Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You almost need an accreditation process with full-time trained accreditors, much like P3 and I are talking about in healthcare. That ensures the assessors ask the right questions, know how to ferret out information that might not be forthcoming, and that the recommendations actually matter for something. Subsequent visits would then focus on how the implementation of the recommendations was done, assuming areas that were not a concern still are not. However, given current reality, not sure the United Church is up for something as involved as that.If we are going to be totally honest the former oversight visit process often overlooked or misssed real challenges that were existing in congregations. I know of more than one place where an oversight visit came back saying all was well and shorthly afterward a some nuclear explosion took place in the midst of the community. SOmetimes people did not realize what questions needed to be asked. SOmetimes congregations were good at hiding things that were under the surface (put a good face forward for company). SOmetimes only a couple of people knew what the trouble spots were.
At the other end, I am not at all sure that recommendations made by oversight teams (either to the congregation or to the wider church) were often taken all that seriously.
The first ideas coming out of the Comprehensive REview had little to no plan for regular oversight of congregations from the wider church. The next meeting of General Council was very clear that some mechanism for that was needed. SO we now have this rather nebulous plan that some of us wonder if it will accomplish even as much as regular oversight visits did.
Why not?Nor, with the united church of Canada's models would it be accepted
When I was a manager in health care, the accreditors were working hospital administrators (and doctors, too, I think) who received training in the accreditation process.You almost need an accreditation process with full-time trained accreditors, much like P3 and I are talking about in healthcare. That ensures the assessors ask the right questions, know how to ferret out information that might not be forthcoming, and that the recommendations actually matter for something. Subsequent visits would then focus on how the implementation of the recommendations was done, assuming areas that were not a concern still are not. However, given current reality, not sure the United Church is up for something as involved as that.
Presbytery was no help at all in my situation. Nor would any self assessment process have uncovered the difficulties that were occurring IMHO.I see the flaws of the former oversight model. In that model someone from another Presbytery would likely have been more objective. Facilitation and assessment skills would also be useful. Given that we're talking about volunteers, that would be a challenge.
I don't see how self-assessment would work. When there are difficulties between the clergy and the congregation, or problems within the congregation will they be revealed with a self-assessment? I don't believe that model would have been of any use in a situation I was in. We (or some of we) were very thankful for the wisdom of some folks on Presbytery. Their level heads, kind and firm approach along with their experience was very useful. It would have been worse without their help.
This would be more of an Anglican model. United church is more almost anything goes, or has become that wayWhy not?
That's not a problem with accreditation, IMHO, that's a problem with how the organization approaches accreditation. We have two people working on our ISO and neither does that full-time save during our annual audits, though they are also charged with bringing the quality focus into other work. However, you are correct that some organizations get so hung up on the accreditation process that they essentially overdo it, which draws resources and energy from other areas. Accreditation is supposed to be evaluating and recommending improvements in existing processes, not creating a raft of new ones.I did a funeral for a person whose daughter worked for the hospital for many years as an RN. She saw the administration explode in size without improving hospital functioning. The hospital had passed its accreditation recently but she saw accreditation as faviuting things with lots of administration.
In my experience accreditation always took on a life of its own at evaluation time.That's not a problem with accreditation, IMHO, that's a problem with how the organization approaches accreditation. We have two people working on our ISO and neither does that full-time save during our annual audits, though they are also charged with bringing the quality focus into other work. However, you are correct that some organizations get so hung up on the accreditation process that they essentially overdo it, which draws resources and energy from other areas. Accreditation is supposed to be evaluating and recommending improvements in existing processes, not creating a raft of new ones.
Does it come back to the old issue of scarce volunteer resources?I filled in the self-assessment checklist and brought it up to our Board (as regional council rep). They nodded their heads at all the things we needed to do. However, no one is doing them. I know that I will need to spearhead a few but I don't want to do it all.
I don't recall us having too much of that committee stuff. We run pretty lean. Perhaps our home care operation (that I am no longer involved with as we sold them) had more of it but I was more peripheral to them. I guess my experience with ISO has been different than with healthcare accreditation. ISO audit reviews processes to make sure things are documented in accordance with our accepted standard and then goes to operations (including head office departments like mine) to see that the documented processes are available to staff and being followed.In between evaluations it influenced operations considerably with its requirements for various committees and so on. Not a bad thing I guess.
I think this is a crucial question! And it would be very interesting to know how the regions receive, track, respond to the reports. Has anyone actually yet received feedback on a self-assessment report?Does anything ever happen with these self-assessments or do they just get filed to comply with policy?
The Anglicans have their bishops which is a more hierarchical structure than ours. I imagine this system of governance has its pros and cons.This would be more of an Anglican model. United church is more almost anything goes, or has become that way