Date post: | 06-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kaleylemottee |
View: | 39 times |
Download: | 4 times |
1
Early Childhood Development Conditional Grant Monitoring System
Khulisa Management Services
Jennifer Bisgard Tender EDO 222
Adapted from 13 April 2004; Presented 14 August 2014
2
Provincial Implementation: Overview
Conditional Grant:Selected sites (target 4500);Administered financial support in the form
of subsidies / practitioner salaries; Disbursed resource kits; Created advocacy; andSupported training practitioners.
3
Introduction: Background
This report is a snapshot
of implementation,not impact.
2002 2003 2004 2010
Provincial Grant Payments
Advocacy Campaign
Resource Kits
Monitoring & Support System Training &
Training of Management Structures
Khulisa Monitoring of the Conditional Grant Implementation
Cur
rent
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
Gra
de R
Com
puls
ory
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
Gra
de R
Continuing Benefits / Maintenance
Main Implementation
Preparation for Implementation
RTO Training
Implementation of Conditional Grant Components & Khulisa Monitoring
4
IntroductionTraining of Provincial and District Officials: Were provincial and district officials satisfied and did they show relevant learning following the Khulisa training programme?Implementation of Monitoring and Support Systems: How well has the monitoring and support systems been implemented?Provincial Conditional Grant Implementation: How effectively have the provinces delivered the conditional grant?
5
IntroductionConditional Grant Implementation: How has the conditional grant affected the sites?Advocacy Campaign Issues: What level of awareness do the officials involved in this project have of the advocacy campaign?Broader ECD issues: What are the findings related to the following broad ECD issues: Social Development Registration? Grade R Learner Admission Policy? Social Grant Disbursement? Primary School Nutrition Programme? South African Council of Educators (SACE) Registration?
6
Caveat
This is a monitoring not a research project from June 2003 to March 2004 Monitoring visits cannot be generalised to a
province or to a district Monitoring visits may have been
(unconsciously or consciously) biased Once most sites are monitored twice a year
then the results will be more representative
7
Reliability of ResultsVery reliable but slight deviations in the interpretation of findings occur. Officials sometimes feel “sorry” and inflate scoring so as “not to penalise” sites. Despite four quality control measures, inaccuracies still occur.
8
Training of Provincial & District Officials
Were provincial and district officials satisfied with the training and did they show
relevant learning following the Khulisa training programme?
9
Provincial Outcomes
To be able to analyse and write up the data into quarterly monitoring reports
To set up conditional grants monitoring and support systems
To be able to hold staff accountable for the monitoring and support process
To ensure use of monitoring and support system on all Grade R sites
To be able to train staff in the monitoring and support process
Unit 1 – General Overview of the Monitoring and Support System
Unit 2 – Monitoring and Evaluation
Unit 3 - Support
Unit 4 – Quality Control
Unit 5 – Logistical Planning
Unit 6 – Training Officials in your Province
Data Analysis and Report writing workshops
10
Training of Officials: District Outcomes
Unit 1 – General Overview of the Monitoring and Support System
Unit 2 – Monitoring and Evaluation
Unit 3 - Support
Unit 4 – Quality Control
Unit 5 – Logistical Planning
To be able to plan and conduct monitoring of conditional grants and other Grade R sites
To be able to provide support which results in the performance of sites improving
To be able to quality assure monitoring data
11
Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model
Summary of the 4-level Strategic Training Model.
LEVEL 1 Satisfaction: Were trainees satisfied with the quality of their training?
LEVEL 2 Learning: Did trainees learn, or acquire the
knowledge, skills, or attitudes the training was intended to convey?
LEVEL 3 Application: If they learned, did the trainees apply to
their jobs, or at their workplace, the new knowledge, skills, or attitudes?
LEVEL 4 Organisational
Performance: If knowledge, skills, or attitudes were applied, did that make a measurable difference to the performance of the organisation concerned?
Summary of the 4-level Strategic Training Model.
LEVEL 1 Satisfaction: Were trainees satisfied with the quality of their training?
LEVEL 2 Learning: Did trainees learn, or acquire the
knowledge, skills, or attitudes the training was intended to convey?
LEVEL 3 Application: If they learned, did the trainees apply to
their jobs, or at their workplace, the new knowledge, skills, or attitudes?
LEVEL 4 Organisational
Performance: If knowledge, skills, or attitudes were applied, did that make a measurable difference to the performance of the organisation concerned?
12
Training of Officials: Summary Findings
Were provincial and district officials satisfied and did they show relevant learning following the Khulisa training programme? High degree of satisfaction with the training process (level one).
Evidence of learning – both theoretical and practical (level two). Most participants had good attitude but when attitude was
negative, evidence that the attitude improved (level two). Completed forms and the participation rates indicate levels
three and four partially achieved
Not all provinces are equal in their performance but some embraced the monitoring system enthusiastically.
13
Implementation of the Monitoring & Support System
How well has the monitoring and support
system been implemented?
14
Productivity: Officials Monitoring
Average sites monitored per official 6.4: LP officials most productive (10.7 visits)NC least productive One Mpumalanga official with 64 sites!
Low average of 6 visits over 8 months, raises questions about the support model
15
No. of Sites Monitored
Possible
Sites
Nr. visited at least once
% Visited once
Nr visited twice or more
% Visited twice or more
EC 841 223 26.5% 10 1.2%
FS 290 174 60.0% 43 14.8%
GP 558 390 69.9% 88 15.8%
KZN 1035 229 22.1% 15 1.4%
LP 711 358 50.4% 14 2.0%
MP 341 186 54.5% 21 6.2%
NC 172 127 73.8% 8 4.7%
NW 170 63 37.1% 2 1.2%
WC 439 223 50.8% 13 3.0%
Total 4557 1973 43.3% 214 4.7%
16
System Implementation: Officials’ Comments
Greater sense of structure / focus:“I didn’t know what to do when I get to the ECD site but ever
since I was trained on how to monitor and quality control… I don’t have problems.”
Opportunities: “I have learned that there is a team working together to
improve the standard of ECD in our province.”Improved quality of site visits:
“Our school visits are much more focussed.”Improvement at the sites:
“I can see the differences at the sites after the visits and they have been improved.”
17
System Implementation: Officials’ Comments
Positive attitude:“My attitude towards site practitioners has totally changed.
The amount of effort they put in managing those sites and the eagerness to learn from mistakes made [impressed
me].”“I have a different approach now when giving feedback to the
educators that I am working with.”Impact on their workload:
“It has made some changes, although I feel I’m not doing justice to this monitoring process due to the overload of
my work.”
18
System Implementation: Officials’ Comments
Work is easier:“It makes my work as specialist easier. I know exactly what I will do at a site and what I would
like to achieve.”Sense of purpose with this system:
“It changed the way I work with sites because now there is a country-wide tool being used which assists with monitoring and which provides direction with regards to what is monitored.”
19
Provincial Conditional Grant Implementation
How effectively have the provinces delivered the conditional grant?
20
Provincial Implementation: Summary Findings
How effectively have the provinces delivered the conditional grant? Target: 4500 sites, 4396 supported Of those 2/3rds received subsidy on time
2600 received the kits, but 48% could show them Since Khulisa was not given the training database, no report on the RPL or training process
21
Level of Implementation at Conditional Grant Sites
How has the conditional grant affected the sites?
22
Implementation Level: Introduction
Sites categorisation “red”/ requires extensive assistance, “yellow” requires support, “green” requires less support and “purple” / outstanding
Progress data based on the 214 sites that were visited twice.
24
Implementation Level: Finance & Admin
Potential support strategies:Provide templates, exemplars and guidance; Identify practical management tips;Motivate use of good financial and
administrative records;Champion ECD issues; andPromote Social Development registration.
26
Implementation Level: Healthy Development
Possible support:Identify and communicate areas
where support is required with practitioner;
Encourage sites to register with Social Development;
Supply resources; andProvide Knowledge / Skill Support.
28
Implementation Level: HIV/AIDS
Possible support strategies:Raise HIV/AIDS awareness; Provide information regarding how to
deal with HIV/AIDS at site level (blood injuries, orphaned children, nutrition);
Supply first aid training and resources (including cheaper substitutes);
Work with other stakeholders to build referral and support networks.
30
Implementation Level: Active Learning
Support strategiesBuild awareness and active learning skills;Hold Training tenderer accountable through
monitoring system;Focus on follow up and reinforce training
(partly through accessing Training database); Minimise contradictive messages (Training
tenderer vs. province);Promote “communities of practice”.
32
Implementation Level: Overall
Performance Category Nr. of sites % Total
Strong (Purple) 475 24%
Average (Green) 1143 58%
Needs support (Yellow) 338 17%
Needs intensive support (Red) 17 1%
Total sites 1973 100%
33
Implementation Level: Progress
Province Improved Same WeakenedNr. of
Sites
EC 60% 0% 40% 10
FS 70% 0% 30% 43
GP 68% 1% 31% 88
KZN 47% 0% 53% 15
LP 57% 0% 43% 14
MP 43% 0% 57% 21
NC 50% 0% 50% 8
NW 50% 0% 50% 2
WC 69% 0% 31% 13
Total 63% 0% 37% 214
*Note: Only 214 sites were visited more than once
34
Broader ECD issues
What are the findings related to the following broad ECD issues:
Social development registrationGrade R Learner Admission Policy
Social Grant DisbursementPrimary School Nutrition Programme
SACE Registration
35
Soc. Dev. Registration
Not RegisteredConditionally
Registered Fully Registered
EC % 25.9% 13.7% 60.4%
FS % 3.8% 92.4% 3.8%
GP % 27.6% 31.0% 41.4%
KZN % 32.4% 8.8% 58.8%
LP % 59.7% 13.2% 27.1%
MP % 42.3% 37.1% 20.6%
NC % 37.0% 21.9% 41.1%
NW % 25.9% 46.6% 27.6%
WC % 25.0% 53.7% 21.3%
Total % 34.2% 31.8% 34.0%
*Note: Only sites that were indicated to be community based are included in this table. About 43 of the sites did not provide any information on this aspect.
36
Child Support Grants
Unaware Aware Total
EC 31% 69% 100%
FS 27% 73% 100%
GP 50% 50% 100%
KZN 29% 71% 100%
LP 18% 82% 100%
MP 19% 81% 100%
NC 16% 84% 100%
NW 15% 85% 100%
WC 67% 33% 100%
Total 33% 67% 100%
* Note: 112 Sites did not provide information on this aspect.
ProvinceReceiving
GrantsNot Receiving
Grants
EC 14.8% 85.2%
FS 27.3% 72.7%
GP 26.5% 73.5%
KZN 12.9% 87.1%
LP 19.5% 80.5%
MP 48.3% 51.7%
NC 22.7% 77.3%
NW 27.1% 72.9%
WC 22.7% 77.3%
Total 24.3% 75.7%
*Note: This table only contains responses for practitioners that indicated that they were aware about social grants
disbursement.
37
Broader ECD Issues: Summary Findings
What are the findings related to the following broad ECD issues:
Social Development Registration: Required for community-based sites, a third of the sites monitored are not even conditionally registered
Grade R Learner Admission Policy: In 13.3% Grade R classes, practitioners admitted to over-age learners
38
Broader ECD Issues: Summary Findings
Social Grant Disbursement: Practitioners’ pastoral role is increasingly important due to HIV/AIDS, but 1/3 do not know if their learners are receiving their social grants Primary School Nutrition Programme: According to practitioners, only 59% of school-based sites are actually receiving PSNP food/supportSACE Registration: Only 13% Grade R teachers are registered