Some years ago the IPC (international promotion committee) and the NADT (NA development taskforce) were consolidated into the ODC (organisational development committee). Behind the new acronym and under the leadership of an experienced CISVer (Sanna/SWE) an effort was made to re-organize CISVs worldwide efforts to grow and develop into new countries and to strenghthen existing NAs. Regional coordinators (ReCos - name stolen from the juniors) and Regional Training forums (RTCs, another acronym) were implemented to co-ordinate and facilitate the development of CISV around the globe.
I was pleased to find a document in this years AIM papers that indicated how specific efforts are being made, to help NAs grow from promotional association to a full blown chapter. The document also gives a great overview how these countries are complying with CISV standards, and what to do about it. Very nice, indeed.
The holy grail, however are not those promotional countries, I believe, but existing category A nations. Quite obviously there is a huge variety on how strong NAs and chapters are, and to what extent they are taking part in all of the CISV programmes. Under the label "category A CISV NA" you can find a 20-chapter NA that hosts everything from village to Mosaic down to a single chapter-NA that sends out a lonely village delegation every year, and manages to host a youth meeting every second year.
I really think, there should be some revision to the category system that reflects those differences. I don't want to punish those small NAs, but I would like to have a fair picture, of how strong the NAs are. Furthermore, I would actually like the super-NAs (or G8 as they have been called) to be officially labeled and to take a bigger share of responsibility in workload and funding. Also I'd like a category system, that encourages small NAs to take part in all of the 7 programmes CISV offers. Only an NA that hosts and participates in all programmes should be called Category A.
I was pleased to find a document in this years AIM papers that indicated how specific efforts are being made, to help NAs grow from promotional association to a full blown chapter. The document also gives a great overview how these countries are complying with CISV standards, and what to do about it. Very nice, indeed.
The holy grail, however are not those promotional countries, I believe, but existing category A nations. Quite obviously there is a huge variety on how strong NAs and chapters are, and to what extent they are taking part in all of the CISV programmes. Under the label "category A CISV NA" you can find a 20-chapter NA that hosts everything from village to Mosaic down to a single chapter-NA that sends out a lonely village delegation every year, and manages to host a youth meeting every second year.
I really think, there should be some revision to the category system that reflects those differences. I don't want to punish those small NAs, but I would like to have a fair picture, of how strong the NAs are. Furthermore, I would actually like the super-NAs (or G8 as they have been called) to be officially labeled and to take a bigger share of responsibility in workload and funding. Also I'd like a category system, that encourages small NAs to take part in all of the 7 programmes CISV offers. Only an NA that hosts and participates in all programmes should be called Category A.
Very good point made! The categorization system is not a negative punishing system. Yes all NAs should want to be categorized Category A, but that should also mean that with the category comes more responsibilities. There is no shame in being Category B if the NA right now isn't able to give as much as a Category A.
I totally agree with the suggestion of revising the system and highly want to see encouragement for NAs to take part in all 7 programs and not only the ones that award the most "points" - and even more host them! Let's see how things will develop with the new point system.