I thank the committee for the opportunity to update it on the progress we are making on this programme. My Department was established in 2002 against a background of concern at the multiplicity of structures and agencies through which local and community development schemes and programmes were delivered. It inherited a number of local and community programmes with diverse structures, which had been operated under the aegis of several Departments. There was an inherent danger of fragmentation of services and the diffusion of resources. Indeed I am still seeing the consequences of that in communities today.
The cohesion process initiated by my Department a number of years ago to address these issues resulted in a significant reduction of local delivery structures for a range of rural and local development programmes. Until last year, there were almost 100 partnerships and Leader companies operating and the cohesion process has resulted in that being reduced to a total of 53 entities providing full coverage across the country. Notwithstanding that achievement, my Department still has a significant reform agenda to advance. The next phase — which is under way — concerns improving and joining up the output of programmes, as well as further advancing consolidation of community and local development structures.
For some time now, the Department has seen the need to redesign its community development and social inclusion programmes, particularly the local development social inclusion and community development programmes, drawing on good international practice and to provide for ongoing evaluation of the programmes. Before I address that issue, I will review briefly the history of these programmes and highlight several relevant issues, as well as comments made last year by the Committee of Public Accounts and in the McCarthy report.
The community development programme was established in 1990, by the then Department of Social Welfare, in recognition of the role of community development in tackling the causes and effects of poverty and disadvantage. It was the first nationally funded intervention in support of communities that used community development principles in seeking to challenge the underlying causes of disadvantage resulting from the effects of poverty and exclusion.
Following a Government decision in 2004, arising from a review of local and community development structures, the programme was closed to new applicants. The Department's focus moved to an emphasis on promoting links and sharing resources between existing local and community agencies to improve service delivery generally. In this way, additional expenditure could be prioritised towards services rather than administration.
It is worth referring briefly to two reviews carried out of the community development programme. The first, the Cullen report of 1994, found lack of clarity regarding elaboration of the programme's policy objectives, the problems and issues being tackled and the anticipated outcomes. Cullen's observations still have currency today in describing the lack of clear and definitive goals and objectives that characterises the programme. While several operational and resourcing changes occurred up to 2009, the goals, objectives and activity prescriptions have remained minimal relative to other similar programmes.
It had been acknowledged that no consistent way of measuring impact at project level had been built into the programme. In 1999, a second review was carried out by Nexus Research. This noted that 45 of the then 58 community development projects had received additional funds from the area-based partnerships. While the Nexus evaluation was highly complimentary overall about the community development programme, stating "the cumulative picture is one of a very high level of activity, and extremely impressive output maintenance across a range of working methods", it also pointed to the need to establish performance indicators and to develop self-monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in line with these indicators.
The local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, promotes employment and social and economic inclusion. It works with the most disadvantaged people, such as those furthest from the labour market. The principle of community development is central to the way in which the LDSIP is implemented, harnessing the efforts of many agencies and linking people to mainstream services. While employment support remained a key element of the LDSIP, work with local community organisations and young people was to be included within the overall approach.
In 2007 Fitzpatrick and Associates was commissioned by the Department to undertake a value for money policy review of the LDSIP for the period 2000 to 2006. The review provided conclusions and observations that are very much still relevant in the current context. It concluded the following: that the strengths of the LDSIP include a local and bottom-up approach; utilisation of experience built up during previous activity; ability to provide a piece of key local infrastructure; focus on the hard to reach in disadvantaged terms; flexibility to respond to new or unconventional needs; ability to work with, and attract funding from mainstream service providers and other sources for local areas; and a cadre of experienced and committed managers and staffing.
The large diversity among the partnerships presents difficulties for monitoring and evaluation. As such, there was little hard evidence with respect to achievements at national impact level, because it has not been possible to aggregate generic data to the next level. In financial terms, it is important to appreciate that the programmes are relatively small compared to other mainstream programmes. So it is vital that the contribution of the LDSIP and the community development programme counts and is seen to count.
In 2008, the Department asked the Centre for Effective Services, CES, — an independent centre established in a partnership between the Government and Atlantic Philanthropies to promote evidence-based policy and practice in child, family and community services — to review the design of the community development programme and the LDSIP. The CES, following a review of practice internationally, found clear consensus that the structure and governance of community and local development programmes is key to their successful functioning. It also found overwhelming consensus throughout developed countries with mature community development sectors that the partnership model favours good outcomes. Another finding was that it is a well-established principle in many fields of human services that effective programme design is generally outcomes-led or results-driven. It also found that given the wide potential scope of community development activities, effective programmes generally have to restrict the number of priorities for change that they address through their programme design, focusing on a carefully selected group of feasible activities while bearing in mind local resources and other capacity issues. Key areas for future attention incorporated into the CES-designed new local and community development programme, LCDP, include structure and governance, as well as monitoring, evaluation and feedback.
Members are aware that in 2009 the Committee of Public Accounts expressed criticism of the multitude of delivery structures in the area of social inclusion programmes. It also expressed concerns regarding corporate governance relating to the operation of these agencies and groups. The Department agrees with these concerns and much of the day-to-day interaction with groups by departmental staff deals with financial and other required reporting. Evidence in the Department from managing the CDP points to some serious capacity deficits in governance and financial management, the consequences of which have been serious for the projects and individuals involved.
Many people volunteer by joining projects to devote their time and talent for the benefit of their local community. I take this opportunity to correct the recent misrepresentation in the media by some groups regarding my stance on volunteerism. I have been accused of "sacking the volunteers" through the new programme and the realignment of structures. I know at first hand the excellent contribution made to local communities by the members of voluntary boards. People give freely of their time and expertise for the benefit of their local community. This volunteering spirit, and the experience and expertise built up over many years, will be encouraged and supported through the new programme. In addition, there continues to be ring-fenced funding allocated in the new programme for volunteering-related activity.
Last year, the McCarthy report contended that there is little evidence of positive outcomes for the LDSIP and the CDP. It also stated, "the current delivery structure for these Programmes is not optimal". My Department agrees that, in general, the programmes have been lacking in demonstrable evidence of positive outcomes and that the delivery structure is not optimal. The McCarthy report continued:
significant savings for [the Department] should accrue from the merger of [these] local delivery mechanisms. Overall, the Group targets total savings of €44m attributable to a re-structuring of delivery mechanisms and a reduction in the number of funded projects.
Such a large scale of savings would cause significant disruption to the delivery of the programmes and would render them inoperable. However, in all the circumstances, maintaining the status quo was not an option.
The LDSIP and the CDP were my Department's two main social inclusion and community development programmes. Both had a community development element and have been delivered through a multiplicity of separate local delivery structures for almost 20 years. These programmes came to an end on 31 December 2009 and have been superseded by the new local and community development programme.
The aim of the new programme is to tackle poverty and social exclusion through partnership and constructive engagement between the Government and its agencies and people in disadvantaged communities. This will be underpinned by four high level goals, which are to promote awareness, knowledge and uptake of a wide range of statutory, voluntary and community services; to increase access to formal and informal educational, recreational and cultural development activities and resources; to increase people's work readiness and employment prospects; and to promote engagement with policy, practice and decision-making processes on matters affecting local communities. The new programme preserves elements of good practice from the CDP and LDSIP programmes and will enable groups to objectively demonstrate the positive impact they secure for local communities through the prioritisation of key front-line services and supports and the minimisation of overhead and ancillary costs.
In advance of proceeding to establish a single programme across CDPs and partnerships, the Department undertook an evaluation of individual community development projects. Many of these projects span two decades, with quite diverse activities. The objective of the review was to identify those projects that produce tangible, appropriate benefits for the communities they serve. The vast majority of projects fall into this category and have been offered funding under the new programme in 2010.
Where projects were not recommended for continued funding, an appropriate appeals mechanism has been provided. It is intended that the appeals process will be completed very shortly and during this period temporary funding has been provided in respect of the basic running costs of the projects under appeal, such as with grants towards salaries and appropriate overheads. In the case of projects whose appeals are unsuccessful, I will seek to make some further funding provision for a limited period to allow time for any necessary wind-up proceedings.
With regard to the misrepresentation being disseminated about the new programme through the media and elsewhere, it is a great pity that those who allowed their names to be attached to a letter published on 25 November 2009 in The Irish Times did not first ascertain the correct position before so doing. This would have been easy to do as it has repeatedly been made clear to the groups concerned and to the Dáil that there was never any intention to close the 180 community development projects referred to.
The vast majority of eligible community development projects, CDPs, have now signed up to the new programme; 30% of projects had signed up within ten days of the letter of offer issuing last December. At this stage, in excess of 95% of projects have signed up to the new programme and the first tranche of 2010 payments has issued. This allows for service continuity from day one.
A process of engagement has commenced with the CDPs and local development companies agreeing at local level how the programme is to be delivered for the rest of the year. My Department and Pobal will be providing a range of supports to ensure the process is successful. At the same time, all stakeholders will be working together to put in place a plan to ensure integrated service delivery and structures for the period after 2010. My Department and Pobal will support that process.
We expect that the number of formal delivery agents for the new programme will fall from a current high of approximately 230 structures down to just the 53 companies by year end. Our aim is to preserve and protect the volunteers on the current boards of CDPs by giving them new roles on advisory councils for the programme locally without the burden of company law requirements. This will reduce significantly the level of reporting, both to my Department and to the companies office. It will also have the useful spin-off of reduced overheads for audits, payroll and other back-office costs and will maximise the impact of available funding at the front line.
There is naturally opposition from some groups to the model for integrated service delivery and structures at local level that my Department has set out. However, as I have already stated, maintaining the status quo was never an option given the issues relating to the delivery of the old programmes, the concerns of the Committee of Public Accounts about the multitude of structures in the system, the criticisms in the McCarthy report and the current budgetary reality.
We have said repeatedly that it is open to the CDPs and the local development companies to bring forward other integration models. We have also stated repeatedly that if those models are better than ours we will accept them. So far, nobody has come forward with any such models, although there is plenty of time yet. My Department will engage positively with all stakeholders who are prepared to work constructively in that process.
I am satisfied that the new programme is a major step forward. I am also pleased to have been able, in the context of the new programme, to ring-fence funding for community development projects for 2010 and to maintain it at 2009 levels. In few other areas of public spending has it been possible to do this.
I am sure that nobody here questions my commitment to local and community development. However, it is clear that a small number of community groups question not only my commitment but my integrity in this area. A small cohort of CDPs, and mainly staff of those projects, are resistant to change and have orchestrated a campaign of protest through the media, through a campaign of letter-writing to my Department and through protest demonstrations at my constituency office and elsewhere. Such protest, if carried out lawfully, is of course legitimate but the issue of concern to me relates to the references being made to partnership companies not being part of civil society and the suggestion that it is inappropriate to integrate an element of civil society with local development companies because they are seen by some of the critics of the new programme as being State-dominated and socially exclusive in their operations.
This assertion is wholly unfounded. It is also the contention of some of these critics that the new programme in some way excludes marginalised communities from its management and ignores the loss of locally-based management. Once again this is completely inaccurate. As I have said on a number of occasions, the new programme preserves elements of best practice from both the CDP and the local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, including stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes, and continues to focus on the most disadvantaged communities, building on their feedback in terms of what works best for their neighbourhoods.
As I have stated earlier, the vast majority of projects have now signed up to the new programme and to the integration strategy and my officials are available to meet with those who are prepared to work constructively in implementing the new programme. I remain committed to the new programme and to implementing it in the best possible way. My primary concern is, and always has been, to make every effort to ensure that the daily front line services funded through my Department are protected, especially those focused on the needs of our most socially deprived communities.
I thank the Chairman for allowing me to make an opening statement and I look forward to providing any further information members may require.
