Open question: Should we form a statewide Team?

If this question has been on your mind, it might help to know you’re not alone.

We’ve been noticing some conversation recently about whether or not to combine Teams in some states across the U.S.

usmapcutesy

Currently, there are 517 Connector Teams in the U.S.
(photo by Tom via Flickr’s Creative Commons)

Connector Jack Lockwood from Georgia—a large state with both urban and rural areas—argues the pros:

By being part of a statewide Team, isolated pockets of people would still get support from each other and still be able to work together on common problems. As a by product, people could get a better idea about issues that impact their whole state and also network with people from other areas but are still passionate about the state they live in.

Another reason to have statewide Teams is that there are people who may volunteer with Idealist but may have jobs or personal connections to other people throughout the state and could work together on advocacy, policy and laws that could impact everyone living in the state.

I think a statewide Team could also help as a strikeforce for local Teams as needed. For example. I have knowledge about writing grants but suppose my local Team does not currently need that skill. By also serving as a resource on a stateside Team I would be able help another local state Team as needed.

Connector Cindy Matthews from Ohio—a smaller state by comparison—speaks to the cons:

I think the main disadvantages to forming a statewide Team (in Ohio at least) are the differences in the areas/concerns in different parts of the state. Some areas of Ohio are rural and small-town oriented (like where I’m living) and others are metropolitan in their outlook (such as Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, Cincinnati, etc.).

The cultures are different, the economies are different, and the square miles in a rural setting could prevent people from joining a Team because of travel costs/times involved. (Rural gasoline prices tend to be higher, we don’t have public transport, and we’re already forced to drive into cities for our medical appointments, shopping, to find work or attend college, etc.)

Regional Teams (smaller than a state, bigger than one town) possibly are the answer.

Our developers are currently working on offering the ability to consolidate Teams in major metropolitan areas, and exploring more combinations as well.

Before we do anything further, we’d love to hear from you: Does it make sense to merge Teams or stay separate where you live? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Tags: , ,





Comments (3)


  1. Marie Deatherage writes:
    April 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    I think a statewide network of teams would be a great thing in Oregon. One of the biggest issues in our large land-area state is the disconnect or divide between the more populated west and sparsely populated east. The more both parts know and understand about the other’s economy, environment, ways of living, etc., the better we can work together. There is always a risk of activities becoming Portland-centric or Willamette Valley-centric. We need more and stronger connections across our state, and this technology holds promise to make them possible.


  2. Marcial Reiley writes:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:42 am

    I believe in synergy and cooperation. A respectful relationship with others can only grow your own skills and knowledge. More allies less enemies.


  3. Amanda Bancroft writes:
    April 24, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    A connector team in Arkansas would be great. My team only has two people in it and we can always use more allies, no matter how big we grow.


Sorry, commenting is now closed on Idealists in Action.
Check out our new blog and join the Idealist Network conversation on the Connector Hub.



Like what you're reading?

Subscribe and get fresh daily updates from Idealists in Action.