• ABOUT COMMUNITY
  RELATIONS COUNCIL

  • Background
  • Jobs
  • Press Releases
  • News
  • Links
  • Speeches
  • Contact Us
  • Council Minutes
  • Recognition

• OUR
  SERVICES

  • Funding
  • Publications
  • Training & Support
  • Starting a Project
  • Consultants Register
  • Community Relations Groups
  • Conference Facilities
  • Research Documents

Council Minutes

19 January 2006 - Extraordinary Meeting
19th January 2006

Community Initiatives Committee

Extraordinary Meeting

19^th January 2006

Confirmed Minutes

Present: Mr Michael Wardlow (Chair), Ms Libby Keys, Mr David Stevens, Mr Barney Devine, Ms Eileen Gallagher

Apologies:   Ms Maura Muldoon, Ms Jane Leonard

Observers:   Mr Drew Haire, Ms Jane Corderoy

In Attendance: Ms Micháela Mackin, Ms Jacqueline Irwin, Mr Paul Jordan, Ms Alison Keenan, Mr Duncan Morrow, Ms Marianne Laird

Member discussed the following:

• The need for the CIC to have a policy framework within which to work
• The requirement for guidance on length of contracts that can be issued on this round of CF
• The need for a statement/policy paper for the next 4 or 5 years in line with ASF regarding resources given the planning difficulties created through not knowing resources available
• The requirement to discuss with CRU how the CIC might approach funding decisions in February
• The need to identify if there are preferred options around development of the CFP and if this focuses on looking at funding a lesser number of groups around core themes

Mr Wardlow welcomed Mr Haire and Ms Corderoy to the meeting. Mr Haire apologised to the committee for arriving late.

Mr Wardlow formally welcomed everyone to today's meeting and wished a Happy New Year to all members and outlined the purpose of the meeting as to discuss the review of the programme and potential ways forward.

Minutes of Meeting on 10 November 2005

Agreed

Review of Core Funding Programme – Retrospective (Chapters 1 – 5)

Mr Morrow spoke to committee about chapters 1 – 5 of the evaluation report and the following points were noted:

• Application and decision process is described as robust
• Relationship with groups is strong given that the programme only has one member of staff
• The report raises the issue of what shape a new CFP should take?
• Assessment of the impact of the CFP was discussed and how this might be measured.  It was suggested that this should be built into triennial plans
• Now entering a period of change – opportunity to revamp the programme. It was noted that the report identifies some types of work which sit more appropriately with the funding other departments – taking this forward would provide an opportunity to streamline the CFP
• It was suggested that rather than being a “funder” that CRC/the CFP engage in delivering objectives
• It was noted that the review raises issues around staffing, monitoring and development and the competitive process (the likely impact of Peace II extension decisions was noted)

It was agreed that ASF creates opportunity to change programme

In conclusion, the review raises two main issues: 1. resources 2. politics/broader commitment to ASF (How other departments view CR)

Ms Keenan commented that the report illustrates that the programme has significantly improved over the past three years.

Ms Keys asked if CIC and CRC are inline with CRU objectives and also if CRU have a role in lobbying other departments to fund groups.

Mr Haire commented that the report is very favourable. He praised Alison for all her hard work in keeping the programme going. Mr Haire suggested bringing together department and other bodies (named in chapter 6) to start discussions on possible ways forward.

Committee asked Mr Haire if CRU are in any position to offer further financial resources to the programme. Mr Haire stated that there would be no change to the level of funding for the next 12 months and there is no indication for any time after that. He identified that the spending review during the summer months will seek to address any financial requirements or in year monitoring.

Clarity was sought from Mr Haire as to whether 3 year contracts could be issued to groups in February in the absence of information on resourcing of the programme.

Mr Stevens suggested that the programme is not currently structured to gain maximum learning from funded groups and that identification of potential learning from groups should be considered in regard to their funding.

Mr Morrow raised the following issues:

1.      Mechanisms for learning have been weaker

2.      How do we get learning and how is it balanced against decisions

3.      Need for clarity regarding what impact/learning CFP is to have. It is difficult to know what impact should be measured against and also how to both capture and share the learning

Mr Haire suggested that project evaluation can show the impact of the programme. He then discussed the Good Relations indicators used to assess ASF.  Discussion arose regarding the use of indicators and how appropriate indicators might be developed.

Ms Irwin identified 2 issues in regard to resourcing of the programme

1.      the short term initial requirement for significant increases along with cost of living level

2.      the more medium term approach to decreasing the number of groups funded by the programme

Mr Wardlow suggested that the CFP may remain as effective as the findings of the review if resources stay the same.

Mr Haire indicated that he did not believe an increase in funds will be possible at least in the short term.

Review of Core Funding Programme – Future Focused (Chapter 6)

Committee discussed the options proposed in chapter 6 of the report.

Committee agreed that option 1 was not feasible in the absence of an increase in funding as this would result in making difficult decisions being forced to decline good CR projects due to the limited funds available.

Committee discussed Option 3 and the following points were noted:

·        If changes are to be made to the programme now would be a good time to do so in light of ASF

·        Service level agreements with strategic partners is possibly the most feasible option

·        There is a need for government departments to integrate community relations thinking and practice with that of community development

·        The need to open discussion with departments

·        The need to agree on a broad strategy, and to put in place measures/steps to move in that direction

·        Action is predicated on the amount of funding available

·        Proposed changes will be innovative and possibly unique in approach and there is a need for CRU to support CIC/CRC in this action

·        There are issues of equity and equality – other departments need to follow

·        There is a need for CRU need to identify and provide a framework within which the CIC can operate

·        It was noted that there are implications to funding a smaller number of groups – in that existing groups will have to be cut from the programme

·        The questions was raised as to the timescales for decisions taken in February and whether contracts should be offered for 1, 2 or 3 years

Mr Haire made the following points:

·        That the relationship between CRU and CRC is critical

·        That groups have to become self sustainable – it is not healthy for groups to be dependent on core funding

·        That CRU depends upon CRC to deliver policy

·        That funding of groups at community level is part of government policy

·        That CRU could be first to bring future departmental partners together

·        That any case for additional resources should be made through the spending review during the summer

Committee discussed the timescale for proposed changes and developments and agreed that a new programme could not be in place by April 2007 (given the need for EQIA and application lead times).

Further discussion arose on decisions to take in February and the duration of contracts. It was agreed that successful applicants would be offered an award of up to 2 years with a clause around the possibility of extension (of up to one year) beyond that. It was agreed that legal advice would be sought and that 6 months notice should be given to groups if contracts will not be extended.

It was agreed that if a full EQIA is required that, the likely starting point of the new CFP would be April 2008 but that all documents etc. would need  to be in place by July 2007. CRU to confirm if a full EQIA or simply a screening is required.

Committee discussed piloting of new funding arrangements for groups approved in February. Ms Mackin noted that human resources and developmental issues need to be resolved before piloting can begin and that this would take place in the financial year 2007/2008.

It was suggested that a small working group be developed to take forward proposed development. Dr Stevens declared an interest as an employee of a funded group and will not be involved.

It was agreed that the duration of contracts would be considered on a case by case basis and the wording of the contract would be examined.

AOB

The need for congruity between CIC and CRU especially in regard to grant decisions was discussed particularly in the case of contentious decisions and the need to be consistent around core policy and political pressures.

Date of Next meeting

Wednesday 15^th February 2006 @ Belfast Office            9.30am for 10am start

GO_BACK

© Copyright 2008 Community Relations Council

Freedom of Information Act