Questionnaire

We suggest that you print this questionnaire¹ and the two documents referred to in the questionnaire: the HTP "Comparables" summary table and Sagewalker's document on the Toronto Helpership Development Circle. Having done that, we suggest that you type your responses to the questions into an email message that you send to roddy.duchesne@sympatico.ca. In this email, please mark your response to Q1 with "Q1" ... your response to Q2 with "Q2", etc. so that we can easily relate the views you express to the question to which you are responding.

Alternatively, once you have printed out the three documents mentioned above, you can write your responses by hand onto the copy of the questionnaire. If you do this and find that there is insufficient space for your response to a question, please continue your response on the reverse side of the paper. If you write your answers onto a printed copy of the questionnaire, please fax or mail the completed questionnaire using the fax/address information in the footnote below.²

Whichever way you choose to respond, please send us your views by May 30/01, if at all possible.

1. PHANA's APPROACH TO TRAINING STANDARDS

In relation to standards, PHANA Council seeks to act as a Pathwork Foundation/Pathwork community vehicle for fostering the following:

-- Cooperation and consensus among Pathwork training programs.
-- Harmonization of basic training program elements and procedures, while leaving room for individual training program strengths.

In order to foster inter-program cooperation, Council has structured itself to include a representative of each of the regions/chapters offering Pathwork training in the US and Canada.³ One concrete outcome of this cooperation is the Helpership Training Program (HTP) "comparables" information that each representative has provided for his/her respective HT program. Another outcome of this cooperation is the October 2000 New HT Training Guideline approved by the Foundation Board, recommending that new Helpership training programs be undertaken within regional and chapter organizations, or at least in cooperation with existing regional and chapter organizations.

Council work to foster inter-program consensus is exemplified in the current consultation exercise of which this questionnaire is a part. Council has suggested to the Foundation that a meeting of very senior representatives of Helpership training programs be held at some convenient time. A principal objective of this meeting would be to reach consensus on how far and how fast the various Helpership Training programs wish to go in the direction of inter-program cooperation and of harmonizing the basic program elements, standards (e.g. minimum # individual session-hours trainees are required to have), and procedures - e.g. for evaluation of trainees to practice as Apprentices, and/or to be recognized as Pathwork Helpers.

Q1. Do you agree with this approach? Do you wish to suggest alternative or additional approaches?

2. COMPARING DIFFERENT HELPERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS

Council invites you to review the HTP "Comparables" summary table. You may wish to print the table on your printer for easy reference. The table provides a summary of comparables so far compiled by Council and listed under 5 main headings: General; Faculty; Entry Requirements; Training; Apprenticeship. We emphasize the limited nature of the simple quantitative comparables so far collected. We needed to start somewhere, and this was the best we could do as an initial exercise.

Q2. After reviewing PHANA's HTP comparables, do you see any specific comparables in which you think it would be desirable to reduce differences between the different Helpership training programs? If so, for which comparables and/or programs do you consider this desirable?

Note: Each comparable is given a reference number for convenient identification, e.g. 3.1, 3.2, etc.

While the THDC program is still in the process of development, it clearly embodies a model quite different from that used in the other 6 Helpership training programs in North America. For example, each trainee at each of the other 6 programs completes a training that has essentially the same content and mostly a similar duration as his/her co-trainees. In the THDC model, each trainee completes a largely self-designed program that can be very different from each of his/her other co-trainees in both content and duration.

Since any new model is fairly certain to be copied (perhaps with modifications) in other locations in North America and worldwide, Council seeks your suggestions concerning how best to maintain Helpership training standards as this model is replicated.

Here, for your consideration, are a few of a number of possible positions, with associated questions.

A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF NEW THDC MODEL PROGRAMS?

This question implies a recommendation to the Foundation Board that it not approve new THDC-model programs until is possible to see more clearly how this new model works out in practice.

Q3. After reviewing the THDC model document, do you think that this model can now be accepted as an approved model, or would you consider it wise for the Foundation to hold off approving new THDC-model programs until it is possible to see more clearly how the new model works in practice? Do you have alternative or additional suggestions relating to THDC-model programs?

4. POSSIBLE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL THDC/TRADITIONAL PROGRAM COOPERATION?

It may be advisable for at least one senior traditional program leader to be on the faculty of each THDC program. There are several reasons for this suggestion. One of these reasons is to help ensure - right at the start of an individual's training - that the individual's self-designed program covers all essential bases covered in traditional programs, including group work and practicum - e.g. practice sessions and practice lecture study leadership under supervision.

Evaluations of trainees' progress would also be facilitated and enriched if each THDC-model program was supervised by some form of committee that includes a senior faculty member drawn from one of the traditional-model programs. The committee's functions could include taking responsibility for approving entry of each trainee into the program, assessing each trainee's self-designed program, monitoring each trainee's progress, and performing necessary evaluations.

The above faculty suggestion might help resolve another difficulty. This is that a single Helper coordinating a THDC-model program likely does not have much time to spend on communicating with other programs, e.g. being represented on PHANA Council. A member of the THDC supervisory committee could take primary responsibility for this function.

Q4. After reviewing the THDC model document, would you favor increased THDC/traditional model program cooperation along the lines outlined above? Do you have additional or alternative suggestions?

5. INTEGRATION OF THDC MODEL PROGRAMS WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES

In October 2000, the Foundation Board approved the following guideline that relates to all new Helpership training programs:

"It is recommended that new Helpership training programs be undertaken within regional and chapter organizations, or at least in cooperation with existing regional and chapter organizations.

If trainings are located within existing regions and chapters, it is clearly preferable that the trainings be done in cooperation with the existing region or chapter. If the trainings are located outside existing regions and chapters, and the area can bring together the necessary resources to provide adequate helpership training, then the area appears to be a good candidate for being designated a chapter.

Additional reasons for this recommendation include the advantages of more broadly based programs that involve several helpers. More broadly based programs give trainees exposure to more than one helping style, and are generally better able to avoid difficulties associated with the 'blind spots' that even the most experienced helpers may have. More broadly based programs are also better placed to avoid the difficulties which can be associated with 'dual relationships', in which – for example – a leader may be at one and the same time the program’s leader, administrator, and teacher, as well as the evaluator and individual helper of trainees."

Q5. Do you support the above guideline? Do you have additional or alternative suggestions relating to the approval of new Helpership training programs?

6. FURTHER VIEWS AND SUGGESTIONS

Q6. Do you have other views or suggestions that you would like to share with PHANA Council and the Foundation Board?

Lastly: Please identify yourself, so that we know who the questionnaire responses come from.
Even if you are responding by email, who you are may not be obvious to us from your email address.

1.	This questionnaire is Appendix 1 in the printed Consultation Package.
2.	Address/fax/email addresses to which to send your responses: Roddy Duchesne 400 Walmer Road, Apt. 510 Toronto, Ontario M5P 2X7 CANADA Fax: 416-923-7923 Tel: 416-925-6613 [Yes, 6th digit 3 in Fax # and 5 in Tel #] Email: roddy.duchesne@sympatico.ca
3.	The Toronto Helpership Development Circle has been invited to provide a representative.