ࡱ> MOLM +bjbj== )DWW'l,,,,,,,@NNN8 L@,2"      =,?,?,?,?,?,?,$- 0Lc,,     c,,,  x, , , =, =,9+,,!,  @N"+!,,0, ,\0\0!,@@,,,,Report on FS Advocacy Meeting held on 17th June 2003 In Attendance: Gerard Griffin, National Co-ordinator for Senior Traveller Training Centres Guss OConnell, Manager Community Based Training Support Unit, FS Donal Gillespie, St Fiachras Training Centre Peter Geraghty, Director, Shannon Bank Training Centre Theresa Kenny, Shannon Bank Training Centre Maureen Murphy, Magnet Training Centre Mary Corrigan, Tara Education Centre Tom Noone, Youth Development Project Thurles Patricia Ryan, Clare Youth Services Helen OSullivan, Director, St Josephs Training Centre Olga Spellman, Youthreach Ballaghdereen Bernie Downes, Director, READ Mary Gordon, NEPS Frances OReilly, St Finbarrs Training Centre Joan Brown, RYTC Anne Bourke, Clonmel Youth Training Enterprises Fergal Egan, Director, Ross Training Centre Joe Gough, Director, St Olivers Training Centre Fran Fitzgibbon, Community Services, FS Context A questionnaire was designed in consultation with Gerard Griffin, National Co-ordinator of Senior Traveller Training Centres (STTCs) and Guss OConnell, Manager Community Based Training Support Unit, FS and circulated to all Directors of Traveller Training Centres. The purpose of the questionnaire was to ascertain the involvement of a FS Advocate Programme and other actions by FS in relation to Centres nationally. As a result of feedback received a meeting was arranged on 17th June 2003, the purpose of which was to review the provision of the Advocate Programme and explore some of the issues identified in the findings of the questionnaire. Only Centre Directors who indicated that they had access to the FAS Advocacy Programme were invited to the meeting as it was felt it would be more relevant to them. It was also deemed necessary to explore the interaction between FS Employment Services/LES and the STTCs programme considering the fact that FS has 800 Travellers on Employment Services/ LES books of which most are referred by the Department of Social Welfare under the Employment Action Plan. Meeting The meeting consisted of three presentations, namely: Presentation of Synthesis of Outcomes of Questionnaire: Gerard Griffin, National Co-ordinator of STTCs The following points were addressed in this presentation: Presentation covered the statistical data in relation to the information gathered. Number of hours per week allocated to the Advocate in each STTC. The adequacy of the provision of the service Board of Management representation by FS and other supports provided by FS and STTCs. The issue of dedicated staff members who have responsibility for placement and related issues in STTCs. Issues in relation to placement/work experience/progression for Travellers. The role for FS. The relationship between FAS Employment Services/LES and STTCs. Overview of the Advocacy Programme: Guss OConnell, Manager Community Based Training Support Unit, FS This input focussed on: The Context of the programme. The objectives of the programme. The definition of advocacy. The 9 stages of advocacy. Criterions for Success. Relationship between Advocacy, the Person and the Job. Presentation on role of FS Advocate: Maureen Murphy, FS Advocate This input focussed on: Overview of Progression from Tara Education Centre. The Role of the FS Advocate. The Work of the Advocate. Framework for Career Path Planning. Strength of the Programme. Guidelines for Career Path Planning (9 Steps) Networking After the presentations, participants were divided into workshops to explore 2 questions, which had been developed to stimulate discussion; (i) The difficulties surrounding placement work experience for Travellers? and, (ii) How the advocacy programme could be improved? Three groups explored these questions and reported back in the Plenary Session. They did not, however, stick rigidly to the questions outlined above but rather incorporated the questions into their discussion. The Chairperson and attendees were identified in each groups feedback. The following were the outcomes of the groups: Group 1 Length of time in the Centre for Trainees was not adequate for progression to take place. A definition of progression was agreed for the group which included progression within the Centre. Role of the Advocate: could it be to look at progression within the Centre and this may be more realistic for STTCs. Is there a need for the Advocate to work with the learner to make a plan for the learners progress and devise a learning plan as a result? Progression from the Centre could be seen as work experience, further education and training, work and job schemes. The question of the Advocate taking some classes in appropriate subjects was discussed. However, it was felt that this could change the Advocates role and cause tensions in the Centre as part-time staff may be worried about their own positions. At what point should the Advocate get involved with learners regarding working on a career path. It was felt that this should take place at the end of 2 years when the learner goes into progression year. The approach should be flexible and staff and the group of learners and their profile would need to be looked at in each case. Planning needs to be a collaborative process. Ways need to be found in order that the Advocates knowledge and expertise could be brought into the Centre. The Advocate could make a directory of local services which could be accessed when they leave. Opportunities for work experience: it was felt that many circumstances limit this and Government bodies need to start the ball rolling by each taking Travellers on work experience. Self-employment should be considered as an option for work experience. Group 2 Length of the training programme: it was felt that the trainees are coming to the Centres with very poor literacy skills and possibly have only attended primary school. Thus, you will find learners of mixed ability. In view of this, two years is not enough time. The length of the training programme should be based on the individual needs of the learners and an extension of the programme could be agreed depending on where the person is in terms of their formal examinations. Mixture of settled and non-settled Travellers: this can affect the programme. Need for proper management structure (administrative structure for Centres) should be agreed to cover in the event of absence of the Director from the Centre. Opportunity is very limited for progression/placement for learners due to settled communitys experience of Travellers (stealing, etc.) Time was devoted to the discussion surrounding programme based initiatives, e.g. child-care programmes, Co Council, Health Board, Horticulture ventures and the Adovcate could be instrumental in advocating this type of initiative. Insurance: a blanket cover is necessary and this information should be given to prospective employers so that they are aware of their responsibility from this perspective. Group 3 Length of trainee year. The programme should be longer than 2 years; year 1 should provide a sample of all courses available at the Centre with progression in year 2. Assessment (psychological testing) models need to be developed. Individual learning plans should be developed for each learner and staff should be provided with the necessary skills to carry out this task effectively. An induction programme needs to be developed to include a general introduction to the advocacy programme. The development of a realistic work training module which includes an agreed definition of advocacy. The role of the Advocate was discussed. However, it was deemed to be too broad. The development of a policy in terms of eligibility to enter a work training programme which will encourage sustainability for the benefit of the Centre and the employer. A register of employers needs to be developed for each Centre (Directory). A general information pack needs to be developed by the Centre to indicate a learners role with regard to going out on work experience. Racism and discrimination has created barriers for progression from Centres. Positive discrimination should be encouraged by employers. An induction programme for new Advocates needs to be developed. Evaluation Sheets Each participant completed an Evaluation Sheet prior to leaving the meeting. Generally everyone was very positive with regard to the location and venue. People were extremely positive with regard to the content of the programme and the following encapsulates some of the comments which indicate this: A very good overview of the service was provided Well run and enjoyable to participate in A useful discussion took place on the role of the Advocate Excellent synthesis of questionnaire was outlined Nice to meet other Directors and Advocates and hear the views and clarify the roles General Recommendations Arising from the Meeting, the following recommendations were put forward: There was a need to employ more Advocates in order to provide all Centres with this service. The need for an agreed definition for progression. It should not be seen as obtaining employment solely. A clear definition of advocacy needs to be developed. The general principles/philosophy of the STTC should be enshrined in the working ethos of the advocacy programme. Centres greater than 50 places should have access to two Advocates. The Advocate posts should be full time with agreed terms and conditions. There needs to be a support service developed to support the work of the Advocate. Advocates should be seen as crucial to the Centre team and should be involved in all matters associated with the development of the Centre. An induction programme needs to be developed for newly appointed Advocates. More national meetings for Advocates and Directors. Conclusion In conclusion the day was deemed to be a success and the opportunity to network was appreciated by all attendees and become familiar with the advocacy programme. However, it was felt that more time should be allocated for discussion on this most important service to Centres. PAGE  PAGE 2 )+68G   A y )nLrcnovjqn$$%&&&**+++++++++++++0JmHnHu0J j0JU 56>*5H*6 5>*H*5>*3678G=i@j 6g @^ @dh$a$++  @ A y 7 x e $ & F a$$ & Fa$$^a$$ & F >^`>a$$ >^`>a$$a$)noKLr$ & Fa$ $ ^a$$ & F >^`>a$$a$$ & F *>^`>a$$ & F >^`>a$$^a$8S+,$ & F *>^`>a$$ >^`>a$$ & F >^`>a$$a$ $ ^a$$ & Fa$,#$no$%noxz[\JK$ & F >^`>a$$a$$ >^`>a$$ & F *>^`>a$ijsu  f!g!!!""""####$ >^`>a$$a$$ >^`>a$$ & F >^`>a$#,$-$m$n$$$%%%&O&&&&&&&&B'C'$ a$ $ a$$ >^`>a$$a$$ >^`>a$$ & F >^`>a$C''' ( (B(C(((((D)E)))%*&*r*s*****+$a$ $ & F>`>a$$ a$$ & F >`>a$+++++++++$a$ r  !&`#$' 0&P 1. A!"#n$% i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph Font, @, Footer  9r &)@& Page Number,, Header  9r 'D678G=i@j 6g  @Ay7 x e    ) n o  K L r  8 S +,#$no$%noxz[\JKijsufg, - m n !!!"O""""""""B#C### $ $B$C$$$$$D%E%%%%&&&r&s&&&&&'''''                                                            0@@0@ +,#C'++ !+ !!\iqwt|""''''''''''''NCU Gerry Griffin,C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\FAS Advocacy - Report.docdefault7C:\web3\STTC\publications\FAS_Advocacy_Report_Dec03.doc _X)1 u^R p*M B, D7/EIPxv5d"TRkL^`o() ^`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH. jj^j`hH. :L:^:`LhH.   ^ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.>^`>o()h^`CJOJQJaJo(hH L^`LhH.   ^ `hH. jj^j`hH. :L:^:`LhH.   ^ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. bLb^b`LhH. 2 2 ^2 `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. rr^r`hH. BLB^B`LhH.^`CJOJQJaJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh**^*`CJOJQJaJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhjj^j`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh::^:`OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH**^*`o()h^`CJOJQJaJo(hH L^`LhH.   ^ `hH. jj^j`hH. :L:^:`LhH.   ^ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.h^`CJOJQJaJo(hHh~ ~ ^~ `OJQJ^Jo(hHohN N ^N `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^^^^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh..^.`OJQJo(hHh^`CJOJQJaJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`CJOJQJaJo(hHhbb^b`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh2 2 ^2 `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHhrr^r`OJQJo(hHhBB^B`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH IPM 1 D7/_Rk, p5d"T '''@dX'P@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial?1 Courier New;Wingdings"1hW|fW|f{F E!G!nZ0dH('&2ReportNCU defaultZOh+'0|  , 8 D P\dltReportepoNCU tCU CU Normaldefault2faMicrosoft Word 9.0@F#@F(n@{@{ Z՜.+,0 hp|  tEH( Report Title  !"$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;=>?@ABCEFGHIJKNRoot Entry FP1Table#\0WordDocument)DSummaryInformation(<DocumentSummaryInformation8DCompObjjObjectPool  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q