federal funding of

district’s problems (truancy, attrition, low academic

performance, high violence, low-income). Many resources may

be provided by volunteerism and donations.


PEP Wellness Triage:

A Strength-based, Solution-Focused, Multi-dimensional Program

In the United States, 71% of all deaths among persons aged

10-24 years result from 4 causes: motor vehicle crashes, other

unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide. Results from the

Center for Disease Control’s 2005 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey

(YRBS) and the 2005 Department of Health and Human Services

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s

(SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicated that during the

30 days preceding the survey, many high school students engaged

in behaviors that increased their likelihood of death from these

4 causes: 7.4% attacked others with intent to seriously hurt

them, 18.5% carried a weapon (gun, knife, or club) one or more

days, 9.9% had driven a car or other vehicle when they had been

drinking alcohol, 43.3% had drunk alcohol, 20.2% had used

marijuana, and 6.0% had not gone to school on 1 or more days of


the last 30 days because they felt they would be unsafe at school

or on their way to or from school. (O’Rourke, 2005; SADD, 2007;

Eaton, Kann, Kinchen, Ross, et al., 2006)

In addition, during the 12 months preceding the above

surveys, 35.9% of high school students had been in a physical

fight, 23.4% got into a serious fight at school, 9.2% had been

hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or

girlfriend; 7.9% had been threatened or injured with a weapon

(gun, knife, or club) on school property one or more times, 16.9%

had seriously considered attempting suicide, and 8.4% had

actually attempted it! What is even more staggering is the fact

that among adults 25 years of age and older, 61% of all deaths

result from 2 causes: cardiovascular disease and cancer. Results

from the 2005 national YRBS indicated that risk behaviors

associated with these 2 causes of death were initiated during

adolescence. During 2005, a total of 23.0% of high school

students had smoked cigarettes during the 30 days preceding the

survey, 79.9% had not eaten more than five times/day of fruits

and vegetables during the seven days preceding the survey, 67.0%

did not attend physical education classes daily, and 13.1% were


overweight. (O’Rourke, 2005; SADD, 2007; Eaton, Kann, Kinchen,

Ross, et al., 2006)

In light of these statistics, it is evident that we are in

the midst of a war in our American high schools; a war to save

our youth, our schools, and our communities from the ravages of

violence, crime, homicides, and substance use; and their

crippling after-effects: poor academic performance, depression,

obesity, on-site bullying, attrition, and the very future of our

youth. These circumstances call for exceptional measures; those

that originate from ‘outside the box’ and from somewhere deep

inside each and every one of us. For, although some of us may

not have high school students in our homes, all we have to do to

witness the devastating effects of this war is to turn on our

televisions or computers, read our newspapers and magazines, or

simply look out our windows or step outside our front doors. We

cannot afford to close our eyes and hang our heads in shame; we

are the solution. Each of us has the urge, somewhere within, to

transcend these circumstances, to develop our strengths, to

overcome adversity, and to stand up and be counted (Saleebey,

2005).


The purpose of this paper is to present a finalized proposal

for the “Performance Enhancement Program (PEP) Wellness Triage,”

an on-site health and wellness program requested by school board

of a low-income school district in an area of high urban

community violence, Montbello, Colorado. The school board is

seeking a way to promote resilience among students – ideally with

active involvement by faculty and staff – who have a high burnout

rate. It is the board’s hope and the program’s objectives this

program will improve grades, decrease attrition, and reduce on-

site bullying and criminal activities. The goal of this

assignment is to integrate research, awareness of evaluation

needs, and ability to structure and anticipate program and

organizational needs into a proposal for a new wellness ‘triage’

(in times of war, the sorting of and allocation of treatment to

patients according to a system of priorities designed to maximize

the number of survivors: us, our youth, and our communities).

PEP Wellness Triage will use the available resources in the

community and within the stakeholder base to assess, address, and

administer preventative and rehabilitative measures to those


victimized by urban crime (i.e., on-site bullying), burnout,

attrition, and job dissatisfaction.

Montbello school district is a low-income school district in

an area of high urban community violence. With its cultural and

economic diversity, Montbello and its two high schools (Montbello

High School and Martin Luther King, Jr. High School) are one of

the most uniquely diverse communities in Colorado. Although the

district is described as being “predominantly Mexican American

and African American,” Montbello is actually a multi-cultural,

multi-ethnic community that is comprised of many Latin (including

Mexican) cultures and many African and African American

cultures. For instance, “African Americans” are actually

comprised of many sub-cultures: African Americans (descendants of

slaves), newly-nationalized African Americans, Ethiopians,

Senegalese, Cubans, Gambians, Nigerians, Eritrians, Belezians,

Ghanians, and other African countries; as well as, people who are

multi- and bi-racial/ethnic, but identify as “African American.”

“Mexican Americans” are, in reality, composed of many Latino

groups such as Filipino, Guatamalean, Honduran, Panamanian,

Puerto Rican, Native American (multi-tribal), Hawaiian, and


Mexican; as well as, people who are multi- or bi-racial, but are

identified as Mexican American). (Davis-Washington, 2010)

While all of Montbello’s cultural backgrounds combine their

diverse values, attitudes, and behaviors into a single, multi-

cultural, multi-ethnic community; they also combine to turn the

environment at the two high schools into ‘war zones,’ complete

with on-site bullying and criminal activities, low academic

performance, and high attrition rates. While these factors are

the result of globalization, the recent economic upheaval,

economic distress, national policy changes, and new immigration

laws; the U.S.’s international relations and recent immigration

changes has altered Montbello’s demographics by diversifying the

African American population from within with a sudden influx of

African and Ethiopian business owners (e.g., most of the

convenience stores and liquor stores in the area are owned and

operated by Ethiopians, who are a tribal people who marginalize

themselves by creating, living, and working in ethnically-

isolated communities). What all of this means to the PEP

Wellness Triage is a shift in values, behaviors, and attitudes;

and a shift in the character and atmosphere of the community.


As a result, Montbello is experiencing a shift in its ethnic

composition and an increase in its diversity (from predominantly

Military/Caucasian American to African American to today’s

predominantly Mexican American and African American), a shift in

cultural values, an increase in criminal activities, a shift in

the workforce, a dramatic shift in housing values, and a visible

change in the cultural landscape of the community. In short,

Montbello has become known as “Mont-ghetto,” one of the city’s

most notorious school war zones. Small wonder, then, that faculty

and staff at both high schools are plagued with a very high

burnout rate, characterized by a high turnover rate, low job

satisfaction, and high absenteeism. It is because of these

globally-induced factors that the school board is seeking ways to

promote resilience among students, involve faculty and staff (who

have a high burnout rate.), improve student grades, decrease

attrition, and reduce on-site bullying and criminal activity.

Background and Rationale

After considering the powerful influence that culture might

have over the planning, structuring, implementing, and managing

of the PEP Wellness Triage, a ‘traditional’ approach may not be


the most effective solution to Montbello’s problems. Traditional

health and wellness programs have approached program management

from a fitness-based, multidisciplinary perspective. In fact, a

number of studies (Davis, Hodson, Zhang, Boswell, and Decker,

2010; Deglau and Barnes, 2009; O’Rourke, 2005; Thompson, 2009;

Woods, 2006; the WHO Cross-national Study on Health Behavior in

School-aged Children from 28 Countries, 2000) pointed to a

fitness-based solution to the problems being experienced in the

Montbello School District. Instead of considering the cultural

implications of a low-income, high-crime urban community like

Montbello, these studies suggested that providing quality physical

education and physical activity to address intellectual

disabilities, poor academic performance, attrition, and violent

behavior is the ‘way to go.’ One study (Davis, Hodson, Zhang,

Boswell and Decker, 2010) explored the evolution and

collaborative implementation of a school fitness-based program

designed specifically to motivate students with intellectual

disabilities to increase their levels of activity, cardiovascular

fitness, muscular strength and endurance, and flexibility.

O’Rourke (2005) added impetus to this position by stating that


coordinated school health programs are an ‘investment’ that

reduces absenteeism and discipline problems, enhances the ability

to learn, raises test scores, leaves fewer students behind, and

increases graduation rates. This is because uniting local and

public entities to create school health programs uses a

multidisciplinary team of skilled, knowledgeable professionals.

Deglau and Barnes (2009) addressed the role of district

advocates, the engagement and training of teachers, the creation

of sustainable professional development, and collaborations

through the partnering of schools with a school health action

committee to educate administrators, teacher, parents, and

students.

One program, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s

“After-School All-Stars,” created a structured afterschool

program that helped at-risk students develop relationships,

opportunities, and goals that guided them in discovering their

identities, strengths, and possibilities and kept them away from

gangs, violence, and drugs.” Established in 2009, After-School

All Stars,” a comprehensive program (networked among 14 U.S.

cities), supports the fact that when students regularly


participate in sports and other forms of physical activity, they

not only strengthen their bodies, they also make positive

connections with adults and peers, increase feelings of self-

esteem and self-worth, and learn valuable skills that can be

applied to many areas of their lives now and in the future. This

article demonstrated that all students can benefit from the

discipline, teamwork, communication, and sportsmanship skills

that accompany ‘free play’ (i.e., improving social and emotional

skills with peers, expanding knowledge of the physical world, and

learning more about their own skills, talents, and interests).

(Thompson, 2009)

The most useful information, however, came from the Center

for Disease Control’s (CDC) 2005 National Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance (Eaton, Kann, Kinchen, Ross, et al., 2006). Findings

from this study can be used effectively to: (1) assess trends in

priority health risk behaviors among high school students; (2)

monitor progress toward achieving the health-enhancing objectives

and leading health indicators; (3) evaluate the contribution of

crime and violence prevention efforts in schools; (4) assist in

setting school health and health promotion program goals, support


modifications of school health curricula and new legislation and

policies that promote health, and seek funding for new

initiatives; (5) assist in program planning and improvement; (6)

examine the success of statewide tobacco control programs and

promote tobacco prevention programs for youth; (7) create

classroom, school, and after-school activities designed to teach

social norms; and (8) monitor and ensure effectiveness of public

health and school health programs for youth. (Eaton, Kann,

Kinchen, Ross, et. al., 2006)

Further support for fitness-based programs came from Woods

(2006), who explored the premises (i.e., promoting healthy diets,

nutrition education, and physical activity; improving access to

child nutrition programs for military families and other eligible

children; and ensuring integrity, efficiency, and quality in

school lunch programs) and requirements (i.e., setting nutrition

education goals, setting physical activity goals, establishing

nutrition standards for all foods available on the school campus,

setting goals for other school-based activities designed to

promote student wellness, and setting goals for measurement and

evaluation) related to developing and implementing school


wellness policies set forth in the Child Nutrition and Women,

Infants, and Children Reauthorization Act of 2004. Woods’ (2006)

research indicated a significant relationship between performance

on standardized achievement tests and physical exercise,

nutrition, substance abuse, and safety at school (i.e., on-site

bullying and crime). Findings indicated that poor nutrition,

inactivity, and weight problems were negatively correlated with

academic performance and positively associated with student

attendance. (Woods, 2006)

While the previous articles and studies can be used

effectively to explore the key aspects of creating and

implementing a fitness-based health and wellness program at the

high school level, there is an emerging viewpoint with

psychological underpinnings: a strength-based, solution-focused,

multi-dimensional program. Numerous studies (Assets Connect,

2010; Niemiec, 2010; Carswell, Hanlon, O’Grady, Watts, and

Pothong, 2009;Sawyers, 2009; Cox; 2008; Nissen, 2006; Munsey,

2010; Mithers, 2010) suggested accessing student, faculty and

staff, parents, and community assets to staff and fund programs,

but to help students and the community fight the wars and solve


the problems created by globalization, changing economic times, a

rapidly-evolving cultural landscape, and the myriad values,

behaviors, and attitudes of the increasingly diverse populations

in America’s schools and communities.

At this juncture in the research, the evidence veers more

sharply toward a strength-based, solution focused program. Since

the students in Montbello’s two high schools are predominantly

Mexican American and African American (found to be the most at-

risk for obesity, to have the highest prevalence of obesity, and

the most at-risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease), a

fitness-based program may not be the solution to their problems

(Eaton, Kann, Kinchen, Ross, et al., 2006). For instance,

African Americans: (1) vary the frequency of physical activity

because of a perceived “beauty cost,” perceived lack of time, and

lack of access to preferred activities; (2) prefer larger body

sizes, viewing them as normative and stage-related; and (3)

strive to preserve cultural cohesion in various social contexts

rather than eating healthfully (Boyington, Carter-Edwards, Piehl,

Hutson, Langdon, and McManus, 2008). This suggests that the root

cause of the district’s problems (i.e., low grades, attrition,


and on-site bullying and crime) is low self-esteem, rather than

low fitness level (Boyington, Carter-Edwards, Piehl, Hutson,

Langdon, and McManus, 2008). A strengths-based, solution-focused

approach may be more practical and effective because the problems

have already been defined and assessed by the board and because,

by taking this approach, stakeholders buy-in and gain ownership

in the program by collaborating and using their strengths to

solve the problems.

In support of this, one study (the WHO Cross-National Study

on Health Behavior in School-aged Children from 28 Countries)

examined issues related to student health and well-being, school

relationships, school violence, physical fitness, smoking and

alcohol use, and sexual behavior. Findings from this study

indicated: (1) that parental communication is strongly associated

with unhappiness, smoking, and drinking alcohol; (2) that

students who feel involved in school, who receive support from

teachers and other students, are more likely to feel healthier,

be physically active, and less likely to smoke; (3) that bullying

is associated with school safety and is an international problem;

(4) that U.S. students are less likely to exercise more


frequently than are students in other countries; and (5) that

U.S. students are less likely to have a good diet than were

students in other countries. Findings from Teufel-Shone, Siyuja,

Watahomigie, and Irwin’s (2006) community-based participatory

research demonstrated that family involvement, personal goal-

setting, consistent adult leadership, structured activities, and

a positive local and regional image are essential to supporting

youth wellness. Not only did these authors veer away from the

fitness-based approach, they also espoused a need for a strength-

based approach, with findings demonstrating that illicit drugs

and alcohol, poor teacher attitude, and lack of adult involvement

negatively impact youth behavior (Teuffel-Shone, Sivuja,

Watahomigie, and Irwin, 2006).

What is a Strengths-based approach?

Emerging from the field of social work, the Strengths-based

approach is a set of ideas, assumptions, and techniques that

espouses that people are active participants in the helping

process; that all people have strengths, often untapped or

unrecognized; that strengths foster motivation for growth; and

that strengths are internal and environmental. Working from a


“Strengths perspective” (social work’s version of ‘Positive

Psychology’) means that everything that is done to help

stakeholders optimize their functioning through the mobilizing

of their capacities and the understanding of their problems will

be based on facilitating the discovery and embellishment,

exploration, and use of their strengths and resources in the

service of helping them achieve goals and realize dreams. (KU

School of Social Welfare, 2010; Saleebey, 1992).

The core idea behind a strengths-based program is that

everybody has strengths; everyone has talents, skills, knowledge,

interests, dreams, hopes, goals, creativity, culture, passion;

and everyone has connections. And, because adolescence (high

school) is a time of uncertainty and self-discovery, what better

way to discover one’s Self than to discover one’s strengths. This

means that, in order for strengths-based programs to be

effective, they must help individuals articulate, acknowledge and

affirm their strengths and assets. This includes resources both

within the individual and in the environment (i.e.,

relationships, supports, institutions). Not only should the

methodology be systematic, it should not get in the way of the


stakeholder’s own narrative. In addition, strengths, capacities,

and assets can be accurately assessed throughout the program. In

fact, key to operating from a strengths-based stance is

generating a collaborative, ongoing, and thorough assessment of

capacities, reserves, and resilience; along with an honest

appraisal of the barriers and obstacles to their realization and

ideas about how these barriers may be surmounted. (KU School of

Social Welfare, 2010; Saleebey, 1992).

The dynamics that drive the work in a strengths-based

program are the awareness of everyone’s hopes and dreams and, at

times, the rekindling of lost aspirations. In a strengths-based

program, these must be painted vividly and must be transposed

into sets of realistic, practical goals; they should never be so

limited that they set defy potential. Every environment, even

Montbello, with its low-income and high urban community violence,

is regarded as a luxuriant topography of resources. For example,

in Montbello, there many businesses and associations operating in

the surrounding industrial area, in the plethora of fast food

restaurants and convenience stores, and in the nearby, recently-

constructed shopping areas and hotels (built to accommodate the


new airport) that are actively functioning and contributing to

the civility of the community in a variety of ways. These

resources, when coupled with the strengths of the individuals or

families, become the leverage to achieving the program’s goals

(i.e., improving student grades, decreasing attrition, and

reducing on-site bullying and criminal activity). (KU School of

Social Welfare, 2010)

According to Strengths perspective, a person’s behavior and

achievement is often a function of the resources available to a

person or perceived to be available. Efforts should, therefore,

be made to increase stakeholders’ resources or alter the settings

in which they live, work and play. This may include the creation

of new settings (e.g. goal-setting groups, self-help groups,

discussion groups, puzzle groups, walking groups, cooking groups,

volunteer groups, dance groups [as opposed to dance classes], and

craft groups) or the creation of a ‘mastery climate’ and a more

positive and peaceful school environment (i.e., leaving positive

post-its throughout the school, placing positive mantras

throughout the school, carrying ‘strengths cards’ around and


reminding each other to read them). (KU School of Social Welfare,

2010; Bormann, 2010; Boyle, 2010; Mithers, 2010; Munsey, 2010).

In a strength-based program, the strengths of the individual

and the environment are used to help the participants attain the

goals they set themselves. This could include identifying

resolutions based ‘up’ times, rather than ‘down’ times (i.e.,

participating in on-site bullying or receiving test scores); or

expanding , parents, faculty and staff’s participation in the

school and community by creating groups, classes, and/or seminars

based on their talents, creativity, interests, dreams, hopes,

goals, cultures, passions, and connections. Generating options

and alternative pathways to a goal is fundamental to strengths-

based practice. Furthermore, stakeholders should be allowed or

given the authority to choose among options within a shared

decision-making approach. In fact, efforts should be made to help

clients have the confidence to make such decisions. ( KU School

of Social Welfare, 2010; Saleeby, 1992)

It will be challenge to operate from a strengths vantage

point if one does not have an appreciation of one’s strengths and

those of one’s peers or colleagues. This is why a strengths-based


program must create a strengths-appreciating atmosphere (including

support, training, in-service, etc.) that: (1) hears the voice,

the story, the theories, the ideas of the stakeholders and takes

them seriously; (2) adopts the resilience attitude; (3) has a

genuine, driving belief in the participant regardless of what the

individual’s family or community believes; (4) has authentic

confidence that everyone can become what they hope for or can

move in the direction they want to or feel they must; (5) has

belief in one’s own capacities, and those of stakeholders and

colleagues; (6) accounts for, appreciates, affirms and acts on

(the “Four A’s”) these beliefs in as many ways as possible; and

(7) represents their views, narratives, perspectives wherever

possible – parent conferences, staff meetings, in-service

trainings, forums, bulletin boards, newsletters, websites, and

celebrations. ( KU School of Social Welfare, 2010)

Strengths-based programs also challenge the views of

students, families, faculty and staff, and the community that

demean stakeholders, diminish their humanity, or simply assign

them to marginalizing labels or, in Montbello, racial profiling

and stereotyping. These programs celebrate life ritually,


officially, and informally. They celebrate the participants’

strengths, accomplishments, and successes personally and publicly

and invite stakeholders to contribute at every phase of the

program (i.e., planning, assessment, evaluation, implementation,

and reevaluation). They encourage stakeholders to participate in

discussion and planning forums, to be liaisons, board members,

mentors, tutors, and instructors; and create organizational

narratives that document both stakeholder and team manager

heroics, capacities, leadership, ingenuity, accomplishments and

strengths. This is the opposite of the usual fitness-based

program discussions that often enhance negative stereotypes and

fears and undermine motivation, efforts, and accomplishments.

All-in-all, they help foster an organization culture that is

collaborative and appreciative with respect to all stakeholders

and their world. ( Johnson and Breckon, 2007; KU School of Social

Welfare, 2010)

Strength-based programs can also be used to evaluate team

members by praising and rewarding good behavior and creating a

“culture of praise that: (1) reminds them that every day is a

chance to improve performance: (2) keeps their foibles in


perspective and reminds them to look at the “Big Picture’; (3)

lists more strengths than weaknesses; and helps team members

devise a plan to solve their problems. (Hcareers, 2009)

Finally, there has been much confusion about what is meant

by being "strength based." It is important to emphasize that

being strength based does not mean simply focusing on positives

and ignoring concerns or fabricating strengths that do not exist.

Rather, it means figuring out ways to recognize and utilize

genuine student/community/school/ faculty/staff/parent/family

strengths to allow building onto existing competencies and

effectively addressing concerns. Strength based programs believe

that everyone has the resources to learn new skills and solve

problems and, therefore, involve everyone in the process of

discovery, learning, and coping with the rationalized project

objectives of PEP Wellness Triage: to promote resilience among

students and reduce burnout among faculty and staff by improving

student grades, decreasing attrition, and reducing on-site

bullying and criminal activity. (Great Kids, Inc., 2009)

Design and Timeline


This section elucidates the anticipated goals based on the

key indicators or PEP Wellness Triage, resource requirements, and

a plan for maintenance. In addition, stakeholders’ assessments,

key team members, and the implement phase of the program are

discussed. Recall that the goals of the PEP Health and Wellness

Triage are: (1) to improve grades, (2) to decrease attrition, and

(3) to reduce on-site bullying and criminal activities.

Additionally, the board ‘hopes’ that the program will promote

resilience among students and reduce decrease faculty and staff

burnout. Key team members being discussed in this section are:

(1) Program Manager, (2) Site Manager “A, the site manager for

Montbello High School; (3) Site Manager “B,” the site manager for

Martin Luther King High School; and (4) Class Manager, one of

four class managers, who will conduct classes and oversee

volunteer stakeholders.

Program Design

In designing and structuring the program, PEP Wellness

Triage will use an adapted version of the Socio-technical System

(STS) to outline the phases of the program and the specific

objective(s) to which team members’ responsibilities are linked.


Team Managers will chart phasic activity by using a combination

of three designs: (1) an adaptation of Taylor and Felten’s (as

cited in Stebbins and Shani, 1998) four-phase STS design process;

(2) Bender’s (2010) five-phase design; and Wideman’s (2002) four-

phase design.

Using Taylor and Felten’s design, the four phases are: (1)

Discovery, (2) Systems Understanding, (3) Creating the Ideal Organization, and

(4) Implementation (Stebbins and Shani, 1998). In Bender’s (2010)

five-phase plan, the major design steps are: (1) Define, (2)

Plan, (3) Manage, (4) Build, and (5) Close. The four phases in

Wideman’s (2002) design are: (1) Identification, (2) Definition,

(3) Execution, and (4) Benefits Realization. Combining these

three designs, the design of PEP Wellness Triage will be: (1)

Discovery, (2) Planning (3) Implementation, and (4) Benefits

Realization. Phasing will apply throughout the entire project and

will also be applied within each phase of the program.

The Discovery phase involves education about the PEP

Wellness Triage's paradigm and the strength-based, solution

focused perspective, as well as program planning, management

commitment and other start-up issues. At the Discovery phase,


much more attention will be given to involvement of the knowledge

workers (Site Managers and Class managers) than of executives at

the district board, who sanction and fund the project. It is

imperative that the program design of the P.E.P. Wellness Triage

be a collaborative effort with all of the knowledge workers

(particularly, Class Managers, who are usually quite autonomous).

At every regularly-scheduled meeting, team members will define

the project at the organizational level, ensure that the project

aligns with organizational objectives and the existing culture,

and determine the organization’s approach to providing funds and

resources to the project. An additional goal for this step is to

obtain a “buy-in” from all key stakeholders on the project by

assessing their strengths and assets. This will also create a

listing of available sources, internal as well as external, to

provide relevant information on specific procurements and

resources. (Bender, 2010; Stebbins and Shani, 1998; Wideman,

2002)

In the second phase (Planning), team members will collect

all the information needed to determine the project success

criteria, define all the work, determine work estimates, align


resources, and handle program risks. During this phase, a

developmental plan will be devised to move the program from

concept to reality and the developmental process will be

established. The District Manager and the two Site Managers will

collaborate to define the process to capture, review, and

implement organizational change based on lessons learned in the

early steps of implementing project management. In addition, Site

Managers and Class Managers will work with the District Manager

(also the project management office, PMO) to establish their own

process to support project planning. Program managers will as

(Bender, 2010; Stebbins and Shani, 1998; Wideman, 2002)

The Implementation phase is the program phase that develops

the chosen strengths and assets into completed deliverable (i.e.,

classes, seminars, assessments, reports). This is the phase

during which the actual work of the program is undertaken to

produce the programs deliverables. During this phase, team

managers will collaborate to construct the program implementation

plan, a formal document establishing the baseline (i.e.,

original scheduling, resource, and cost estimates) by which

program management will direct the program. This is the condition


by which all future measurements will be compared and must be

approved by the board. This document will describe the complete

course of action contemplated, including assumptions,

organization, stakeholder communication, milestone schedule,

quality and safety provisions, and critical success indicators.

In addition, it will contain a copy of the program’s schedule

(i.e., classes, assessments, meetings, evaluations, seminars,

specialty classes, advertising) for a particular time; a

formally-approved version of the program schedule; a methodology

for tracking program progress by comparing original plan

estimates against actual progress; and a management plan and/or

scope document fixed at a specific point in time in the program’s

life cycle and used as a basis for reference throughout.

(Wideman, 2002)

Finally, the Benefits Realization phase will occur at the

end of each phase of the program (and throughout the program, for

good measure). The objectives will be to assess operational

performance levels against targets in the benefits framework and

the programs plan; to compensate any short-fall in achievement;

to seek additional areas of benefit from the exploitation of the


delivered facilities, resources, and assets; and to ensure

lessons learned are fed into the re-planning and strategy reviews

as future growth of the next phase. (Wideman, 2002).

While timelines for program phasing are generally

established and controlled at the executive management level (the

school board), program managers will move as swiftly,

deliberately, and efficiently as skills, knowledge, resources,

assets, and funds will allow. For instance, the Montbello School

District may only allot three months from Discovery to Benefits

Realization. This means that each of the four stages in the phase

RAM (see Table II in Appendix) will only last three weeks.

Although this might appear to be an impossible timeline, with

proper planning, diligence, and discipline, it can be

accomplished. One effective strategy would be to repeat the

evaluation phase throughout the entire process, realigning the

project and its processes as needed to reflect the changes in the

project and the culture in which it operates. (Rummler and

Brache, 1995)

Key Indicators


Based upon the program goals, the key indicator for the goal

of improving student grades will be “average (mean) student GPA”

and/or “average (mean) standardized test score.” By comparing

both to the previous evaluation period, the “overall percent

improvement in average student GPA” and/or the “overall percent

improvement in standardized test scores” can be calculated.

While either indicator will be acceptable, both will be preferable.

Initial data for these indicators will be collected at the start

of the program and quarterly thereafter. Using this timeline,

data can be analyzed by comparing the scores from all students

with the scores of those students who participate in the program

to measure the program’s effectiveness among participants.

The key indicators for the goal of decreasing attrition

among students would be “average number of absences during

evaluation period” and “number of students who dropped out of

school during evaluation period.” For faculty and staff, key

indicators will be “average number of absences during evaluation

period” and “number of faculty of staff quitting and/or

transferring during evaluation period.” Initial data for these

indicators will be gathered at the onset of the program and


quarterly thereafter. The data can then be compared to the

previous evaluation period and presented as an “overall percent

of change in absenteeism among students,” “overall student

attrition (or dropout) rate,” “overall percent of change in

absenteeism among faculty and staff,” and “faculty and staff

attrition rate.” The key indicator for the goal of “reducing on-

site bullying and criminal activities” would be the “number of

reported incidents of on-site bullying” and “number of reported

incidents of criminal activity (by type).” These will be used to

calculate the percent of change from the previous quarter

(increase of decrease) for both on-site bullying and criminal

activities. For this outcome, data from the local police

department may be used as our “default” (Johnson and Breckon,

2007).

In addition, the two anticipated goals based upon the

board’s ‘hopes’ are to “promote resilience among students” and to

“decrease faculty and staff attrition.” Since the goal of

promoting resilience among students will be achieved by attaining

the goals of improving grades and reducing on-site bullying and

criminal activities, their indicators will suffice for promoting


student resilience. In addition to the key indicators listed

above, a key indicator for the outcome of decreasing faculty and

staff attrition will be “faculty and staff job satisfaction.”

This indicator will address faculty and staff burnout and will be

measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) to measure

emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal

accomplishment; and the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS), which examines

intrinsic, organizational, and salary and promotion. (Brewer and

Clippard, 2002). Program managers will be looking specifically at

the overall significant relationship between the three components

of burnout: (1) emotional exhaustion (which has been empirically

shown to have a significant negative relationship with total job

satisfaction); (2) depersonalization (also shown to have a

significant negative relationship with total job satisfaction);

and (3) personal accomplishment (which has been empirically shown

to have a significant positive relationship with total job

satisfaction.

Resource Requirements and Plan for Maintenance

Resource requirements for the PEP will be minimal. As part

of a strengths-based, solution focused program, many of the class


leaders will come from the volunteerism and community donations

(solicited and provided by stakeholder and team members from

stakeholder ‘connections’ and contributions from community

businesses). Stakeholder strength’s and assets (i.e., talents,

skills, knowledge, interests, dreams, hopes, goals, creativity,

culture, passions, connections, concerns) will be assessed using

the VIA Survey on Character and an assets survey in a discussion forum

during the planning phase of the program and at regular intervals

(i.e., bi-annually). Based upon the variety and quantity of

skills, talents, knowledge, creativity, interests and skills

listed, the program manager will compose a list of possible group

activities and classes that will be presented in a second

discussion forum. The District Manager will then coordinate with

Site Managers and Class Managers to decide on a schedule of

classes that will incorporate as many of the strengths of the

stakeholders as possible. Since the most logical, non-intrusive

times for classes are during lunch and after school, the program

manager will collaborate with faculty and non-teaching staff to

find available on-site locations at each site (i.e., cafeterias,

auditoriums, unused classrooms, libraries). Depending upon the


type of class and its day and time, stakeholders and Class

Managers will be responsible for maintenance of the space. For

instance, if the stakeholders decide to have a meditation group

in the school library after school or a relaxation class in the

cafeteria after school, they will be responsible for returning

the space into its original condition before leaving.

Plan for Stakeholders’ Assessments

Initially, all stakeholders and team members will be

assessed during the Planning phase of the program using the VIA

Survey on Character and the assets survey listed above. This will

give team managers a definite indication of which direction to

move the program without making assumptions on stakeholder

preferences, assets, and strengths until they are assessed. This

will allow team managers to align the program with the existing

culture in which the program will be developed and managed. It

will also give the stakeholders a buy-in and ownership in the

program and solidify their commitment and loyalty to the program.

Compensation may be possible and would be preferable (if only to

ensure the quality and loyalty of the stakeholders). However,


initially, stakeholders will be encouraged to volunteer their

strengths and assets. .

At the beginning of the program and whenever needed

thereafter, the VIA Survey on Character will be used to discover

stakeholders’ and team managers’ strengths. The VIA Institute on

Character is a non-profit organization founded to advance the

science and practice of character development. It is used by

researchers, clinicians, consultants, coaches, and educators to

reveal inner strengths that can then be used to solve the

stakeholders’ problems and provide resources for the PEP Wellness

Triage. Stakeholders will access the free VIA Survey online and

will carry a small card listing the top five strengths with them

at all times. They will be encouraged to pull the card out, look

at their strengths, and ponder how they can use their strengths

to solve their problems any time that they have low self-esteem

or feel doubtful of their abilities, depressed, negative,

frustrated, or incompetent. The VIA Survey is available at

http://www.viacharacter.org/Home/tabid/36/language/en-US/Default.

aspx. (VIA Institute on Character, 2007)

Plan for Stakeholder Assessment


Stakeholder needs will be assessed during the Discovery and

Planning phases of the program using the assets survey mentioned

previously. Designing and structuring the program around

stakeholder strengths, assets, and concerns (needs) will build

enthusiasm in the program, answer their questions, and allay any

doubts about the benefits of participating in the PEP Wellness.

It will also ‘sell’ stakeholders on ‘buying into’ the project is

to involve them in the planning and decision-making process as

early in the project planning process as possible. Since the

district school board, members of the school board, faculty and

staff, students, parents, and the community all have a stake in

this project, they will be involved in every stage of the

project, from Planning to Benefits realization.

Faculty stakeholders are those stakeholders employed in

teaching positions; Staff stakeholders are those employed in non-

teaching or administrative positions. Using a strengths-based

approach, these stakeholders are the people with whom the program

managers will fully engage and make the greatest efforts to

satisfy. Non-teaching Staff includes secretarial staff,


janitorial staff, cafeteria staff, and security staff. These

stakeholders will be encouraged to provide valuable resources and

services that will establish the quality of the program and

ensure its success. To assess the needs of the Faculty and Staff

stakeholders, their level of “burnout,” and their level of job

satisfaction with their jobs in this low-income, urban

environment, two reliable and valid instruments and a demographic

form to collect the data will be used (Brewer and Clippard,

2002). The first instrument, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), is

a twenty-two-item inventory that uses a six-point Likert scale to

measure the three components of burnout: emotional exhaustion,

depersonalization, and personal accomplishment). The second

instrument is the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS), a fourteen-item

inventory used to measure the three dimensions of job

satisfaction: intrinsic satisfaction (which measures intrinsic

qualities such as opportunity to help students, challenge derived

from the job, and feelings of professional success),

organizational satisfaction (which measures qualities such as

clarity or guidelines to perform job, recognition by supervisor,

and quality of supervision), and salary and promotion (which


measures satisfaction with salary and benefits and opportunity

for promotion (Brewer and Clippard, 2002). The demographic

variables that will be compared to burnout and job satisfaction

will be: current position, years in current position, school

district, years in school district, marital status, gender,

ethnicity, and age. In addition to looking at the three

components of burnout and their correlation to Faculty and Staff

total job satisfaction, the data team will also be looking to see

whether these variables vary by any of the demographic variables.

(Brewer and Clippard, 2002).

Student stakeholders are the largest and most important

group of stakeholders in this project. There are currently 1, 864

full-time high school students in the proposed school district;

978 at School A and 886 at School B. Considering the cultural

attitudes toward body size and exercise discussed above, it would

not be realistic to anticipate that all of the students will

attend the program. However, consistent efforts will be made to

align the program with their strength, assets, and cultural

preferences, in addition to providing room for new explorations

and growth. In order to qualify for participation in the program,


student participants must be currently enrolled as full-time

students (13 – 21 years old) in grades 9 – 12 at either high

school. Any student who has been involved in any reported on-site

bullying or criminal activity (victim and perpetrator) and with a

grade point average below ‘1.9’ will be required to participate

in the program. In addition, faculty, staff, and parents may

request that a student be required to attend classes, as well. In

addition, breaking the group down by gender and ethnic origin

will give managers and planners insight into how to vary the

program’s classes and seminars. Student needs, however, will be

assessed using the assets survey, which will be available to use

at any time during the program as a way of enhancing

communication.

Since all of the project’s goals are directly related to

students, Student stakeholders’ needs will be assessed using

multiple measures such as the above demographic/ perceptions

forms, questionnaires/surveys, standardized test scores, and GPA

letter grade distributions. In addition, two other instruments

will be used to address problems of on-site bullying and criminal

activity: the Bullying-Behavior Scale (BBS) and the Multidimensional School


Anger Inventory (MSAI) (VINJ, 2007a). The BBS is a reliable

psychometric instrument consisting of six forced-choice items,

three of which refer to being the perpetrator of negative

physical actions (i.e., hit and pushed, picked on, bullied) and

three of which refer to being the perpetrator of negative verbal

actions (i.e., teased, name-calling, laughed at) (VINJ, 2007a).

The MSAI is a 36-item, Likert-type age-appropriate instrument

designed to measure affective, cognitive, and behavioral

components of anger among youths (VINJ, 2007b). Subtest and

scores include: anger experience, hostility, destructive

expression, and positive coping (VINJ, 2007b).

Class Managers are program team members who have been

employed or who volunteer (depending on the district’s budget)

for the express purpose of implementing the program’s scheduled

classes. Class Managers will either teach classes or collaborate

with volunteer stakeholders in teaching them. As a group, Class

Managers will be involved in all phases of the project and will

serve as integral members of the “data team” whose function is to

generate and analyze data that the planners require (Johnson and

Breckon, 2007). The needs of the Class Managers will be assessed


from the initial planning phases of the project. As stated above,

Class Managers have been communicating with other team members

since their initial employment by the school district.

Initially, Class Managers needs will be assessed using

questionnaires and surveys indicating their preferences,

opinions, and equipment needs; focus groups and discussion

forums; and as many meetings, conversations, phone calls, and e-

mails as are necessary to ensure that all of their needs are met.

A knowledgeable, personable, satisfied Class Manager will act as

‘ambassador’ for the program and will ultimately convey his or

her enthusiasm and satisfaction with the program to the other

stakeholders. (Davis-Washington, 2010)

After soliciting strengths and assets from team member

stakeholders (Site Managers and Class Managers), the Project

Manager will integrate the ideas received from team member focus

groups and communications (meetings) into a tentative plan based

upon a general consensus of the team members and their strengths

and assets and present them to the remaining stakeholders in the

first ‘open’ discussion forum. This will be a (second) well-

advertised, short (one hour) “brainstorming” session, during


which the Project Manager and the data team will present the

program, the board’s reason for requesting it, and the tentative

plans to all stakeholders in a questionnaire asking for ‘ideas’

about when, where, and how the P.E.P. Wellness Triage should be

implemented. Since the data team is only looking for ideas at

this stage of the planning process, this questionnaire can be

presented in an open-ended question format.

After collecting the data, analyzing it, and writing a ‘new’

plan based upon a synthesis of the stakeholders’ ideas that are

consistent with the project’s vision, the drafted plan will then

be discussed in a third forum discussion and revised as often and

as much as needed until an acceptable, workable synthesized model

is achieved. Additionally, it is important to have just enough

necessary supporting data to keep the plan realistic, but not so

much that it dulls the data team’s enthusiasm for the project.

(Johnson and Breckon, 2007).

To mitigate opposition to the program before it is expressed,

team members will anticipate and accommodate opposition to the

program by identifying its source and analyzing the motives of

opponents. To identify the sources of program resistance,


strategies that will be used are: (1) honestly reassuring the

stakeholders; (2) explaining the need for and the logic of the

program and the logic of the plan (3) asking stakeholders to help

design the program (those who participate in creating the project

will be committed to implementing it); (4) giving key individuals

desirable roles in the design and implementation of the project;

and (5) disbursing continual praise and personal advantages early

on in the project to co-opt a potential source of resistance

(Johnson and Breckon, 2007).

To address any anticipated resistance within the power

structures of the program, the program manager will use a

revolutionary (top-down) approach followed by planned

evolutionary (bottom-up) change. Since the type of change

proposed by this program is similar to a revolutionary change

than occurs when a new leadership assumes control, the program

manager will confront any anger, denial, or depression during the

“honeymoon period” (the first few weeks of the program) when the

stakeholders expect the change and will be eager to support the

program and its team members. In using planned evolutionary

change, the program manager will promulgate the program’s vision


and the steps needed to realize it by articulating the program’s

vision and keeping it and the interim steps in front of everyone

else. (Johnson and Breckon, 2007).

The MBI and the JSS will also be administered as quarterly

stakeholder ‘evaluations’ that will serve as part of formative

evaluations that include the development of a consensus of goals,

an assessment of client reactions to the services that have been

provided, a retrospective review of the processes used in

planning and implementing the project, the adequacy of the

schedule and its content, and any other problematic areas in

program implementation (Johnson and Breckon, 2007). In addition,

the most current set of data will be compared to the previous

quarter’s scores to create a summative evaluation of the

program’s efficiency at achieving one of the project’s three

goals (“decrease attrition”) and to meet the needs as indicated

by the “Faculty and Staff total job satisfaction” score (a key

indicator).

The above inventories are relatively brief and can be

administered at the end of one of the regularly-scheduled monthly

seminars or at the end of a weekly class or seminar without


infringing upon the stakeholders’ time and energy. In addition to

measuring the program’s effect on Faculty and Staff, the data

will indicate where funds and donations should be allocated

(i.e., Dance Therapy, Art Therapy, Mind Games [puzzles],

Relaxation Therapy, Art Therapy, or Cardio-Therapy), which

programs are more efficient, what improvements should be made as

the program develops, and how close the project has come in

meeting its goals.

In addition to encouraging students to participate in all

open decision-making discussion forums in the planning phase of

the project, the data team will assess Student stakeholder needs

by using a combination “demographic/perceptions form.” Variables

included on this form will include: enrollment, age, gender,

grade level, ethnicity, program services used, type of discipline

referrals, number of (physical/verbal) on-site bullying incidents

involved in during the last quarter as victim, number of

(physical/verbal) on-site bullying incidents involved in during

quarter as perpetrator; school, family, program, and self

satisfaction levels (using a Likert scale of 1 – 5, where 1 =

very dissatisfied, 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 =


somewhat satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied), and an open-ended

question soliciting ideas for improvements.

The data generated from the above measures and surveys will

be used to design an effective mentoring program that addresses

the “knowledge-to-action cycle” and identifies the gaps that

exist between Student knowledge and practice (Kitson and Straus,

2010). The multiple measures, the BBS, and the MSAI are logical

and inclusive for most Students because they are relatively short

(≤ 15 minutes), easy-to-understand, easily administered, and

manually-graded. When students realize that the data from these

surveys will be used to create programs that address their

academic, social, physical, and emotional needs, they may be more

inclined to cooperate during school hours and to participate in

assessment and evaluation process.

Stakeholder Evaluations

Selection of a strategy for stakeholder evaluation will

depend on whether the goal is to measure the occurrence of a

behavioral change or to enhance ‘local knowledge’ (whether the

project is working or not in the context in which it was

implemented) (Straus, Tetroe, Graham, Swarenstein, et al., 2010).


By anticipating the stakeholders’ goals based upon the assessment

of their needs, the project manager and data team can plan a

fitting method of evaluating the project’s progress through the

use of formative and summative assessments.

Formative assessments will be conducted in the early phases

of the project to create a feedback loop that will enable the

data team to make periodic adjustments to improve the program

(Johnson and Breckon, 2007). These include the needs assessments

of each group, the development of a consensus on goals,

assessments of stakeholder reactions to the services that have

been provided by the program, and quarterly retrospective reviews

of the processes used in planning and implementing the program

(Johnson and Breckon, 2007). For instance, each stakeholder group

(Faculty and Staff, Students, and Project Instructors) can review

together whether enough Instructors have been employed by the

project or whether the addition of more Instructors would improve

the quality and implementation of the program. In addition, an

evaluation will be made of the adequacy of the class schedule,

the appropriateness of class content, the effectiveness of the

project advertising, the effectiveness of seminars, or any other


problematic areas in the project’s implementation from the

perspective of all stakeholders. The results of the formative

study will be summarized in writing, with conclusions and

recommendations and distributed to all stakeholders and the

sponsoring organization (the school board). The bottom line is

that by analyzing the data to determine what might have prevented

the problems from occurring, the data team will gather valuable

information that will prove useful in the future (Johnson and

Breckon, 2007; Davis-Washington, 2010).

Summative evaluations will be conducted later in the

program’s implementation stage and will focus on whether the

goals and objectives of the PEP Wellness Triage have been met.

In addition, outcome evaluations will be used to show what

behaviors have been changed (i.e., on-site bullying, attrition,

student academic performance) and impact evaluations will be

conducted to report on the incidences of on-site bullying, crime,

or violence. (Johnson and Breckon, 2007).

To obtain the above information, the data team will gather

information on average student GPA from the administrative office

or from the school board. Since standardized tests (i.e., CSAP


and/or SAT and ACT) are only administered once or twice a year,

results will be reported during each quarter, but will only be

gathered yearly. In addition, Student scores from quarterly

administrations of the BBS and the MSAI will be used to evaluate

whether the program has had an effect on student levels of

hostility, aggression, and violence.

In addition to answering questions about Faculty and Staff,

the data team will also evaluate Faculty and Staff scores from

the MBI and the JSS. Scores from the current quarter and the

previous quarter will be compared and the results will be made

readily accessible to all stakeholders, as well as to the school

board, to use in improving the program, which is the main reason

for conducting a process evaluation (Johnson and Breckon, 2007).

However, because summative evaluations require a more

sophisticated research design and more time, effort and,

resources than do formative evaluation studies, the basic set of

evaluation question described above will help determine whether

the program objectives are being or have been accomplished and,

if so, by what percentage of the participants (Johnson and

Breckon, 2007).


Implementation phase of program

During the Implementation phase of the program, actual

‘work’ toward achievement of the program’s goals and the

production of the program’s schedule of classes will occur.

(Wideman, 2002). This phase will cover efforts to gain widespread

involvement in the implementation of all aspects of the program’s

ideal strategic design, operational redesign, evaluation and

continuing adjustment. (Stebbins and Shani, 1998). This is the

actual execution of the program’s planning phase. During this

phase, the District Manager will meet frequently and communicate

individually with all team managers and volunteer stakeholders to

provide completed program activities in alignment with the

program requirements and goals and the existing culture.

Communication is key to success at all stages, but especially

during this phase of the program. (Wideman, 2002)

Key Team Members

The team members being discussed in this section are: (1)

the project leader or executive leader, named the “District

Manager”; (2) Site Manager “A”; (3) Site Manager “B”; and (4)

Class Manager. Table 1, “Project Management Responsibility RAM”


(see Appendix) captures all of the PEP managing team members’

responsibilities and serves as the foundation for this section.

The District Manager is the individual hired by the

Montbello School District to create, staff, manage, oversee,

train, and implement a health and wellness program (the P.E.P.

Wellness Triage) at two urban high schools in a predominantly

Mexican American and African American community. As the project

leader, the District Manager will develop the overall goals and

doctrine for the program, delegate this responsibility to the

appropriate organizational entity, ensure that the organizational

entity is doing its job using a consensus or criteria, ensure

that each discipline under his or her responsibility performs at

its peak, ensure that the design and timeline of the program

aligns with the existing cultures in which the program will be

developed and managed, and ensure that the organization’s culture

promotes growth, quality, and success. The District Manager’s

role includes: (1) defining the doctrine and level of discipline

appropriate for quality control to ensure that classes and

seminars conform to their designed requirements; (2) defining the

doctrine and level of discipline appropriate for quality


assurance to ensure that the project’s activities comply with

organizational policy and direction; (3) beginning quality

control and quality assurance at the lowest levels and

progressing hierarchically up; (4) ensuring that a formal

communication strategy is in place to report on the progress of

the project, the programs, and the portfolio; (5) communicating a

strategy that includes an exception reporting mechanism that

quickly communicates issues and changes to the appropriate

governing body; (6) ensuring that metrics are in place to verify

that the processes and actions taken in projects comply with the

organization’s culture and definition statements; (7) ensuring

that metrics are created using a defined process; and (8)

regularly reviewing the objectives included in the vision

statement, organizational objectives, and strategic plan.

(Bender, 2010; Davis-Washington, 2010)

Looking at the Table 1 (see Appendix), the District Manager:

(1) defines the goals of project management, (2) defines the

project management methodology, (3) revises methodology, and (4)

updates training programs. In collaboration with both Site

Managers, the District Manager: (1) tracks performance, (2)


implements, communicates, and rolls out updated methodology; (3)

reviews feedback, lessons learned, project records, and change

management records for both sites; and (4) identifies root causes

for changes, problems and issues. In collaboration with all

managing team members, the District Manager identifies

improvements needed throughout the project. (Bender, 2010; Davis-

Washington, 2010)

Acting as executive management, the District Manager will be

responsible for two aspects of change management: creating the

change management doctrine and defining the areas that he or she

wants to track. He or she will be responsible for enforcing

change management within the project and maintaining the project

methodology (processes), including the change management process

(although the district school board ‘owns’ the methodology); and

for ensuring that the procedure captures the information needed

for tracking and that the procedure is followed correctly.

(Bender, 2010; Davis-Washington, 2010)

Although formal communications will occur on a monthly

basis, the District Manager will communicate with Site Managers

on an on-going basis. The idea is for the District Manager to be


available “24/7” and for team members to use their own discretion

in determining the importance and appropriateness of their

communications. The District Manager will perform quarterly

evaluations on the Site Managers and will perform random ‘drop-

ins’ with each of the four Class Managers. The District Manager

will meet monthly with both Site Managers, with the understanding

that impromptu ‘meetings’ can occur for any reason, at any time,

for any reason (especially, exceptions). All team members will

be required to consult the District Manager regarding goals,

project management methodology, performance evaluations, change

management records, improvements, and the root causes.

Finally, the District Manager will be actively involved in

all phases of the project. Since the District Manager is the

first to be hired for this program, he or she will hire and train

all other team members and volunteers to ensure that the project

aligns with the project’s and the organization’s visions, values,

and objectives and with the existing culture. The District

Manager’s responsibilities will be intricately linked to all

program and organizational goals (i.e., increase resilience,

reduce faculty and staff burnout, decrease attrition, improve


grades, and reduce on-site bullying and criminal activity (See

“Table II: Management Phase Involvement RAM” in Appendix).

Site Manager “A” and Site Manager “B” are the individual’s

hired to manage the program at their respective sites. As it is

with the District Manager, all of their responsibilities will

revolve around quality control, quality assurance, and alignment

with the program with program and organizational goals and the

existing cultures. As seen in Table I (see Appendix), the

responsibilities for these key team members include: (1) tracking

performance for the classes and seminars conducted at their

sites; (2) implementing, communicating, and rolling out updated

methodology for their sites; (3) reviewing feedback, lessons

learned, project records, and change management records for Site

A; (4) identifying improvements needed and accomplished at their

sites; and (5) Identifying the root causes of problems, issues,

and changes at their sites.

Both managers will communicate with each other on a

daily and a- needed basis to coordinate class schedules and to

discuss Class Managers’ performance (since Class Managers will

conduct classes at both sites.). Site Managers must be consulted


by the Class Managers regarding performance tracking, identifying

root causes and improvements, and reviewing feedback, lessons

learned, project records, and change management records at their

sites. Site Managers will meet formally with the District

Manager on a monthly basis and with each other on a bi-weekly

basis. In addition, they will conduct weekly joint meetings with

Class Managers at alternating sites (A and B). They will conduct

quarterly evaluations on Class Managers at each site and report

this to the District Manager; conduct at least one monthly

seminar at each site; and will guide the administering of

quarterly stakeholder performance evaluations at their sites.

Since Site Managers will be the second team members to be hired

for this project, they will be involved in every phase of the

project after Discovery. This will give the Site Manager s a

sense of ownership in the project and a sense of autonomy over

their sites. (See “Table II: Project Management Phase Involvement

RAM” in Appendix).

As one of the last team members to be hired (depending upon

the board’s allowances) or to volunteer for this project, the

Class Manager will be the individual who conduct classes at both


sites (A ant B). It is the responsibility of the Class Managers

to deliver the product (class content) to the stakeholders based

upon stakeholder assessments, strengths and assets assessments,

and using the format provided by the District Manager. In

addition to ensuring that the class content aligns with project

and organizational objectives, the Class Manager will ensure that

the class aligns with the existing cultures and that it is

informative enough to cover the class goals without losing the

interests of the stakeholders. Since the Class Manager will have

more contact with the stakeholders than other team member, he or

she will follow the methodology as presented by the Site Managers

and the District Manager. Responsibilities will include

identifying and recommending improvements; and implementing,

communicating, and rolling out updated methodology. In addition,

the Class Manager must be informed of the goals program

management, improvements, review feedback, lessons learned,

project records, and change management, revised methodology,

identifying root causes, and updates in the training programs.

(See “Table I: Project Management Responsibility RAM” in

Appendix)


While open communication will be encouraged among all

managing team members at any and all times during the project,

the Class Manager will most likely communicate with the Site

Manager on a daily basis (or whenever the Class Manager is on-

site to instruct a class). Class Managers will meet with both

Site Managers on a weekly basis and will meet with the Site

Manager for each Site during quarterly performance evaluations,

which will be performed by alternating Site Managers. For

instance, if first quarter evaluations are performed by Site

Manager “A,” then second quarter evaluations will be performed by

Site Manager “B.” Since Class Managers will interact with

stakeholders more frequently than any other team members, the

District Manager might communicate randomly with each Class

Manager to assess and evaluate the progress of each class in

meeting the goals and objectives of the project. The idea is for

the entire team to operate as a dynamic family in which each team

member is a valued, respected, and integral piece of the puzzle.

Depending upon when this team member joins the program, the

phases in which the Class Manager will be actively involved

include Planning, Implementation, and Benefits Realization. Since


Class Managers will manage, monitor, or teach specific classes,

the specific objectives to which his or her responsibilities will

be determined by the class’ purpose.

Costs/Benefits

Funding for all team managers will be provided by the

Montbello School District; the District Manager and the two Site

Managers will be salaried and the Class Managers will receive an

hourly rate comparable with national rates for similar positions.

However, if the District Manager seeks federal funding for its

goals (i.e., reduce on-site bulling and criminal activity,

decrease attrition, and improve grades), the program prove to be

more profitable than anyone could imagine. Montbello’s problems

cost the district countless dollars; securing federal funding for

them may prove to be a salient strategy for appropriating

resources. For example, according to the U.S. Department of

Education ( USDE, 2010), between 1989 and 1998, the rate of

petitioned truancy status offense cases handled by juvenile

courts increased by 85 percent (from 22,200 to 41,000); this

represented 61% increase in the rate of truancy cases

nationwide. In public schools, the absentee rate was highest in


urban schools (like those in the Montbello) with absentee rates

being inversely proportionate to the socioeconomic status.

Because students with the highest truancy rates have the lowest

academic achievement rates and are most likely to drop out of

school, they also high attrition rates. It is estimated that high

school dropouts cost Californians over $46 billion over the

lifetimes of the 120,000 students who fail to graduate from each

class, including nearly $10 billion from increased crime alone.

In San Francisco last year, 32% of African American, and 19% of

Caucasian and Latino students did not graduate from public high

school. (USDE, 2010; Mack, 2010) )

Making sure that students stay in school is an excellent way

for the Montbello school district to secure funding for the rest

of the PEP Wellness Program. By applying for federal funds to

address the program’s goal of “reducing attrition,” the program

may be able to secure enough funding to pay Class Managers and

Site Managers at the California rate, which is currently between

twenty-five and fifty dollars per hour of instruction

(nationally). San Francisco has the worst truancy record in the

state, but recent citywide efforts, but recently received


$238,000 over two years for its anti-truancy program and will

receive another $370,000 if more students remain in school. This

strategy deserves some serious consideration by the District

Manager and board stakeholders, who will be responsible for

securing for the funds.(Mack, 2010)

The financial cost of truancy is also passed on to the

taxpayers through custody cases, loss of state education funding,

costs of court time, attorney fees, burglary, and vandalisms.

Many students who are habitually truant end up dropping out of

school, and the consequences of dropping out cost every in the

following ways: likelihood of being involved in problem behaviors

such as delinquency, substance abuse, and early childbearing ;

having significantly fewer life choices; making lower salaries,

being more often unemployed, being likely to be welfare-

dependent, experiencing more frequent unstable marriages, and

being more likely to engage in criminal behavior. (USDE, 2010)

Faculty and Staff absenteeism costs the school district, as

well. On the average, each absence costs the school district

$2,500. Collaborative efforts to manage faculty and staff

attendance will affect a relatively small percentage of


employees, but will result in substantial savings and increased

productivity and morale for the district. Faculty and staff

absenteeism also has repercussions that include decrease in

productivity, diminished staff morale, organization cost for

replacement workers, cost of self-insured income-protection

plans, time/cost required to secure replacements or to re-assign

responsibilities, and staff time required to maintain and control

absenteeism. From a strengths perspective, this means reframing

the district’s weaknesses as strengths by capitalizing on them.

Conclusion

In the end, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural school district

like Montbello needs and deserves a multi-dimensional, strengths-

based, solution-focused program like PEP Wellness Triage.

Successfully aligning the team members and stakeholders to

organizational demands and the existing cultures in which the

program will be develop and managed will be an ongoing process

that involves continuous quality control of the performance and

interactions of every member of the project’s team. As we have

seen, successful program management requires direction and

oversight; remaining focused on the program’s objectives and


goals, and ensuring that all members and resources align with the

project’s vision, mission and value statements. In addition, it

involves aligning and integrating the project’s objectives with

its strategic objectives to create an effective assessment and

evaluation system that continually observes, reviews, and

integrates the organizational requirements and ongoing business

processes and the changing demands of the existing cultural

environment in which the project operates.

After examining key team members and stakeholders, we have

seen that one of (if not) the key challenge(s) in project

management is ensuring an adequate response to the dynamic

interactions of the project, its team members, and the existing

cultural environment in which the project operates and grows.

This is essential to the development of a program that ensures

the program’s retention of consistent quality performance and

manages the changes reflected by continual growth within the

project and the changes in the cultural environment that occur as

the project unfolds. The most logical reason for implementing a

strength-based, solution-focused program is, as stated above,

because Montbello needs and deserves it. Montbello’s strengths lie


in the diversity of its cultures. Capitalizing on these diverse

strengths, values, and the assets can mean the difference between

success and failure for this PEP Wellness Triage. With unlimited

imagination, planning, focus, and perseverance, we can achieve

the program’s goals and arm students and other stakeholders with

the ammunition necessary to wage and win the war against poor

grades, attrition, and on-site bullying and criminal activities

(Bender, 2010; Davis-Washington, 2010).

Looking into the future, if this were years into my career

and I were hired by the Montbello School District as the District

Manager of the PEP Wellness Program, qualifications that would

align me with stakeholder would be: (1) a Master’s degree in

Health and Wellness Psychology; (2) fifteen years experience in

wellness program management at the corporate level; (3) twenty-

eight years as an independent contractor in dance/exercise and

corporate wellness; (4) charisma, creativity, flexibility,

openness to new ideas, and well-developed communicative skills

(oral and written); (5) experience as a health and wellness

facility owner (entrepreneur); (6) extensive experience hiring

and training health and wellness staffs; (7) extensive experience


creating and implementing ‘tailored’ fitness programs; (8) an

extensive background in dance and music; (9) a genuine desire to

help others discover their latent strengths and find their “Inner

Winners”; and (10) the ability to raise substantial capital,

support, and loyalty for projects that align with my values and

beliefs. Considering the context and culture of PEP Wellness

Triage, I may be tailor-made for this position because I am an

African American/Native American who has lived in Southern

California (where I have had extensive experience living and

working within a Mexican American population) for over twenty-

five years.


References

Assets Connect. (2010). About the community asset Project (CAP): Introduction

to Assets. Retrieved from

http://www.assetsconnect.org/site/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=53

Attendance Management. (2010). Introduction to attendance management.

Retrieved from

http://www.benefits.org/interface/cost/absent.htm

Barboza, G., Schiamberg, L., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S., Post,

L., & Heraux, C.. (2009). Individual characteristics and the

multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological

perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101-121.

Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1634701571).


Bender, M. B. (2010). A manager’s guide to project management: Learn how to

apply best practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice

Hall.

Bormann, J. (2010). Insight: What brings you complete peace? First

for Women, 22(36), 48-49.

Boyington, J. E., Carter-Edwards, L., Piehl, M., Hutson, J.,

Langdon, D., & McManus, S. (2008). Cultural attitudes toward weight,

diet, and physical activity among overweight African American girls. Retrieved

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396970/

Boyle, C. (2010). How leaving loving post-its changed my life.

First for Women, 22(36), 96-97.

Brett, C.. (2008). Quality issues in ICT-based higher education.

The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(1), 121-123. Retrieved

ProQuest database. (Document ID: 1555024211).

Brewer, E. W. & Clippard, L. F. (2002). Burnout and job

satisfaction among Student Support Services

personnel. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 169-186.

(ProQuest Document ID: 128929461).

Carswell, S., Hanlon, T., O'Grady, K., Watts, A., & Pothong, P..

(2009). A preventive intervention program for urban African


American youth attending an alternative education program:

Background, implementation, and feasibility. Education &

Treatment of Children, 32(3), 445-469. Retrieved from ProQuest

Education Journals. (Document ID: 1790231361).

Cox, K.. (2008). Tools for building on youth strengths. Reclaiming

Children and Youth, 16(4), 19-24. Retrieved from Research

Library. (Document ID: 1445752921).

Davis, K., Hodson, P., Zhang, G., Boswell, B., & Decker, J. (2010

). Providing physical activity for students with

intellectual disabilities: The Motivate, Adapt, and Play

Program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(5), 23-

28.

Davis-Washington, M. (2010). Unpublished assignments for ORG 6350:

Wellness Program Management: University of the Rockies.

Deglau, D., & Barnes, D. (2009). Meeting the needs of urban

youths in Columbus city schools. Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation & Dance, 80(8), 41-42, 45.

Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Ross, J., et al. (2006).

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2005. The

Journal of School Health, 76(7), 353-72.


Great Kids, Inc. (2009). Strength-Based Approach. Retrieved from

http://www.greatkidsinc.org/strength-based.htm

Hcareers. (2009). Accentuate the positive: Strengths-based approach to

performance reviews. Retrieved from

http://www.hcareers.com/us/resourcecenter/tabid/306/articlei

d/348/default.aspx

Johnson, J. A. & Breckon, D. J. (2007). Managing health education and

promotion programs: Leadership skills of the 21st century (2nd ed.).

Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Kitson, A., & Straus, S. (2010). The knowledge-to-action cycle:

identifying the gaps. Canadian Medical Association.

Journal, 182(2), E73-7. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

(Document ID: 1976388541).

Mack, H. (2010). San Francisco student truancy: The value of showing up.

Retrieved from

http://commonwealthclub.blogspot.com/2010/03/san-francisco-

student-truancy-value-of.html

Mithers, C. (2010). Slow Down. Ladies’ Home Journal, June 2010, 102-

107.


Munsey, C. (2010). Coaching the coaches: Promoting a ‘mastery

climate’ motivates young athletes to do their best, says

this scientist-practitioner team. Monitor on Psychology, 41(4),

59-61.

Nissen, L. (2006). Bringing Strength-Based Philosophy to Life in

Juvenile Justice. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 15(1), 40-

46. Retrieved from Research Library. (Document

ID: 1051636711).

O'Rourke, T. W. (2005). Promoting school health – An expanded

paradigm. The Journal of School Health, 75(3), 112-4.

Rhea, C. K. & Wisdom, S. (2007). The M&M Approach: Using mental

and mechanical strategies in teaching and

coaching. Strategies, 20(5), 14-18. Retrieved from ProQuest

Education Journals. (Document ID: 1333424521).

Rossett, Allison. (1989). Assess for success. Training and

Development Journal, 43(5), 55. Abstract retrieved from


Rummler, G. A. & Brache, A. P. (1995) Improving performance: How to

manage the white space on the organization chart (2nd ed.) San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.


Saleebey, D. (1992). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work

Practice. White Plains, NY: Longman. Retrieved from

http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/What%20is%20Strengths

%20Based%20Approach.ppt

Sawyers, J.. (2009, April). Seven Pleasures: Essays on Ordinary

Happiness [review of the book Seven Pleasures: Essays on Ordinary

Happiness]. The Booklist, 105(16), 15. Retrieved from

Research Library. (Document ID: 1682934281).

Schueller, S. M. (2010). Preferences for positive psychology

exercises. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 192-203. Retrieved

from

http://www.viacharacter.org/Admin/RyanNiemieconSchuellerPPex

ercises/tabid/348/language/en-US/Default.aspx#start

Srabstein, J., & Leventhal, B. (2010). Prevention of bullying-

related morbidity and mortality: a call for public health

policies: World Health Organization. Bulletin of the World Health

Organization, 88(6), 403.

Stalker, S., Weir, E., Vessel, S., & Mikail, J.. (2009).

Planning a coordinated local health care system response to

a pandemic using an accelerated Delphi Technique: Phase


1. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 100(1), 65-9. Retrieved from


Stebbins, M. W. & Shani (A. B., (1998). Organization design and the

knowledge worker. Retrieved from

http://www.tlainc.com/article5.htm

Straus, S., Tetroe, J., Graham, I., Zwarenstein, M., Bhattacharyy

a, O., & Shepperd, S. (2010). Monitoring use of knowledge

and evaluating outcomes. Canadian Medical Association.

Journal, 182(2), E94-8. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

(Document ID: 1976388581).

Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD). (2007). Statistics. Retrieved

from http://www.sadd.org/stats.htm

Teufel-Shone, N. I., Siyuja, T., Watahomigie, H. J., & Irwin,

S. (2006). Community-based participatory research:

Conducting a formative assessment of factors that influence

youth wellness in the Hualapai community. American Journal of

Public Health, 96(9), 1623-8.

The WHO cross-national study on health behavior in school-aged

children from 28 countries: Findings from the United

States. (2000). The Journal of School Health, 70(6), 227-8.


Thompson, W. (2009). After-School All-Stars: Providing structured

health and physical activity programs in urban

environments. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &

Dance, 80(8), 32-34.

Tusaie-Mumford, Kathleen Rose (2001). Psychosocial resilience in rural

adolescents: Optimism, perceived social support and gender differences. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, United States --

Pennsylvania. Abstract retrieved from ProQuest database.

(Publication No. AAT 3038290).

University of Kansas (KU) School of Social Welfare. (2010). The

strengths perspective and solution-focused therapy. Retrieved from

http://www.socwel.ku.edu/Strengths/about/solutionFocusedTher

apy.shtml

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Truancy: A serious problem for

students, schools, ad society. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/training/truancy/probl

em_pg17.html

VIA Institute on Character. (2007). The VIA Survey of Character.

Retrieved from


http://www.viacharacter.org/Home/tabid/36/language/en-US/Def

ault.aspx

The WHO cross-national study on health behavior in school-aged

children from 28 countries: Findings from the United

States. (2000). The Journal of School Health, 70(6), 227-8.

Violence Institute of New Jersey (VINJ). (2007a). Searchable

Inventory of Instruments: Assessing Violent Behavior and Related Constructs in

Children and Adolescents: Bullying-Behavior Scale. Retrieved from

http://vinst.umdnj.edu/VAID/TestReport.asp?Code=BBS

Violence Institute of New Jersey (VINJ). (2007b). Searchable

Inventory of Instruments: Assessing Violent Behavior and Related Constructs in

Children and Adolescents: Multidimensional School Anger Inventory.

Retrieved from http://vinst.umdnj.edu/VAID/TestReport.asp?

Code=MSAI

Wideman, R. M. (2002). Wideman Comparative Glossary of Project Management Terms

v3.1. Retrieved from

http://www.maxwideman.com/pmglossary/PMG_C11.htm#Cost

%20Estimating

Woods, A. M. (2006). The physical educator's lead in improving school

wellness. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77(4), 8-9.


Appendices

Table I: Project Management Responsibility RAM

Task Task OwnerDistrictManager(DM)

SiteManager A(SM “A”)

SiteManager B(SM “B”)

ClassManager(CM)

Define the goals of project management

DM C, P I I I

Define the project management methodology

DM C, P I RA, P

Track Performance

DM SM “A”SM “B”

C, P C

Recommend Improvements

CM I, P P, RA, P, RA RA, I

Implement, communicate, and roll out updatedmethodology

DMSM “A”SM “B”

I P, RA P, RA RA

Review feedback, lessons learned, project


C, P, RA RA, P, C,I

RA, P, C, I

I


records, and change management records

Identify improvements

DMSM “A”SM “B”CM

RA, P, I,C

P, I, C P, I, C P, I

Revise methodology

DM RA, P, I,C

I I I

Identify root causes


RA, P, I,C

RA, P, I,C

RA, P, I,

C

I

Update training programs

DM RA, P I I I

Legend:

RA: Responsible and accountable I: Must be informed

P: Task performer C: Must be consulted

Table II: Project Phase Involvement RAM

Phase DistrictManager

SiteManager A

SiteManager B

Class

Manager

Discovery X


Planning X X X

Implementat

ion

X X X X

BenefitsRealization

X X X X

pep wellness triage: a strength-based, solution-focused, multi-dimensional program

Documents