Community Relations Council

• Jobs
• Press Releases
• News
• Links
• Speeches
• Contact
• Council Minutes

17 May 2005

Minutes of the Community Initiatives Committee

Tuesday 17^th May 2005

Malone Lodge Hotel, Belfast

Present:  Mr Michael Wardlow (Chair); Ms Libby Keyes; Mr Barney Devine; Ms Maura Muldoon.

Apologies:  Ms Jane Leonard; Dr David Stevens

In Attendance:  Dr Duncan Morrow (CEO); Ms Jacqueline Irwin (DCEO); Ms Michaela Mackin (Director, Funding and Development); Mr Paul Jordan (Assistant Director, Funding and Development); Ms Alison Montgomery (Core Funding Officer)

Observer:  Ms Jane Corderoy (CRU)

Minutes of the previous meeting were agreed

No Matters arising were noted

CR/CD Grant Scheme

Mr Jordan spoke to this paper which was followed by a discussion by committee members.

Members had a number of questions regarding the running of the CR/CD Grants Scheme, these were;

1. What percentage of grants goes to organisations outside of Belfast?

2. To what extent do groups plan?

3. What role or input is there of CRO's.

Staff confirmed that approx 45% of small grants go to organisations outside Belfast.

It was highlighted that that the small grants programme involves a significant developmental support element in terms of working up applications, but that the work of groups is no longer as ad hoc as might previously have been the case.

There was discussion on the role and/or input of CRO's.  Mr Jordan confirmed that CRC takes on funding of projects which CRO's find difficult to have passed through council structures; he also advised that CRC is able to look at projects on a regional basis.  Ms Mackin advised that not all CRO's distribute their available funding through the grant scheme but rather ear mark some for training.  There was further discussion on how CRC might better connect with CRO's and members were advised that Derrick Matthews in CRU is taking this forward.

Dr Morrow advised that he considered the CR/CD grant scheme to be a “brilliant grant scheme” which enables things to happen which would not otherwise take place.  He stressed that it is a value - rather than politically - led process, noting the difference between the CRC programme and that of Local Council Programmes (which have a more politicised and cliental approach).  He stressed the value of the links it provides to grass roots organisations and the importance of its developmental and engaged focus.

He contested that the value of the relationships and development that result from the scheme far outweigh its cost.  He reminded members that a history of receipt of grant aid from smaller grants programmes is almost a prerequisite of core funding.

Ms Keyes highlighted that small grants have made an enormous difference in rural areas.

Members agreed that the importance of small granting is an important case which needs to be made using an evidence based approach and measuring against 2.5% efficiency savings and other policies. 

ACTION:  Ms Mackin and Mr Jordan agreed to prepare a paper which would be used to provide the basis for further clarity on the impact of the small grants scheme.  This would be available for the December meeting.

Ms Mackin informed members that the Funding & Development Programme team have been reflecting upon emerging themes, including changes in the type of sectors/projects supported through the Grant scheme over the previous year.   Mr Jordan advised of the changing themes for the CR/CD Grant Scheme - with less demand for churches work and training and an increased focus on looking at the issue of racism.

Core Funding Programme

Ms Montgomery spoke to this paper.  Ms Corderoy provided an update from CRU as to the progress of the Review of the Core Funding Programme which remains an on-going process.

Virement and Clawback

• Ms Montgomery spoke to this paper regarding retrospective virement of core funding awards.
• Members agreed to the officer's recommendation in regard to virement for Belfast Interface Project, Community Dialogue, Community Relations Forum, Corrymeela, Ulster Society and WAVE. 
• Members agreed that in line with policy, PRG would be permitted to carryover only £850 of unspent funding into the current financial year. 
• Members agreed that the level and nature of the award to WIG would allow for inclusion of additional costs on a one off basis only.

FULS

• Members agreed to FULS proposal to move from permanent office premises to employees working from home with the provision that the Federation ensures that all health and safety legislation is complied with.

Shared Future

Given the time constraints and the fact that a full discussion with Council has still to take place, it was agreed that Shared Future would be addressed at a later date.

Members were joined by Derick Wilson and Karin Eyben of Future Ways to discuss issues arising from their external evaluation of organisations supported by the Core Funding Programme (Paper CIC25/02/05/004A refers)

There was extensive discussion around issues relating to evaluation and to Future Ways' overview report, the points of which are noted below:

• Future Ways suggested that groups applying for funding should be required to explicitly state the core purpose of their work and the social change that they are working for.
• CRC need to find a mechanism by which this can be measured – accountability culture.
• If CRC are seeking to be agents of change at big picture level it is/will be necessary to seek out organisations that can do this.
• 5% of a core funding grant could be specifically earmarked for development work (for staff) and not be perceived as additional to their core work.
• The richness and diversity of practice within the core funding portfolio is best known by staff, this richness could benefit from being better and more widely understood in relation to CRC's advocacy role.
• Evaluation being tied to a funding decision limits the openness of groups to the process.
• There is a contradiction between the interdependency of a learning culture and the dependency of a funding relationship.
• There are a variety of approaches to how groups learn and distil practice – if CRC had the resources it could have a more developmental function.  As staff are seen to be accessible and open, this could encourage groups to engage with learning.  CRC could be proactive in funding of active learning, making it an explicit part of the process.
• There is a contradiction between short term and long term intervention and change and a need to establish what we can realistically expect to measure.
• FW outlined an approach to funding which was more learning centred than compliance focused, suggesting that groups were engaged at one or more of three levels of change – creation, development or multiplication.  They suggested development of a number of small but discreet outputs and outcomes for groups to enable them to take their work seriously.
• FW suggested tying reporting mechanisms to the learning rhythm of the funded groups – identifying when their outcomes might be and tying reporting structures to the realities of their work – this could be negotiated at the outset of a funding contract to enable a developmental process.
• FW identified 3 areas for next steps:  identifying internal learning processes; identifying how groups share their learning and identifying how CRC takes such learning and uses it.
• FW suggested that there is potential to grow and strengthen the CR infrastructure if a learning culture is encouraged.  This could be part of the core funding assessment process enabling groups to be more honest and explicit about their approaches to learning.
• There is a risk in locking organisations into the weave of a network as their removal from it has a ripple effect.
• Target driven cultures lead to an intolerance of mistakes and create a sense of vulnerability.
• CRC has a hugely risk positive culture, but outside of the organisation the culture is risk negative.
• Reconciliation is a political imperative, action taken in could faith cannot be hammered.
• A mistake can only really be understood if one knows the context.  There is a question of how much shared discourse/lexicon is required.  Could this be iterative and start from where we are now?
• Nothing precludes planning and having a 'what if?' strategy.
• Not all learning takes place within the CFP, there is a need for a general reflection on work and a development strategy, a task upon which CRC is now seeking to embark
• FW identified a need for CRC to engage with funded groups on the issue of influencing policy perhaps through organisation of a workshop on the theme.  It was felt that an advocacy role will not come naturally to organisations and that they need to be encouraged to think about what relationships they should invest in and how.
• There is a tension in terms of policy development between intervention and organic growth.  Establishing fraternal relationships in the community and voluntary sector is not a natural process.
• Groups who do this would be against an intervention approach
• In light of shared Future, core funded groups could/should contribute to a shared department agenda.  There is a need for a high level agenda which core funded groups buy into and a realisation that it is about more than the survival of individual groups.
• Access to funding will depend less upon what groups do than on core themes.  Management committee values etc could form part of the application process to create a sense of having signed up to the values in advance rather than being brought on board. CIC should map its decisions after core funding meetings.
• CRC could advocate for a locality based funding programme which aims to support initiatives that can be modelled.  There could therefore effectively be three complementary funding streams supporting Systemic Change, Replicable Models and Interventions.

There is a need to decide the direction CRC and the CFP are going to take, but whichever the direction there remains a need to be deliberate about core being core.

ACTION:  Programme staff and management to look at how these issues might be taken forward and revert to committee.

As part of CRC's pilot process on self evaluation, Future Ways outlined their proposed approach and progress to date with the funded groups involved in the pilot. 

The remainder of the meeting was in the form of a workshop with committee members as participants and Future Ways as facilitators looking at themes and possibilities for learning within the CIC.

Date of Next Meeting:

9 September 2005