EPAG Minutes 24 January 2004

EPAG Minutes: Monday 24 January 2004

In attendance
Marcus Mac Ruairi (Pobal), Gregory Cunningham (CENI and Down LSP), Patrick O Doherty (Strabane LSP), Carol Stewart (Derry LSP), Callum Webster (Groundwork), Jackie Sherrif (Carrick LSP), Valerie Richmond (Ards LSP), Patricia Haren (Womens Support Network), William Fulton (Down District LSP), Yvonne Breen (Concordia), Paul Kelly (Antrim LSP), Claire Conroy (LSP Working Group), Frank Murphy (Belfast LSP), James Laverty (NICVA), Neil Laverty (NICVA), Michael Briggs (EBCDA), Kieran Gallagher (Omagh LSP), Geraldine Keyes (FOCUS and Regional Partnership Board), David Patterson (Down District LSP), Lisa McElherron (NICVA), Seamus McAleavey (NICVA and CSP monitoring committee), Frances McCandless (NICVA and Regional Partnership Board), Jane Gribbin (Ballymena Community Forum / Chairperson)

Apologies
Niall Fitzduff, Maureen Piggot, Patricia Cooke, Liz Law and Helen Honeyman.

Jane welcomed everyone and explained that the meeting was called to discuss the proposals contained in the discussion paper presented to Regional Board Members from the SEUPB.

Frances said that RPB members had been asked to comment on the proposals and she was reluctant to do this without a discussion with voluntary and community reps on LSPs and the wider sector. She outlined the background to the proposals and explained that the impact of individual proposals will vary for each LSP and so censuses may be difficult to achieve. However it is imperative that money should get to the projects that need it and that should be the main concern in this discussion. It was also pointed out that the money for the extension will be much less than before and this should be borne in mind. She then asked the groups for general comments on the paper.

1. The three options are unrepresentative in that they are based on figures which are completely out of date. This is the main problem with pinning so much on n+2, at the minute we are not being presented with a true reflection of spend or allocation.
2. It is important that an area of need should not be penalised because of the poor performance of its LSP in N+2.
3. There was a criticism of the method used to find the new formula - it seems to be based on divide and conquer. If the LSPs can't get agreement SEUPB will make the decision anyway.
4. The LSP working group had looked at the paper and could not reach agreement on which formula will be best. However they have decided to take this opportunity to look at the wider future role of LSPs.
5. There was then a discussion on the specific areas of the paper starting with allocation of the global grant.
6. There was a discussion on the use of n+2 and spend as a measure of performance. Some projects and areas need a lot of intensive capacity building before money can be spent well and this needs to be taken into account.
7. LSPs have also been allocating moneys from other funds on behalf of Government eg 2:11 and this has taken time and resources. It is not a true reflection of the value and role of LSPs to judge their performance based solely on n+2. Related to this is the fact that LSPs were responsible for the development of Local Integrated Strategies. The development of the strategies took at least a year during which no money could be drawn down. It is disingenuous of SEPUB to measure n+2 with out taking into account the year LSPs spent carrying out their other responsibilities.
8. If we go down the route of allocation based on need with no reference to past performance will we end of in a satiation were LSPs are still getting money they can't spend and so will we have difficulty meeting N+2 again?
9. It was reiterated that the most important factor was getting money to groups. LSPs are able to spend other money and there may be merit in examining just how relevant 3.1 and 3.2 are to groups.
10. There was a discussion on the nature of LSPs and the work they are best placed to carry out. It was initially been envisaged that LSPs would not simply function as a funding body but take on a more strategic role which focused on need identified as part of the ILS. This is an issue which LSPs must get a handle on soon as support from official sources has not been forthcoming and there is a danger that partnerships may drift of the agenda. If LSPs continue to be viewed as a funding mechanisms it is easy to argue that they are an expensive funding mechanism.
11. There was some discussion about the nature of the extension. Different messages had been received from SEUPB regarding whether or not the extension would be for 18 months or two years. There is a need to get clarity on this as soon as possible.
12. There is agreement that without prejudice to the points raised above about local circumstances etc LSPs must be able to spend the money they are allocated as far as is reasonably practical.
13. It was pointed out that in previous years it has been ESF money which has been the most difficult to spend and with additional money coming only from ERDF this should make things easier.
14. It was also pointed out that the guiding principles encouraged LSPs to be more strategic and focus on needs in their area as opposed to being driven by applications. This should also allow for easier spending. However in order for this to happen the systems and structure which allow LSPs to instigate their own projects must be clearer and quicker to reach a decision

Recommendation

1. There was no consensus in the room on which option would be the most appropriate. However it was agreed to reject option one (maintaining the status quo). Most of those present also rejected option two although this was the option favoured by Strabane LSP.
2. Option three was felt to be the least worst option by most people. However it has the following provisos:

• systems for reallocation of under spend must be in place as soon as possible
• the systems should be transparent and operated with minimum bureaucracy
• it is essential to guard against a drip feed approach to the release of the global grant. LSPs should be given a clear idea of what is available and it must be released on time. It was pointed out that neither LSPs or project providers can be strategic when resources are released in bits and pieces.

Technical Assistance

1. There was recognition that some options presented for technical assistance would make a number of LSPs unviable.
2. The point was strongly made that even if an LSP gets the option they prefer efficiency will still be undermined due to the reduction in funds available. LSPs will be asked to mange the end of Peace II plus the extension on dramatically reduced money.
3. It was suggested that LSPs now needed to do two key things; manage the extension as best as they can and use the time to develop a new role post 2007.
4. There was a discussion about relationships between LSPs and it was pointed out that a league table of who performs best based on N+2 seems to have been developed. It was felt that very little was achieved by putting LSPs in competition with each other in this way as each area was different.

Recommendations

• There was no support for option two or four.
• Both Belfast and Derry prefer option one.
• On the whole, but not 100% agreed to settle for either option three or five.

Frances and Jane thanked everyone for attending. SEPUB had requested comments by 27 and everyone will be kept up to date with developments.