Menuha werksberaad Verslag by monkey6

VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 18

Menuha werksberaad Verslag

More Info
									CHIEF DIRECTORATE: COMMUNITY SERVICE Menuha Work Summit: Report
(22 – 24 February 2006)

1.

Introduction

The work summit was held from 22 to 24 February 2006 at Menuha (see Appendix A for the programme). The main goal for the summit was to finalise operational procedures regarding CSL. The summit also focused on policy regarding CSL and management related issues. During the summit, however, the latter was referred to be addressed through other mechanisms. 2. An outline of the work sessions at the summit

There were seven work sessions at the summit. In this section, each of the work sessions will be dealt with in detail. Work Session 1: During this session, the following activities took place: • • • A basic meeting session; Outlining of the expectations of the participants and laying down house rules for the summit; and Reviewing existing policy.

Subsequently, an attempt has been made to distinguish clearly between aspects pertaining to policy, management and implementation in the responses of the various participants. The following aspects pertaining to policy (conceptual aspects) have been highlighted: • • Does the existing document amply address the mechanisms for quality assurance? Are monitoring and evaluation sufficiently covered? Does the document contain adequate measuring instruments?

1

• • •

Participants wanted a clear definition of the concept of development. Was the concept of community used consistently in the document? Who did the “subconscious” of the document see as the main beneficiary? Is it only the university, or, is enough emphasis placed on the expression of the needs of the communities? In other words, are the development outcomes sufficiently addressed?

• • • • •

Is the university’s view on community projects clearly expressed? Does the policy provide sufficiently for benefits for the staff involved? A couple of questions have been asked about labelling communities as “poor”. What would be the least offensive term? Was there clearly distinguished in the document between clinical practical modules and CSL modules? The document could possibly benefit from a section covering the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders.

Management and operational aspects of the discussion were carried over to the following sessions. Work Session 2: This session consisted of the feedback received from each flagship project. All positive and negative aspects were listed. Again, policy, management and operational aspects were clearly separated. The aspects regarding policy were added to the overview of session 1. The following management aspects were listed: • • Quality assurance of CSL was still problematic and a system that could adequately address this issue had to be developed. The sustainability of flagship projects was identified as a key issue and should be attended to on a yearly basis. Some flagship projects received funding mainly from outside the university. However, because outside funding does not necessarily provide for salaries; the sustainability of such projects is negatively impacted upon. It has become apparent that the priorities of donors and of the flagship projects themselves were not always identical.

2

•

The question of a system of performance rating and management recurred. The argument was that, as long as CSL inputs did not make part and parcel of the contract with university staff and, as long as their performance in CSL wasn’t specifically covered in the general performance management system, CSL would not become part of the mainstream activities of the university.

• •

Questions were asked regarding the existing funding structures for CSL. Staff who received seed funding for CSL projects said that these funds were nearing depletion. There also existed little cooperation between faculties.

The relevant operational aspects were carried over to session 3 and 4 and they are discussed in detail under the relevant heading. Work Sessions 3 and 4: During these two sessions, attention was given to the list of operational aspects which came up during previous sessions. The various operational aspects were grouped and classified, then discussed and, finally, suggestions and recommendations were made. Moreover, the five most important obstacles to smoothly implement CSL were prioritised. These five aspects are: • • • • • Transport is not well coordinated with activities and takes up too much of students’ time. There are doubts as to whether flagship projects have reached a level of readiness. The timetable isn’t conducive to facilitate CSL modules and activities. The existing seed funding is spent incidentally and inconsistently. Students following CSL modules in the southern Free State, experience accommodation problems. Next, places currently serving as CSL sites were listed (See Appendix B). The following additional operational aspects were listed: • • CSL modules where seed funding was nearly depleted; Better coordination between faculties was desirable;

3

• • • • • • • •

The implementation of CSL as a mainstream activity at Boyden and Lengau was discussed; The developmental perspective does not always receive due emphasis within communities; The notional hours of certain modules are currently not enough to incorporate CSL aspects; Students are sometimes negatively disposed towards CSL processes and do not complete them; Some groups are still seen to be racially based and some students still feel unsafe; Communication with partners isn’t always sufficient; The question whether the programmes of the Faculty of Health Sciences conformed to the requirements of CSL was asked; and There should be a broad, uniform work description for CSL coordinators in order to facilitate the evaluation of their posts on a three-year basis.

The following general recommendations were made in order to address the above: • • Better coordination between faculties received attention through means of a new management model; In order to address the negative outlook of students regarding CSL processes and their failure to complete the processes, it has been suggested that the type of agreement with students should receive attention and that the partners should also have more say in the assessment of CSL; • All groups are to be constituted in a multicultural way but the specific fears of white students must still be addressed if this cannot be done through forming multicultural groups; and • The problems regarding communication with partners are to be addressed through service agreement contracts with partners. Work Session 5: During this work session, the office of the Chief Directorate: Community Service proposed a new management model (see Appendix C). The proposal has been accepted with minimal changes.

4

Work Sessions 6 and 7: Here, two aspects have been addressed. First, operational plans for the five crucial problems were developed (see Appendix D) and this according to the following operational principles: • • • The proposed management model has been accepted. Transport and accommodation must, as far as possible, be coordinated. The budget made available for CSL must be used optimally. This means that an agreement must be reached regarding an acceptable maximum for transport and accommodation. • First-year and second-year students are not to be assigned projects in the southern Free State. It is preferable to concentrate on third-year students and honours students. • • • • Service agreements with service partners must be in place before students go to the sites. It will be endeavoured to establish inter-faculty coordination. Structures will be put in place to ensure coordination with service sites. Flagship projects where funding is made available by the UFS in the partner agreement contracts have a specific contractual responsibility towards the UFS, while other service providers have a less defined relation towards the UFS. • • Overhead provincial partnerships are of a great importance. The focus of CSL will be mainly on existing programmes, but departments will be allowed to explore wider options and it is desirable that students will bring their newly acquired knowledge to their own communities. • The tempo of implementation must be brought in line with the availability of human and financial resources, infrastructure and the readiness of service points to manage CSL projects. • A flexible overarching approach whereby people are encouraged rather than demotivated is to be adopted in order to achieve the above goals.

5

Second, attention was paid to the rollout of CSL modules within the flagship projects (see Appendix E). There were differences of opinion about CSL modules taking place at the MUCPP clinic as to the weight of responsibility the MUCPP should be assigned. It has been agreed that talks on the issue should take place between the Faculty of Health Sciences, the MUCPP and the Chief Director: Community Service. All the outstanding operational, management and policy aspects will be part of the agenda of the new management structure.

6

Appendix A: Proposed Programme for the Work Summit

DAG 1 – WOENSDAG, 22 FEBRUARIE 2006 DAY 1 – WEDNESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2006
TYD TIME 11:45 12:45 13:00 15:30 ACTIVITY ACTIVITY Vertrek na Menuha / Depart for Menuha Aankoms / Arrival Middagete / Lunch Ontspan totdat sessie begin Relax till session starts Sessie / Session 1 WIE WHO URE HOURS

DAG 2 – DONDERDAG, 23 FEBRUARIE 2006 DAY 2 – THURSDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2006
TYD TIME 07:00 08:00 ACTIVITY ACTIVITY Ontbyt / Breakfast Sessie / Session 2 Terugrapportering van fakulteite Slegs terugrapportering en vrae (15 minute * 10 voordragte) Feedback from faculties Only feedback and questions (15 minutes * 10 presentations) Verversings / Refreshments Sessie / Session 3 Logistieke gevolge – Logistical implications – Middagete / Lunch Sessie / Session 4 “Free for all” (diskussie) Free for all (discussion) Sessie / Session 5 Voordrag van nuwe bestuursmodel 1ste ringtinggewende modelle (1 uur) Presentation of new management model 1st directional models (1 hour) WIE WHO URE HOURS

10:30 11:00 12:45 14:00 15:30

7

DAG 3 – VRYDAG, 24 FEBRUARIE 2006 DAY 3 – FRIDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2006
TYD TIME 07:00 08:00 10:30 11:00 13:00 14:00 ACTIVITY ACTIVITY Ontbyt / Breakfast Sessie / Session 6 Operasionele beplanning Operational planning Verversings / Refreshments Sessie / Session 7 Operasionele beplanning Operational planning Middagete / Lunch Vertrek terug na Bloemfontein Depart back to Bloemfontein WIE WHO URE HOURS

8

Appendix B: List of existing CSL sites Main Campus Universitas Hospital National Hospital + Tsepong Bfn Psychiatric Complex (Oranje) CUT Pelonomi Hospital Omega (Hdl) Lebone Land Etsa Phanang MUCPP Vista Lengau “Vrystaat Nasorg” Aurora Auksano Tshepo Foundation Hospice Cansa Aids in Action Martie du Plessis Lettie Fouché Susanna Coetzee Jean Webber Sentraal Primary Kagisanong Magistrate’s Court Informal Legal Help Clinic Dr Blok School Dr Viljoen School Legal Help Boyden Observatory

Roseview School Eden “Plek van Veiligheid” Childcare Society Dept. Human Development Famsa Mangaung Prison “OVV”

9

Appendix C: Framework for a new management model CHIEF DIRECTORATE COMMUNITY SERVICE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT MODEL 1. Current situation

1.1 Staff 1.1.1 The Chief Directorate CS employ the following people permanently: a) Senior Secretary (Dalene). b) Senior Lecturer: CSL Development and Implementation (Mabel). c) Research and Administrative Assistant (Nicolene). d) Community Development Officer (Lolly). 1.1.2 A part-time student responsible for Administration and Finances (Amorette). 1.2. 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 Report lines Dalene, Mabel and Lolly report directly to the CDCS. Nicolene reports to Mabel. Amorette reports to Dalene.

1.3 Development and establishment of management structures 1.3.1 Regular weekly discussions with Mabel. Aim: Planning. Feedback. Monitoring and Quality Assurance. 1.3.2 Central Community Service Committee (CCSC) Aim: Public platform for all role players. Dissemination of information. The existence of the CCSC remains essential. Frequency: Initially, 4 meetings per year. 2 meetings scheduled for 2006.

1.3.3 Task Team Aim: To coordinate the implementation of the 8 goals of CS policy. Composition: Knowledgeable individuals from various areas were involved in order to consult with role players from the UFS, the communities and the service sectors. Frequency: Initially, 4 meetings per year.

10

Termination: The activities of the Task Team were gradually absorbed by those of a new management structure, namely, the Community Service Management Committee. The Task Team thus became redundant and its activities came to an end at the beginning of 2004. 1.3.4 Community Service Management Committee Aim: To plan, execute and monitor all relevant issues in the portfolio. Composition: Initially, only staff reporting directly to the CDCS and the coordinators of the FSRDPP and the MUCPP. Later, also the CS coordinators in the faculties as well as representatives from Boyden and Lengau. 1.3.5 Faculty Committees for Community Service Aim: The management of the academic aspects of faculty activities, their coordination and their evaluation. Liaison with the CDCS on a regular basis. Composition: According to faculty preferences and needs. 1.3.6 Community Service Learning Workgroup Aim: Surveying and discussing practical questions. Proposal: Terminate Workgroup activities. It isn’t an entity sufficiently representative to decide on important issues (such as risk management). 2. 2.1 The advantages of a revised management model The existing management model effectively excludes the input of the faculties’ CS Committees. There is thus a need for a representative decision-making body on which all role players of the UFS will serve, that is, faculties (CS committees and coordinators), the staff of the CDCS and representatives of the flagships. Due to the rapid and diverse development and implementation phases which currently dominate the agendas of CS and CSL, it has become apparent that there is a need for a management model which would promote a greater sense of ownership, transparent decision-making and effective communication. It was proposed that the current CSMC be extended to be composed as follows: CDCS and its relevant support staff. Chairpersons of the faculties’ CS committees. CS coordinators of the faculties. Coordinators of the CS flagships.

2.2

2.3

11

2.4

In order to promote efficacy, an Executive Committee constituting of, at least, the CDCS, Mabel, a representative of the faculties and Nicolene as secretariat is chosen. Frequency of meetings: The CSMC is to meet on a three-monthly basis. The Executive Committee is to meet every 3 weeks. The aim in scheduling regular meetings is to allow the faculties’ representatives to duly inform the faculty councils about relevant issues, or to refer issues for decision-making, via their faculty committees. The Executive Committee will manage urgent issues in consultation with the parties concerned.

2.5

Drafted by Kiepie Jaftha and Mabel Erasmus 23 February 2006

12

Appendix D: Operational plan for five areas of priority Problem area 1. Transport system that doesn’t run smoothly and which takes up too much time Aim Reliable, effective and safe transport for CS use Solution proposed Develop a route based on the current situation and test its success (monthly reviews) Activity proposed 1. Survey of precise information re placements, including day, time, place and frequency 2. Viability study including CSL lecturers: Develop a plan to streamline transport for (a) Bloemfontein 1 as well as (b) Southern Free State sites 3. First trial round 1. Consolidate CSL activities in the southern Free State, e.g. schedule CSL activities for only 3 days per week. Timeframe for feedback 31 March Responsible entity/ person Faculties’ CS committees & coordinators

13 April

MJH Hoffman et al. Retha du Plessis SDC 2nd semester 21 April Faculties’ CS committees & coordinators CSL office (CSMC management)

The communities’ priorities should be one of the guidelines in the development of the transport route and may influence its revision in future

1

Dr Matie Hoffman to develop concept further

13

2. Concentrate on smaller en more senior groups in the southern Free State 3. Access to sponsored transport Proposal First vehicles for transport 4. Organise more activities at flagship projects in order to simplify transport needs 1. Drafting of model community service agreements 2. Draft a schedule for visits and work out communication lines 3. Sign community service agreements and visit schedules

2007?

Retha?

20 March Feb. 2007 Nov. 2006

Willem and Revd. Jaftha Central CSL management committee Mabel / Willem UFS legal advisors Only flagship projects Faculty coordinators and committees

2. Uncertainty about the readiness of service points or about whether or not they are funded

Existing uncertainties must be cleared up

Reach community service agreements where the roles of all partners involved are clearly spelt out for each project

2 March 9 March

15 June

14

3. Timetables that do not accommodate for the scope needed for CSL and poor coordination

Timetables are to be streamlined to a greater extent in order to accommodate CSL

1. Each faculty is to consider the time allocations for CSL on the 2007 timetable 2. Discussion 1 with Prof. Verschoor Discussion 2

26 May

CSL coordinator Revd. Jaftha, Mabel Timetable committee

End April As soon as possible Early 2nd semester

4. Diverse and unspecified utilisation of seed funding

Allocation and expenditure of CSL funding should be done with integrity

Existing funding structures must be revised and adapted to promote integration and to ensure that the needs of community be met New guidelines will not influence the existing budgets

1. All faculties must develop effective processes to fund CSL

5. Accommodation problems in the southern Free State

2. Guidelines for a new funding mechanism must be developed The link between CSL and 3. Make sure that research funds should be faculty taken into account coordinators are up to speed with guidelines Local service providers 1. FSRDPP must must receive preference research and profile possibilities for CSL in the southern Free State

15

Appendix E: Action plan for the rollout of CSL modules within the various flagship projects FLAGSHIPS PROJECTS 1. FSRDPP DEPARTMENTS Social Work Physiotherapy Nursing WHEN? Mondays & Tuesdays (13 Feb – 24 Oct 2006) Alternate Mondays (6 Feb – 11 Sept) 3 visits per semester? (Fridays – timetable must be fixed) Each Wednesday (8 March + 4 weeks) Confirm by Friday Confirm by Friday WHEN? Each Friday (17 March – April 2006) Each Thursday (9 March + 4 weeks) NUMBER OF STUDENTS 4 (at the same time) (final years) 5 + 2 lecturers per visit (3rd years) 57 students (first years) 13 students (confirmation by Friday) (final years) 3rd years Masters students NUMBER OF STUDENTS 26 students (all at once) (3rd years) 13 students (all at once) (3rd years) Own? Small bus (Hertz) TRANSPORT TRANSPORT Donated vehicle (+ accommodation) Kombi (Hertz) Small bus (Hertz)

Agricultural Management

Own

Industrial Psychology? Urban Planning? FLAGSHIP PROJECTS 2. Lengau DEPARTMENTS Consumer Sciences Agricultural Management Architecture

16

FLAGSHIP PROJECTS 3. MUCPP

DEPARTMENTS Health Sciences (Medical school)

WHEN? Once (1st semester) 8 March 2006 10 visits (spread out in 1st semester) Whole year (Mondays & Fridays)

NUMBER OF STUDENTS 140 students (once) (1st years) 140 students (once) (1st years) 50 students (each time) (3rd years) 55 students (2nd years)

TRANSPORT 2 Buses 2 Buses Own Hertz

Nursing

Human Nutrition

Wednesdays & Fridays 63 students (1st years) Mondays – Thursdays 17 students ( 3 to 4 at a time) (4th years + 3 postgraduates) 30 students ( 3 to 4 at a time) (practical classes – 3rd/4th years) 30 students – at a time (3rd/4th years)

Buses & Kombi

Physiotherapy

Small buses (Dept. of Health Sciences) Own

Occupational therapy

???

Thursdays (2de semester)

Own

17

Human Sciences Human Movement Sciences Psychology (Economic Sciences) Accounting/ SIFE
-

25 students (4th years)

Own

Own Feedback at later stage Feedback at later stage

Industrial Psychology

18


								
To top