[sooadmin]

MaryAnn, of the 57 unique volunteers who sent in forms (three people sent in two), 16 are active volunteers right now (28.1%), 17 more have had an active enrollment within the past year (29.8%), and 24 have not volunteered (42.1%). A conversion rate of 58% is pretty good, although higher rates are possible – Aurora is in the 65% range; Durham hits about 75%.

[sooadmin]

We would treat a situation like the one you describe in the same manner as if a club had no one willing to be a head coach – we would conduct a thorough search to identify a suitable candidate for the role. Using Oakville as an example, we received 60 volunteer registration forms through our old form system over an 18-month timespan. I am confident that a suitable candidate could be found from a pool of that size.

[sooadmin]

Here’s the way I look at it: I want our volunteers to focus on tasks that they are willing and able to do. In TO, we have several head coaches who say, “I don’t want to deal with that online admin stuff.” And I’m fine with that – if narrowly focusing on coaching and mentoring is what you want to do, and what you’re good at, do it – IF and ONLY if the club has a volunteer who is willing to be the team manager and handle those responsibilities. Going forward, you can be a head coach of a club with zero knowledge or interest in computers, but you CANNOT be the Team Manager. That is a role that will require using the interface and handling enrollments and other matters online. If you aren’t computer savvy, you can volunteer, you can coach, but you can’t do admin. That genie won’t be stuffed back into the bottle.

[sooadmin]

MaryAnn, I will probably handle those, as long as the number of references to call is not too onerous. We are very strongly encouraging references to be done online – since the bulk of references are professional references, we should be able to do this.

[sooadmin]

We will be moving to a centralized reference check process early in the new year, so going forward this will not be an issue. Requests for reference checks will be sent out by email, with a link to the online reference check form, and completed reference check forms will be searched daily. I will then add the date of completion in the back end.

[sooadmin]

This has been noted. The Knowledgebase files will be updated in the new year.

[sooadmin]

Hi Maryann,

Yes, if a reference check is marked as complete with the date, that is an indication that the reference check was completed and signed off. Head coaches and team managers should now have the ability to complete this for themselves in the portal. If the club has verified with you (or a CC, VC, or Data Admin) that the check was completed, you can also login to the portal, mark the reference check as complete, and date it.

[sooadmin]

Thank you James. I tried to add myself as a volunteer and it nicely stepped me thorough the waiver questions. But, if I (as admin) or a team manager add volunteers to a program through either the bulk enrollment or enroll a volunteer options, the waiver questions remain unanswered and cannot be updated even by the person who owns the profile unless the person adds themselves as a volunteer? The majority of our current (not new) volunteers will not be happy with this… they come out to help and have already filled in an application and gotten a police check – they will not want to also now add themselves as a volunteer. They are a wonderful lot of people who give of their time and keep our programs running… can’t we just add them and then have them update these fields when they have a chance (hopefully)? Otherwise, I’ll have to continue to email Michael to get them updated after I ask every one of them if we have their permission. I do understand the potential legalities, but I have to think that at least the person who owns the profile should be able to update the field anytime (even if they change their mind part way through a session) they want to please.

[sooadmin]

Hi MaryAnn,

Thanks for chatting about this last week, it definitely helped clarify both what you were seeing vs. expected behaviour. Before responding we did bring it up with SOC and hit on both what we should see and what we can do which is inline with what we were talking about. I hope this clarifies things a bit:

The issue arises from a combination of security / user permissions at both the club/data admin level and specifically if a head coach / team manager or someone with permissions for a club attempts to add someone who has never been part of their club before. When adding someone who has not been part of a club previously (i.e. someone who is either currently active or is expired and previously active in a club) the club level administrator (head coach / team manager) does not have permissions on that record, as such they cannot approve the enrollment and it has to be kicked up a level to a Community Level Data Administrator / Community Coordinator / Registrar for approval.

I’ve checked with Farkhanda and this should only happen if someone other than the member themselves (either the athlete / family member on behalf of athlete) enrolls the person. The reason for this behaviour is one of security: If a head coach / community coordinator can add anyone across the province and approve that addition then they would effectively be able to get access to any member record anywhere and all of their personal information regardless of where that member was located (which is untenable from a privacy perspective, the operating principal of the system is that an administrator should only have access to the records that they need to see and that there are some level of checks to ensure that they can’t see the records they shouldn’t). Community Level Data Administrators have a higher level of permission to be able to see everyone in their community and already have access to those records and can thus make that determination.

Now (and this part is important). That behaviour will not happen if someone enrolls themselves in the program. In a situation where an athlete, volunteer or family member on behalf of same registers the volunteer then the coach of the program will be able to approve the registration.

The trick as noted by MaryAnn is that it isn’t readily available on the screen that the Data Admin sees as to which ones require your approval (which should only be the ones that the coaches add directly who are new to their club) vs. which ones can be approved by the coaches (the majority, including already existing members and people who enrolled themselves or family members).

Here’s the good news. In bringing this up with Special Olympics Canada last week, they have the option in the portal connector to be able to add a column that would flag those records (and that we should be able to filter that list on) so that we’ll be able to easily see which ones you need to approve and which ones you don’t. We don’t want to remove your ability to see whose pending in the queue but that should address the major concern. I don’t have timing for the next rollout but it will be prioritized on that list.

The expected behaviour will thus be this (and this is, to be clear the behaviour right now, minus the ability to filter your approvals list for only the ones that require your approval).

1. A member enrolls themselves in a program that they have either been in before (but are expired) or are currently in (re-enrollment) –> Head Coach / Team Manager can approve at Club level.
2. A member enrolls themselves (or a family member) in a program that they have never been in before (new to the program) –> Head Coach / Team Manager can approve at Club level.
3. A Head Coach / Team Manager enrolls an athlete (not part of their family) who is already a member of their program (active) or has been a member of their program previously (expired / inactive) –> Head Coach / Team Manager can approve at Club Level
4. A Head Coach / Team Manager enrolls an athlete (not part of their family) who is NOT already a member of their program or has never been part of the program before (new enrollment)  –> Community Level Approval Required (Data Admin, Community Coordinator, Registrar)

We would expect that the club level administrators would be able to see the people that require their approval, and that the community level administrators would be able to see everyone (both club level and community level approvals required). The additional feature which would clarify things would be that the community level user would be able to filter their view (and would have an additional column to highlight) those that require their action so they don’t have to spend time figuring that out. That last bit has been added to our workplan.

Hope that provides some clarification on what should happen, and what needs to be updated. Thanks for taking the time to run through it with me, the talk we had definitely helped in how we explained what was needed to improve that part of the system.

James

[sooadmin]

The end user should be able to update their media release (we’re looking into this on another question at the moment as well).

There was some discussion with legal about allowing admin users to change that media release status and it was recommended that only the member be permitted to do so, which is why its restricted from an administration level.

 

[sooadmin]

Hi Lynda,

I’m pretty sure that when someone completes a new enrollment, it will allow you to confirm that information (and they’ll be able to change that status). They should be able to make that change. We’ll look into why its greyed out. If you could email Farkhanda with an example of someone who can’t we’ll see if we can trace that issue.

J

[sooadmin]

Will look into that one! It’s a good suggestion.

[sooadmin]

Hi MaryAnn,

That’s definitely a good suggestion to administrative users when you’re evaluating if two individuals are in fact the same person.

We do consider Nickname when we are looking at duplicate records, but it is not included in the automated function because nickname isn’t consistently used and has a higher amount of variability.

[sooadmin]

Has been added to the list of suggested modifications for Report 54

[sooadmin]

With apologies for the delay. Its a great suggestion and in chatting with SOC on a number of things last week, the utility of such a report across all chapters was very well received. Thanks so much for providing details on needed fields that simplifies things significantly for the developers.

To be clear to all reading this thread, this report would address the distinction between reporting on New Enrollments to programs vs. New Members Registering in a community (i.e. creating their account and going through the process for the first time). It would greatly help with processing of new members at the community level.

Its been added to the list of reports in development. We’re waiting to hear what the timeline is for the rollout of the next set of updates.