Infrastructure and Support Services

Information Session (d)

Infrastructure and support services

1. Perception in government pre-Task Force was that infrastructure in the sector was incoherent.
2. Support work is often hard to prescribe in terms of outcomes as you respond to the needs for support as they arise.
3. Organisations need to be able to set out the range of support services they provide.
4. Some support organisations don’t work with groups eg Banbridge works to coordinate community development workers (this isn’t the case generally).
5. There is a real need for a baseline on support services/networks/organisational support needs in the sector before DSD begins to draw up a strategy – NICVA should do this and ask for funds from DSD asap.
6. Some support organisations offer organisational ‘MOTs’ ie they asses the needs of an organisation and then help them to access the support they need.
7. The Community Development Networks Forum could be used as a starting point for defining infrastructure as it has already done some work on definitions for its members (currently around 20 networks in urban areas).
8. There are already different groupings of networks/support bodies in the sector – BSP measure 3.3 funded groups, rural support networks, regional/thematic networks.
9. NICVA should set up a consultation session for all of the organisations that consider themselves networks – this could bring forward a steering group to guide research.
10. The first Task Force report set out different tiers of infrastructure – regional, sub-regional, local – this detail seems to have disappeared from ‘Positive Steps’.
11. Hubs and networks centres are mentioned in ‘Positive Steps’ – hubs are more localised and neighbourhood based (like resource centres) whereas networking centres are more sub-regional where a range of organisations already working well together come together in the same premises.
12. Thematic and geographic networks often rely on each other for specialist advice and skills.
13. Key functions of the two kinds of networks:

Geographic/community development

Capacity building, Governance, Good practice, Practical support, Reflecting member concerns, Feeding into policy, Independent voice, Scrutinise government action, Information management, Representing concerns in the area,

Thematic

Policy, Development support, Research, Skills development, Campaigning, Developing standards and practice, Facilitating relationship with government, Working with statutory organisations, Training, Information management, Facilitating relationships with government.

• Sub-regional bodies should be involved in helping to monitor positive steps by feeding in information.
• Turnover in civil service staff is a constant problem for building relationships.
• Benchmarking of quality of support services would be welcomed.
• Next steps could be – NICVA convenes a meeting of networks (or two, one in Belfast and one elsewhere), a steering group is formed to guide research by NICVA which could include 3.3 groups, CD networks, rural networks and thematic networks plus users of support services, research could map existing services, where they are funded from and what the needs are for support services in the sector.
• What will happen to the 3.3 infrastructure organisations when BSP funding runs out?
• How does charity law review and review of public admin fit with this? Will networks have additional functions?
• How will networks fit with new local government structures and community planning?
• Needs to be capacity building in local government to understand community development work and role of the sector.