Committees
| Introduction
and Assumptions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
Committees
| Introduction
and Assumptions
|
||||
|
Introduction and Assumptions |
||
|
Introduction The following recommendations were made from deliberations of the RHI/Kellogg Integration Coordinating Committee. These deliberations represent approximately 28 hours of committee meetings on August 18, October 21, November 16 and 17, 1994 and April 27 and May 22, 1995. Committee members spent numerous individual hours in reading and reviewing materials. This committee's work was based on the findings of the focus groups held to gather in put on the integration or restructuring of a joint RHI and Kellogg Community Partnerships programs, the Kellogg evaluation material, other data sources, and written comments from program participants on various drafts of these guidelines. These recommendations also reflect the guiding principles of this planning process established jointly by both bodies on June 17, 1994 and other in put from program participants.Approximately 24 hours were spent in 8 separate focus groups discussing issues concerning the strengths and weakness of each program and their restructuring. These focus groups identified the need for consistency of policy in all levels of this new organization to ensure that the mutual goals will be met and that the positive elements of both programs can be preserved. There was a continual theme throughout this work that the new structure had to have accountability measures built in.
AssumptionsThere also appears to be concern that the existing consortia in RHI need to be redefined or reaffirmed and that the existing Kellogg sites need to be expanded. This restructuring will have to occur from the ground up. This means that the current sites, given some specific guidelines and requirements, will have to make decisions regarding their current structure and address changes in this structure and the expansion or reduction of the consortia. It is possible however to describe levels of governance and even representation without knowing the final number of the consortia within the state. From the focus group discussions, it also appears that the stronger and more successful components of the program are best applied at the most local level as possible. These components include such things as community representation in governance, multi/interdisciplinary sessions, community research and service projects, definition of staff roles including site coordinators, and field professors |
||
 |
|
|
|
||||
|
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
||||||
 |
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||