It's fair to say that the DfP session at NICVA on budget pre-consultation was not the most uplifting or inspiring in terms of message or content though this does not detract from the most welcome openness and willingness to field questions as evidenced by MIke Brennan of DfP.
I have to echo what have been consistent messages emitting from NICVA in recent times namely that we, the Community & Voluntary sector, have yet to fully grasp much less actually experience the fullest impacts of the recession, and that in a budgetary sense, there should be a concerted level of activity in the weeks ahead to lay down firmly that short-term fiscal decisions have to factor in longer-term societal impacts.
Of the many questions and comments uttered at Tuesday's session, my sense was that some were dealt with and some were not to the same extent. Of these I believe one of our issues as a sector is - what are frontline services? Is there a default perspective within government/civil service that the C&V sector delivers frontline services? Or is the lack of such a perspective a particular problem?
Also, there is a question of scale - is there a risk that future funding approaches will become safety first, prioritising investment in larger organisations for reasons of would-be economies of scale, perceived governance reliability or belief that the larger the organisation, the less painful the cut?
Finally, if terms such as protectionism and entrenchment are doing the rounds, and yes they are, I believe we have to guard against new regional disparities being created - everything going back to the centre, and opportunities to a) rural-proof expenditure approaches, or b) explore areas of joint-jurisdiction co-operation end up not being carried out.

I was glad of the opportunity to attend the DFP event and look forward to the series of talks from the Departments. I view the DFP presentation as a more of a 'scene setting' exercise and I would really like to see the individual departments get into discussions around the difficult questions that we have to face. For example:

Should DEL be spending money on university bursaries or on improving basic adult literacy?
Should DETI be spending money on improving broadband speeds or Energy infrastructure or yet more economic research into why we aren't as productive as other places?
Should DE be spending money on a crumbling schools estate without first streamlining the schools estate (there are far too many schools) ?
Should DCAL be spending money on anything or are culture, arts and leisure luxuries we can ill afford?

Should populist costly policies be abandoned now - can we afford free public transport for the elderly, free prescriptions for all and not charge for water?

A final point I would make is that during the discussion, someone mentioned that the number of departments should be reduced. Mike informed us that the analysis that DFP has conducted suggested the savings would be in single digit millions. I trust he wasn't dismissing the idea on this basis. Any organisation I know of would jump at the opportunity to shave single digit millions off their cost base!

Lisa, A big thank you to NICVA for developing these sessions as they are really helpful in getting your head around the issue(s).

A personal reflection: I worry that neither our politicians nor our senior public sector officials have sufficient enterprise 'hard wired' into their structures to meaningfully address our problem. I don't think there is a solution in 'business as usual' but at a lower quantum. We need to address simultaneously the revenue generation side of the economic equation, while restructuring but not destructing our important public sector for the emerging economic reality. I dont think personally that the public sector needs to be the provider of services in every context but believe strongly that it must be the intelligent commissioner of services, ensuring best value and best economic impact - after all (& we don't say this often enough) they are spending our money, even if we only pay 75p of every £1 spent.

It worried me that 'selling off the silver' (NI Water) is the niave short term 'fix' capital injection solution being suggested when it is really the recurring long term revenue advantage of mutualised public ownership that is of real economic value to us all.

I look forward to hearing what others have to say as this is an important debate.

All of the commentators make many very valid points and I would like to reiterate the real danger of short term cuts resulting in long term significantly higher costs to society and the tax payer of such an approach. For instance, it is widely accepted that relationships breakdown for a variety of reasons ( we are not judging but accepting this as part of life) but that the impact on any children from the relationship is not the breakdown itself but how it is managed. Estrangement from one parent, constant negativity between warring parents, long entrenched court cases, children being interviewed by social services & court welfare officers, children experiencing feelings of divided loyalty , these are just a small example of an all too typical family going through a hostile separation and this is not to mention effects on parent with care and estranged parent, physical and mental health, days of work, welfare dependency, cost to legal services commission in legal aid and on it goes......

Family Mediation NI offer an alternative and empower separating parents and their children to focus on the needs of the children through using mediation to find their own personal solutions for the future as co-parenting apart at a fraction of the cost in financial terms. How do you measure emotional well-being??? There is a wealth of research that points to badly managed family breakdown being sited as one of the main factors for poor educational achievement, anti-social behaviour, criminality, imprisonment, inability to maintain adult realationships, anti-social behaviour, self-harm, suicide, homelessness, substance and alcohol addiction, unemployment, ....... try measuring the cost of that!

It must be strongly argued that many of societies so called ills can be remedied by early intervention as pointed out by Home Start and many other significant 'third sector' organisation working on the coal face, be that Parents Advice Centre, Gingerbread, Sure Start and FMNI ,all working with parents to benefit children and families now and importantly future generations. This in itself is an 'efficiency' saving and to curtail funding at a time when families require more assistance is simply adding to the bill in terms of health. welfare, housing, prisons and legal aid.

Most voluntary & community sector groups and organisations will maintain that they offer a unique service and for the most part this is the case. But in these cash strapped times, I propose that to continue to deliver professional services that are obviously in demand we must look to better, more effective partnerships and amalgamations, this is a difficult choice but one that has to be made for a number of services to survive and ultimately to continue to provide long term investment in families and young people. It is now accepted that the third sector has the experience and the skills to deliver services that are making a difference, at quarter of the cost of the public sector, that the population trusts and that target those in need. It would be an unmitigated disaster to throw the baby out with the bath water !

Agreed with a lot of what commenters have already said. Thought Mike Brennan's point in reponse to "what's a frontline service" was interesting. How many back office staff can be cut before front line workers have less "face time" to spend with the public and perform other functions previously undertaken by back office?
Our fear would be that the cuts will retrench public spending further to the centre and will hit the vulnerable in rural communities disproportionately. For an older person or someone with a disability living in rural Tyrone and trying to access an important health appointment in Craigavon, Antrim or Belfast unless you have access to a car these journeys can be nearly impossible, especially if its a 9am appointment.
We would also echo the concerns of commenters around Stormont cutting back but just doing more of the same. There is a lack of vision about where the economy is going. IIRC when the first Programme for Government was launched in 2007 one of the key aims was to grow the private sector. Whilst that's a laudable aim there hasn't been much debate , and far less action, on making that happen. Growing the private sector and reducing the public sector shouldn't be a zero sum game and people are now realising their interdependence.
Whilst service delivery by the sector is important we shouldn't lose sight of the importance of community development in building community cohesion, developing social capital and promoting enagagment with democracy.

I agree with the points made by previous commenters. Contact a Family NI (CaF NI) is concerned about the extent of the proposed cuts in funding at a time when vulnerable families are seeing cuts in statutory services and reduced support services from the community and voluntary sector. We have received a report today of parents being told by their local disability team that they will have to pay for a carer for their disabled child.

CaF NI provides province wide support and services to families with disabled children who are already under severe pressure both emotionally and financially. Our mission and purpose is to remove the barriers imposed by society which prevent families with disabled children achieving their full potential, and to empower these families to live the lives they want to lead.

We provide information for families and professionals through one to one contact, our national helpline, information workshops, a suite of printed fact sheets, guides and directories, online information and new media including email, social networking and family linking for mutual support. We are a cost effective service providing valuable support and high quality information for families with disabled children.

We empower families caring for a disabled child by enabling them to reduce the financial exclusion and associated debt, poverty and social isolation that they experience. Our Family Support Service operates in the Northern Board area only now since the Big Lottery Fund monies ceased in 2009. This service provided one to one short-term support and assistance to families with disabled children, enabling them to access information, receive emotional support and develop skills to help them care for their disabled child. Early intervention and prevention are of utmost importance in dealing with families to avoid points of high stress or crisis in their relationships and caring role and also reduces the demand on statutory services which makes it more cost effective. I leave the last word to some of our parents because the most effective way to assess a service is to ask the users:
Parent of child with life limiting condition

“ …My son was diagnosed with a life limiting disease, we had to do a lot of fighting with the Health Board and I can honestly say that without your help we wouldn’t have got through that hard time”

Parent of child with rare genetic condition

“Contact a Family has thrown our family a life line and without this invaluable service we would be isolated and totally on our own”

Parent of child with ASD

“The Family Support Officer ensured I had the opportunity for my views to be addressed and acted upon. [she] actively listened empathetically to my story, which in itself was therapeutic, as I am so seldom asked to relay my unique experiences to those with the power to help.