?
?The??‘Merger’ Centre for Effective Services says nothing for now
The Centre for Effective Services has declined the opportunity to answer questions by way of interview or email for ‘Changing Ireland’ readers, many of whom will be directly affected by the outcome of work that CES is currently engaged in. The not-for-profit consultancy, which is working to produce a plan for merging the CDP and LDSIP programmes, was initially receptive, in agreeing at least to taking written questions. However, it has since written to say it would rather not answer questions right now. In its work, CES has consulted representatives of the Community Worker’s Co-op, CDPs and Partnerships in recent months, but the representatives at CES workshops refused to sign off on the majority of what the company proposed. CES is to receive €5-plus million over the coming 3-4 years from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and this is being matched by funds from Atlantic Philanthropies. However, its work has been publicly called into question – most recently on the News on TV3 with Vincent Browne – over its approach to its work. The questions we put to CES covered the following, among others: 1. Given Bord Snip’s view, what had CES found, in brief, in terms of positive outcomes from the CDP and LDSIP programmes. 2. In CES’s opinion, what percentage or fraction of CDP work nationally could these days be truly described as Community Development work, as against service delivery work? 3. How does CES show that it gives value for money (given the millions due to be spent by CES)? We wanted to give CES the space to answer critics and we played devil’s advocate in asking the company to demonstrate how it was “above politics” and how it was truly independent. We also enquired, out of curiosity, did CES seek to adhere in its work to Community Development principles (which we would acknowledge isn’t always easy). We also asked if CES would like to say what it thought of Minister Curran’s ‘integration’ plan from a volunteering perspective. And we asked – as the Community Worker’s Co-op has previously done – how CES defines Community Development. No reply, to date.
?
?
– How Could It Make Sense?
Community Worker’s Co-op stresses key principles
The Community Workers’ Co-operative says it has tried “to engage constructively” with the process of redesigning the CDP and LDSIP programmes. It issued a critique of the work of the Centre for Effective Services and published a Position Statement (in October) outlining the key principles that need to remain central to any new programme for it to work. The CWC presented this to the Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, on December 2nd. Pobal which is charged with implementing the new programme were present alongside representatives from the National Community Development Forum and Dail deputies. In its critique of CES work, the CWC said: While CWC would like to be in a position to suggest ways in which the design might be improved it is the considered opinion of our members that the design in its present format is unworkable. For a programme to enable community development at local level it must provide for: 1. Independent, autonomous, self-governing and locally based organisations that have as their core the participation of those at whom policies and services are targeted. The ability to analyse and constructively critique with a view to informing the development and implementation of service provision and policy must be protected. 2. Organisations delivering the programme should remain fully accountable while being permitted a high degree of autonomy within a framework of programme objectives. Accountability to the target groups must be paramount. 3. Community development to be central as an action and be maintained and enhanced
A little learning is a dangerous thing; a lot of ignorance is just as bad
?
38.
?
as the lead strand of any redesign of the programme. In addition, empowering and inclusive community development methods need to inform all work with marginalised people. 4. The integrated approaches that have served marginalized communities well in combating social exclusion, discrimination and unemployment must be retained within a remodelled programme. 5. The management and support of the programme by a support framework that is competent, skilled and capable of providing the strategic tools and support required to enable the programme to meet its goals – social inclusion will not happen without a strong driving force. 6. Community organizations, as the mechanism that facilitates participation, target group empowerment and effective and sustainable delivery on objectives, need to have a strengthened visibility. Funding for this purpose needs to be ring-fenced at sustainably effective levels. 7. All proposed changes to be open, transparent, designed and negotiated directly with all relevant stakeholders. - Ann Irwin, CWC National Co-ordinator.