Joint Forum minutes 24 February 2005

Seamus Murray VCU, DSD, Joint Chair
Marie Abbot VCU, DSD
David Lennox VCU, DSD
Irene McAllister DETI
Gerry McWhinney DARD
Esther Moore DARD
Daryl Young DEL
Agnes Killen DCAL
Patricia McVeigh DHSS+PS
Marian McElhone DHSS+PS
Lorraine Walls Secretariat, VCU, DSD
Maurice Leeson Barnardos, Joint Chair
Lynn Carvill Organisation of the Unemployed NI
Niall Fitzduff Rural Community Network
Roy Hanna Rural Community Network
Olwen Lyner NIACRO
Anne O’Reilly NICVA/ WRDA
Frances McCandless Secretariat, NICVA
Denis Palmer Youthnet
Ricky Rowledge Council for the Homeless NI
Patricia Haren Women’s Support Network
Zoë Anderson Secretariat, NICVA

1. Welcome and Introductions

Mr Murray advised he is currently acting director of VCU while Mr Wall was temporarily director of BRO. He said this was first meeting since Professor Kearney’s death and would like to pay tribute to the major contribution he had made to the Joint Forum and the field of voluntary activity and community development. He will be greatly missed. He welcomed Mr Leeson as the new Joint Chair of the Forum. He welcomed Daryl Young, DEL to his first meeting of the Forum.

2. Apologies

Apologies were received from Caroline Barr, DFP; Alex Boyle, DOE; Tom Clarke, NIO; Liz Stewart, DRD, Chris Ball (CAF), Patricia Cooke (Community Network Portadown), Anne Doherty (Rethink), Jim Deery (Greater New Lodge Community Forum), Seamus McAleavey (NICVA) and Carol O’Bryan (Simon Community).

3. Minutes of meeting dated 24 October 2004.

The minutes of the meeting were agreed without amendment .

4. Matters Arising.

i Section 75 Consultation. Mr Murray advised members that the paper which they had previously commented on was now being reviewed. The Review will take into consideration the recommendations in the Independent Report of the Secretary of State for the operational Review of Section 75 and Government’s response to the recommendations in Investing Together.

ii. New TSN. Mr Murray advised that the consultation document New TSN, 'The Way Forward - Towards an Anti Poverty Strategy' was currently being redrafted and will shortly go out for a brief focused consultation. He referred members to Paper JF 3/05 which provided a brief update on the current position. Panel members were currently preparing a paper to highlight their concerns about PSI working Groups – this was to be forwarded to Mr Mulligan via Mr Wall.

5. Task Force on Resourcing the Voluntary and Community Sector and Interim Funding Arrangements.

Mr Leeson presented a paper outlining the sector’s concerns that organisations in the sector may close as a result of the end of the Executive Programme Funding and the delay in the PEACE II Extension. Mr Murray responded on behalf of government. He invited input from departments. Copies of Mr Leeson’s and Mr Murray’s presentations are at Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively. Mr Pauley advised that there had been some €100m PEACE money available this year and last year. He highlighted that some projects had difficulty with spend and he encouraged organisations to increase their expenditure level. He advised that the PEACE II Extension would provide some £40m. He explained that the time schedule for cordinating the various strands for the extension was very tight – it was adopted by the European Commission on 24 January 2005, proposals for the new allocations went to the European Commission on 11 February and there will be a six week period of interservice consultation before they can be formally agreed. He advised that they had already commenced work on the competitive tendering process for IFBs and would hope they will be able to go out for tender in April and to appoint in May. He did not think that it was likely that they will be inviting applications from projects before the summer. He highlighted that the political elections may impact on progress.

Mrs McVeigh advised that DHSSPS had invested £9m in Sure Start, and that DHSSPS will continue to fund the Children’s Fund up to 2005/06, thereafter they will not be able to subsume funding in to their budget. She said it was important to develop a long-term strategy for funding the sector. She commented that the Review of Public Administration will result in a greater focus on front line delivery of services. DHSSPS are developing a family and parenting strategy, which will have the potential to involve the sector in front line delivery. The report is due to be completed in June 2005. Mr McWhinney advised that DARD were undertaking a major review of rural policy, informed by a Price Waterhouse Coopers study and report. The Department planned to consult on the consultant’s report later this year and, after that, conduct a separate consultation on the emerging rural development policy. During general discussion the following points were raised:

• The importance of ensuring that audit accountability is proportionate to the level of funding.
• The difficulties experienced in England regarding application of the principles of full-cost recovery.
• The need for someone to have a strategic overview of the broad a range of different short and long term funding.
• There was a real need for government and the sector to communicate and maybe widen their communication network. There was concern that government and the sector are going along parallel tracks, they felt that both government and the sector had a responsibility to identify key priority projects / areas of work and develop a strategic approach. Panel members highlighted that often the sector’s main link is with statutory agencies rather than central government and that therefore they can be in competition with the statutory agencies for delivery of services. A concern was expressed that frequently the voluntary and community sector have ownership of the innovations / initiation of a service but when it is established the statutory agencies then take ownership of it in terms of mainstreaming. It was suggested that there is a need for clarity between statutory delivery of public services and how other key services are delivered. It was suggested by the sector that the loss of jobs in the voluntary sector was at odds with government’s attempts to create jobs in the private sector. There was discussion regarding the delay in government’s response to Investing Together and questioned if there was any scope for the Forum to plan/consider timescales. Mr Murray concluded the discussion by advising that government’s response to Investing Together will be issued shortly and can then be considered by the Forum. He gave brief detail on work VCU were already taking forward, including some work with departments to address auditing / bureaucracy concerns – A Good Governance Manual has been developed in partnership with sector representatives.

6. Welsh Compact.

Mr Murray welcomed Sanjiv Vedi, Welsh Assembly and Phil Jarrold, WCVA. Mr Vedi provided brief statistical data – population of Wales is 2.9 million; there are some 30,000 voluntary organisations; estimate 2.9m voluntary hours and VCS accounts for some 15% of GDP etc. He explained that they did not have a Compact and that their relationship with the sector was part of the legislative framework as detailed in their Voluntary Sector Scheme which was established under the Government of Wales Act 1998. He gave brief detail of the Scheme which he said was available on their website www.wales.gov.uk and highlighted three key areas:
- how they communicate/deal with each other
- funding and funding relationships
- the VCS Partnership Council.

The Partnership Council is chaired by Minister, comprises 11 Assembly Members including two ministers and has representation from 22 regional network organisations in the voluntary and community sector, including those in Health, sport, BME, youth etc. Discussion at meetings was open, previously there had been very lengthy agenda but now they are more focussed and only include items that cut across and impact on the sector as a whole. The Assembly funds the network organisations to meet separately / before the Partnership Council. Mr Vedi also gave some brief detail on their Code of Practice for Funding – which outlines the funding process and is reviewed on a regular basis. The scheme is regularly reviewed and following each election consideration is given whether it should be remade/revised. Their last review was independently commissioned, the review came up with some 57 recommendations. The three key areas highlighted were:

1. need for clarity on ownership of the scheme
2. communication not just between but within sectors
3. consistency as there is an issue regarding a lack of consistency across government in their relationship with the sector. They are now working on the recommendations and developing a strategic action plan. Two crucial recommendations which will be taken forward are: (i) a minimum period of consultation of 12 weeks; and (ii) funding will be for a three year period with the exception of small projects where period of funding would be discussed with the sector. Mr Vedi said the relationship with regional and local infrastructure organisations was key to their relationship with the sector. The infrastructure included WCVA, Volunteer Bureaux, 22 County voluntary councils, etc. With EU funding coming to an end in the next few years, funding will be a key challenge and they have already begun discussions with the sector on how this might be addressed. There are an increasing number of smaller community groups which are expanding into larger voluntary organisations and this will also mean additional demands on limited funding. Mr Jarrold advised that ministerial meetings were a legal requirement and will continue to happen regardless of change of government. There are seven Ministers, each minister is legally required to meet with the sector twice a year. 100 national and local organisations, including Equality / Disability and BME organisations take part (depending on the portfolios of ministers) to explore collective interests, not individual interests. There are clear terms of reference for these meetings. WCVA facilitate the meetings and mapping national network organisations to each of the ministers / departments. The meetings provide an opportunity for broader dialogue on issues - issues which are not just of concern to those around the table but also to those not around the table. They meet in advance to discuss and agree issues to be raised with ministers. Many of these organisations might not have had the opportunity to come together outside of this process. It therefore provides a good mechanism for better interaction and improved relations among the network organisations involved. On the whole the process works well, it is good to have the opportunity to meet with ministers and raise issues. Some weaknesses were identified - some groups are better at raising issues than others; ministers may meet with the sector but may not engage; where there is a change in minister it is necessary to spend time building up the relationship again. Mr Jarrold closed by saying that ministerial cluster meetings must not replace ongoing bilateral meetings between officials and organisations in the sector, and these meetings are also not a mechanism to replace engagement with the wider public or the wider sector. During discussion speakers highlighted that the end of EU funding (2007-2009) will be a major challenge. There has been some internal discussion / early consideration as to how to address the issue and government is to further develop it’s relationship with other funders and seek to ensure no duplication and better identification of gaps. Rather than grant schemes government will identify the desired outcomes and invite organisation to work in partnership to deliver. There was some discussion around partnership and rationalisation. While WCVA are not pushing organisations to collaborate, they do highlight that without collaboration organisations may fold. Both speakers provided some detail on the sector’s relationship with local government – each local council has a Compact with the sector and an annual survey of these relationships (which includes a league table) is presented to the Partnership Council each year. Mr Vedi advised that whilst the scheme includes a requirement for government to discuss voluntary and community issues with local government, it does not include any requirement for local government to meet with the sector – he advised that his current Minister meets three times a year with local government to discuss the voluntary and community sector issues. Mr Murray thanked the speakers for a very informative presentation and discussion.Review of Joint ForumJoe Swaile and Gerry McAloon from BDS made a presentation on the remit, findings and proposed recommendations of the review which they had carried out under terms of reference agreed by the Joint Forum. A copy of the presentation is at Appendix 3.
4. The decision to carry out this review arose from the planning day and carried out as a prelude to the development of the work plan. Recommendations were organised under each area based on findings.
5. Under the Remit findings, they recommend that the term Relationship needs to be built in to the overarching remit, rather than being implicit. The inclusion of ‘volunteering’ in the remit was queried, as it could be seen to be subsumed under the sector.
6. Under Membership findings, it was suggested that the Departmental representative should be ‘someone who has ‘a strategic overview’’, probably Grade 7 or above. The induction for members should include role and remit, responsibilities, introductions. All departments should appoint alternative representatives.
7. Under Structure, clear terms of reference, timescale and commitments and report back mechanisms should be determined. Each sub-group should appoint a chair. The sub-groups are a way to bring in additional expertise and they should include a range of individuals. The use of discussion/syndicate groups in meetings can promote greater engagement.
8. Management findings included role for chairs to summarise agreements and decisions, for clarity and Minutes. Chatham House Rules should be considered for some items. Overall conclusion was that the Joint Forum is effective and needed.

In the discussion that followed, it was noted that the government decisions on the Task Force may lead to changes to the work of the JF. While the findings still stand, the TF recommendations should be factored in to the final report.

Members were invited to feed any comments through to Lorraine, for Gerry and Joe.Charities Review Seamus Murray advised that the Consultation document on the review of charities in Northern Ireland had been published. It links to similar, ongoing exercises in England and Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. NICVA is assisting with the organisation of four regional seminars, and details about the consultation are on the NICVA website.

Organisations and individuals have until May 20 to respond. A number of recommendations are contained in the report, including what type of regulatory body might emerge. The document proposes a series of new headings under charitable purposes. It was noted that some of the earlier suggestions for charitable purposes - rural regeneration and cross-border activity - were not included in the final proposal. The next steps following the review will lead to administrative changes and possibly new legislation that will take around two years to complete. Review of Public AdministrationDebbie Donnelly gave a PowerPoint presentation on the second consultation on the findings and options on the future shape of public administration and local councils. A copy of the presentation is at Appendix 4.

The Review was initiated by the Assembly, but taken forward by Direct Rule Ministers. It was launched in 2002 and the first consultation was between October 2003 and February 2004. This second consultation on options will commence in March 2005 and run through to end of September. Implementation would then go through until 2009. The options include a two tier model of a regional assembly, the reorganisation of the 26 Councils to new, larger entities, with between 7 and 9 Councils suggested. Other services could have co-terminus boundaries, and be organised by different means. Decisions on the options may be taken by Direct Rule Ministers, in consultation with local politicians. Information available from www.rpani.gov.uk

AOB

The joint government / sector rraining course is scheduled for 23/24 March
The SCS seminar will take place on 5 April, with Mark Moore.

Dates of Next Meetings

Joint Forum. 26 May at NICVA
Panel Meeting 19 May.

Appendix 1

Presentation to the Joint Government / Voluntary and Community Sector on funding environment on behalf of the voluntary and community sector panel 24 February 2005.

The purpose of this presentation is to highlight some of the issues facing the voluntary and community sector in light of current funding difficulties. I want to begin by putting this paper in context by reflecting on two statements from the ‘shared principles’ section in the Compact. The Compact acknowledged “That the provision of funding and other forms of support by government is an important means of strengthening the capacity of the voluntary and community sector and enabling it to contribute effectively to the attainment of government objectives” (and) “That effective partnerships between government and the voluntary and community sector bring added value to their efforts to improve quality of life in Northern Ireland” These statements relate to the shared principles of interdependence and co-operation and I have no doubt they reflect the views of this body.However there is today, considerable concern within the voluntary and community sector at the extent of the funding difficulties that we are facing. The women’s policy group, for example, organised a protest march to the offices of the DSD yesterday to protest at lack of funding. There is no small degree of anger in the community sector relating to delays in Peace 2 extensions and the neighbourhood renewal fund. The deadline for the neighbourhood renewal fund was 31 November and I understand that to date no groups have been informed about whether or not they were successful. I also understand that the fund was significantly oversubscribed, a situation that speaks volumes about the level of demand for funding. In the children’s voluntary sector the loss of the children’s fund is leading to the closure of core services that were originally set up to meet the needs of vulnerable children. These are just some examples by way of illustration of how things are today for the sector and it is by no means an exhaustive list.The impact of these cuts can be summarised as follows -

1. Loss of direct frontline services to some of our most vulnerable groups and communities.
2. Loss of significant capacity within the voluntary and community sector at a time when government is encouraging the sector as part of a sustainability strategy to become more involved in public sector service delivery.
3. And perhaps most significantly for this body the potential negative impact the fall out from this situation will potentially have on the relationship between the voluntary and community sector and government particularly now as the government prepares to respond formally to the Task force report.

This key message in this presentation however, is not about (to quote Investing Together) “protecting everything as it is” but rather it is about the fact that voluntary and community groups are increasingly unsure about the governments strategic intent for the sector and in particular finding it difficult to reconcile the supportive and valuing comments in many government policy documents with funding realities. What we are particularly concerned about, as a panel, is the very real risk that the current problems will in the long term cause damage to the relationship between the sector and government. What particularly concerns us is that cynicism and disillusionment are growing in the sector and that if unchecked; it will undermine our mutual attempts to move forward in the context of the Taskforce report. There are three issues currently fuelling this growth in cynicism and disillusionment.

1. There is no doubt that on the government side the need to deliver efficiency savings in line with the Gershon report is a difficult task. The efficiency savings in ‘Priorities and Budget’ were presented as being about delivering extra resources to the priority ‘front line’ and not about reducing ‘front line’ services.‘Priorities and Budget’ stated-“The public sector in NI will achieve cumulative efficiency gains of at least 2.5% per year over the planning period, at least half of which will release resources to priority front line services” (P&B page 53)In the ‘Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency’ Sir Peter Gershon wrote that it was important that “savings are not delivered at the expense of impacting on service delivery” (page 3)
2. However the evidence from the voluntary and community sector is that ‘front line’ services have been affected by the cuts. Some groups have wondered if cutbacks to the voluntary and community sector represent the ‘default’ position for saving money when budgets are tight. For some groups this has raised a question about the whole concept of involvement in public service provision as a viable sustainability strategy. I have heard the question raised- is, in times of difficulty, a public service provided by a voluntary and community sector organisation somehow different than a public service delivered by the state? Is it more likely to close regardless of its relative importance? The answer many feel, is yes.
3. There is no doubt that expectations were raised in light of the ‘Task Force Report’ that things would be done differently.The Investing Together report highlighted the following problems- Lack of medium to long term secure funding for core activitiesFor the community sector a lack off clarity and consistency in statutory support for community development The report noted-“Continually chasing short-term funding programmes has promoted a climate of instability, distracts organisations from their key purpose, deters strategic planning, and leaches essential expertise and experience” (IT page 6) Many groups feel that this is precisely the situation they continue to face. The degree of optimism that greeted the Taskforce report and its vision of outcome based long term funding strategies is rapidly being dissipated.

That has led some to question the real value government places on voluntary activity. Government statements and policy documents continuously praise the added value of the sector and its contribution to government objectives. Priorities and Budget for example when reflecting on the governments priorities stated-“Effective partnership will be a key to the success of many of these measures, and the government will look to develop further and improve partnership working. The voluntary and community sector play an important role in this respect and the government will continue to enhance the capacity of that sector to develop and assist in the delivery of public services. In doing this it will take account of the work of the Taskforce on Resourcing the Voluntary and Community Sector” (P&B, P26-27)However it is difficult to feel valued when many of the funding problems highlighted in the Taskforce report remain.

In conclusionThe Task Force report reminds us that “There is a need for modernisation and change in the voluntary and community sector”The type of change process envisaged is most likely to work when the sector has a clear shared idea of where it is going in its partnership with government, feels valued and is enabled to actively participate in the change process.It is less likely to succeed if the sector feels unclear or unhappy about where the relationship is going, feels undervalued and detached from the change process. The current problems threaten to set a difficult context for managing such a change process.What will help?

1. A formal and full government response to the ‘Investing Together’ report which clearly outlines how government is going to address the issues the report identified.In particular it is important that the government’s strategic intent with regard to the sector is clear and set out in its response to the Task Force Report.Above all we need to make sure that the messages that government sends to the sector are consistent with the actions and decisions that the organisations in the sector experience ‘on the ground’.The Compact reminds us that-“Successful partnerships must be based on openness, trust, and recognition of the constraints on other partners”Openness is critical. If there is not enough money, for example, to sustain the sector at is current level then it is important that we face up to that situation in an open and honest way.
2. The Compact identifies one of the roles of Government to “Promote the value of the voluntary and community sector within and outside of government” The Joint Forum should work in its communication strategy to ensure that the added value of the sector is promoted more widely, beyond the forum and into government, next steps agencies and other associated bodies more widely.We are clear about the value of the sector but the challenge is for us to take this message to a much wider audience.

Maurice Leeson 24.02.05

Appendix 2

Seamus Murray’s presentation to Joint Government / Voluntary Sector Forum re Funding

Thursday 24 February 2005. Under agenda item five, representatives of the voluntary and community sector on the Joint Forum will outline concerns about the funding crisis in the sector. It is understood that key issues will include:-

- Delay in response by government to the Task Force recommendations
- How funding difficulties are impacting on good relationships.
- Problems concerning the delay in implementing Peace II extension.
- The ending of the ‘EPF’ programme and a demand that it be extended for another year immediately.
- Need for an improved communications strategy.

The following are the general responses that DSD would intend to make. It is important that this is seen as a government view rather than an individual departmental view.

1. Government recognises the important role that the voluntary and community sector organisations play within our most disadvantaged communities. The Task Force initiative was a demonstration of government’s intent to create and put in place a clear long term strategy for support of and relationships with the sector. Funding whilst key is one part of that relationship. We all have to recognise and accept that the funding climate has changed and will continue to do so. It is simply impossible for Government to sustain and replace all the additional money that was available through Peace or the Executive Programme Funds. As the budget announcement indicated there are competing priorities in health, education and infrastructure.
2. It is understood that the negotiations concerning Peace II extension and its implementation are being taken forward speedily by SEUPB. It is also understood that the measures which provide support to the sector have largely remained at similar previous levels. I’m sure Bill will have more to say on this. Again though Peace is project based funding and was never intended to be a sustainable long term source of support. There are issues in this for both the sector and Government to consider.
3. The Task Force Report ‘Investing Together’ which was produced following an extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders was presented to Government in October. The report outlined a series of recommendations to strengthen the relationship between Government and the voluntary and community sector and to ensure the sector is better placed to cope with social and economic changes. The recommendations are currently being considered by John Spellar MP Minister with responsibility for social development in consultation with his Ministerial colleagues. Government’s response to the report will issue shortly.
4. The Executive Programme Funds were initially a commitment made by the NI Assembly and extended by Minister DFP. They were a time limited programme. This programme will end on 31/3/05 and all organisations were notified about this in February last year. The Executive Programme Funds no longer exist. All government departments are facing significant pressures with reduced budgets and no other source of budget to replace the programme has been made available.
5. The Community Investment Fund was announced in the budget by Minister Pearson in December 2004. The Task Force recommended that its broad intent should be for the support of local community development activity. The detailed criteria and focus of the CIF is currently under consideration by DSD in consultation with other key departments. ministers will ultimately decide on how these new resources should best be deployed.
6. Phase II of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, which was introduced in September 2005 is an interim step designed to sustain existing key organisations and demonstrate at an early stage how the Strategy can make a difference in people’s lives. The response to Phase II has been overwhelming with almost 500 proposals for support received of which 20 are from womens organisations and centres. It is unlikely that that all the Phase II expressions of interest will attract financial support. Neighbourhood Partnership Boards, when set up, will decide the priorities for their communities. Decisions on Phase II proposals will be communicated to the relevant groups in the near future.Departmental representative will then be invited to offer additional comments. Of particular interest will be DFP on Peac