Resourcing the Voluntary andCommunity Sector

insi

de▼

R U R A L C O M M U N I T Y N E T W O R K ( N I ) M A G A Z I N E

ru

ra

l

NETWORK newsSPRING 2004

NO. 38

where is rural?where is rural?

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

2

cont

ents

Spring 2004 No. 38

Published by

Rural Community Network (NI)

38a Oldtown Street CookstownBT80 8EF

Tel: 028 867 66670Fax: 028 867 66006

E-mail - roger@ruralcommunitynetwork.orgWeb Site: www.ruralcommunitynetwork.org

RCN is recognised by the Inland Revenue asCharitable, No. XR17297

Editorial TeamRoger O’SullivanGareth HarperKathryn KerrNiall Fitzduff

The views of any particular contributor are not necessarily those of the Editorial Team or Rural Community Network

“The Rural Community Network (RCN)is a voluntary organisation establishedby community groups from rural areas to articulate the voice of ruralcommunities on issues relating topoverty, disadvantage and equality”.

Quality Statement“We are committed to continuallyimproving the quality of our servicesto our members and the wider ruralcommunity and the standards of ourwork and organisational practices”.

A large type version of this text is available

Publication designed by Page Setup and

printed on environmentally friendly paper.

introduction ............................................................ 3

resourcing the voluntary and community sector ............ 4

the big moment ...................................................... 5

what’s the response - views from a rural seminar .......... 6-7

rural community development and

pathways for change-what’s the position?.................... 8-9

rural life in their hands!............................................ 10

a local government perspective .................................. 11

if it is good to empower women in 1998

why, is it not in 2003?.............................................. 12-15

what’s in it for rural young people? ............................ 16

rural divisions- tacit realities .................................... 17

ensuring services are available and accessible .............. 18

policy update .......................................................... 19

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

3

elcome to the Spring edition ofNetwork News which focuses on two

strategically important issues for the future ofrural communities in Northern Ireland.

This edition aims to raise rural specific issues,concerns and voices in relation to the TaskForce document – ‘Pathways for Change’.

Inside are contributions which set the ruralcontext for the current consultation on thefuture resourcing of the voluntary andcommunity sector in Northern Ireland.

Articles within question ‘Pathways for Change’for failing to address the rural context. Ruralcommunity development practitioners askwhat does social investment really mean, is itanything new or different, and, mostimportantly, what could it mean for ruralcommunities?

This edition aims to progress discussion anddebate and to encourage and inform ruralresponses to this important consultation. Thedeadline for responses is the 26th March.

It is important rural views are heard by theTask Force – please get your response in!

Introduction

W

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

4

At one level, the document may beseen as bland, at another it provides aframework for a way ahead. The newidea, social investment, may in factnot be new at all but wraps a numberof best practice concepts together andgives it a name – Social Investment.Put simply the focus will be onoutcomes, many of which will be longterm, creates the best configurationthrough partnership to address theoutcomes and could offer long termfunding which should mitigate againstthe worst excesses of bureaucracy.

RCN also welcomes theacknowledgment of the difficultiesthat local community groups will haveas a result of reduction in funding.We would certainly welcome theproposal for a Community DevelopmentFund to support the activities ofgrassroots involvement in tacklingpoverty and disadvantage.

It is also refreshing to see theacknowledgement of the importance ofcampaigning and lobbying as part ofwhat the sector contributes, working

from a relatively independentperspective. Although RCN wasrepresented on the infrastructureworking group, we would consider thisto be one of the weaker areas of thedocument but one where the ruralnetworks have much to say and muchto contribute. There was anopportunity missed to highlight theunique networking infrastructure inrural areas and to demonstrate fromour completed and ongoing mid-termreviews the qualitative work which isbeing done within this infrastructure,very much in line with the proposalsin ‘Pathways for Change’. The lack of arural context, research and casestudies is a mistake which should notbe repeated in any follow up work tothe document.

Niall Fitzduff DirectorRural Community Network

RESOURCING THEVoluntaryand CommunitySector

Rural communities will need to redress the imbalanceevident in the publication from the Task Force on Resourcing

the Voluntary and Community Sector ‘Pathways for Change’by putting forward rural viewpoints by 26th March.

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

5

THE BIG MOMENT?

• Government policy for support andfunding of the sector;

• Accountability and governance;• Infrastructure; and• Sustainability.

There has been a flurry of work,meetings and residentials. The TaskForce has produced its position paper‘Pathways for Change’. The paper is asshort and straightforward as the TaskForce could make it, although theissues are complex.

It is the Task Force’s hope that thepaper will open up debate and,coupled with an extensiveconsultation, further inform the TaskForce itself on how it might developits ideas for its final report to theMinister.

What some people refer to as the ‘bigidea’ in the paper is the proposal for aSocial Investment model for funding.This focuses on greater partnershipbetween government and voluntaryand community organisations withfunding provided over a longer termand focused on the outcomes whichthe partners are trying to achieve. It’s an attempt to get away from theobsession with process and accountingwhich dominates so much of therelationship between government andthe sector. This idea needs to beexplored further for its strengths andweaknesses, the opportunities it offers

and the threats. Focusing onoutcomes means a strong emphasis onmeasurement and organisations beingable to ‘produce the goods’.

Significantly, the Task Force alsobelieves that there is need for aprogramme to support local communitydevelopment as Task Force membershave considered that funding in thisarea is the most haphazard of all. The report is also strong on increasedinvolvement of the sector in thedelivery of public services butrecognises that there is a need tosupport the voluntary and communitysector’s work in advocacy, policy andcampaigning. There is support forhelping organisations to take andmanage risks as this is seen as one ofthe strong suits of the sector.

With regard to the voluntary andcommunity sector infrastructure, theposition paper suggests that there is aneed to reduce overlaps and close gapsin the provision of the sector’sinfrastructure. Infrastructure provisionshould be more consistent and betterperforming.

It is essential that voluntary andcommunity groups respond to theconsultation which ends on 26 March2004. The final report to the Ministercould influence the sector’s future forthe next ten years. Don’t miss youropportunity to influence that report.

A NICVA briefing paper on ‘Pathways for Change’ is available at www.nicva.org or contact LisaMcElherron, Public Affairs Manager at NICVA.

Seamus McAleeveyDirector, NICVA

The Task Force on Resourcing the Voluntary and Community Sector in NorthernIreland is at a crucial stage of its work. It has commissioned a number of

pieces of research and it has established four working groups involving a widecross section of people focusing on:

Participants welcomed the debatecreated and broad thrust of the SocialInvestment approach but had anumber of important concerns abouthow it would be turned into actionand practical strategies to support thesector in rural areas. A particularconcern was the lack of any explicitreference to rural issues and prioritiesin the document. There was a desireto avoid special pleading for ‘the rural‘but the strategy did make reference tourban centred strategies such asPeople and Place, and in the context ofRural Proofing, the participants feltthat greater acknowledgement of thedistinctive challenges of communitydevelopment in rural areas wasrequired.

There was endorsement of the SocialInvestment approach, not leastbecause participants felt that this wasa model that they had practiced forsome time across rural areas inNorthern Ireland. The community andvoluntary sector has always placed anemphasis on deliverable change inrural society but felt that some of theconcepts and language around SocialInvestment needed to be clarified. Forexample, there was a concern that thesector will become excessively or evenexclusively concerned with ‘investment’against Government objectives ratherthan local community priorities. Thereis a danger that the best ‘rate ofreturn’ for a programme or projectmight blunt the capacity of the sector

to lobby, challenge and campaign forrural rights and interests. In short,there was a feeling that the Task Forceneed to explain how investment wouldrelate to the range of positiveadvocacy functions provided by thesector as set out at the start of thePathways document.

Participants felt that key groups in thesector, such as the Rural SupportNetworks (RSNs), should thinkcarefully about evolving dual rolesunder the Social Investment model byacting as a support body as well as afunding agency. There is a potentialthat the investment approach mightplace intermediary organisations in adifficult position by expecting them tobuild and deepen capacities at thesame time as they are expected todeliver a return on funding againststated Government aims and objectives– “it is difficult to be both referee andcoach in the one match”.

Linked to this was a concern aboutmeasuring and accounting for the‘outcomes’ of investment. Whatindicators would be set, who would setthem, how would data be collectedand crucially how would informationbe used, were important questionsraised in relation to the success of thewhole Social Investment approach. In particular, it is important toconstruct measures that account forthe ‘social’ content of the investmentand the impact of funding onprocesses, capacities and ultimatelythe stock of social capital in ruralsociety.

What‘s the ResViews from a Rural SA seminar was organised by Rural Community Network (RCN) on 4th February

and was attended by RCN staff, Rural Support Network personnel andcommunity development practitioners. This seminar was organised in order to

discuss the main concerns on the ‘Pathways for Change’ document on thefuture resourcing of the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland.

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

6

ponse -Seminar

It was also highlighted that the ruralsector has developed good fundmanagement practices in the way inwhich the Department of Agricultureand Rural Development (DARD) relatesto Rural Community Network (RCN) andRCN then on to the various RuralSupport Networks. It is importantthat these relationships are reinforcednot displaced by ‘Pathways for Change’and to acknowledge that they couldform a model for other areas ofvoluntary sector funding. It is alsovital that any new fundingenvironment changes the way in whichfinancial accountability and auditsystems work in practice. The sectormust be free to innovate and takerisks in tackling rural poverty andsocial exclusion without the excessiveand disproportionate bureaucracy thathas characterised some fundingprogrammes in the past.

However, the seminar also raised animportant debate about the need forchange within the sector itself and inparticular the need to rationalisedelivery structures to achieve the bestresults for rural people. It was feltthat ‘partnership’ had become anoverused concept and that not allpartners invested equally in localgovernance structures and

relationships. It was acknowledgedthat fewerorganisations mighthelp to achieve moreefficient socialinvestment outcomes andthat RCN, RSNs and localgroups were open to a debateabout the effects of publicadministration reform on deliverystructures at a regional and local level.

Michael Murray and Brendan MurtaghQueen’s University Belfast

What ‘s the Response -Views from a Rural Seminar

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

7

There always have been concernsabout the future of services, projects,organisations and jobs, and so far wedon’t seem to have learnt much fromour previous experiences - history isstill repeating itself, at least as far as‘resourcing’ through EU PeaceProgrammes is concerned.

The nature and level of ‘resourcing’ interms of funding has always been anissue. It is a common experience ofmany workers that they spend moretime chasing funding for their ownposts than on development work inthe local area. The demoralisingimpact of this is well known. There isa widely held view that funding forposts needs to be of a longer-termtenure. This at least would help tofoster a sense of security andpermanency about posts.

However, job security is one thing, jobsatisfaction is another. The factremains that many workers employedby community groups and smallorganisations are still isolated andunsupported. If we are to consider‘resourcing’ the sector in its broadestsense then we need to look beyondjust the money to the conditions andpractices, which also prevail.

Support for and resourcing ofcommunity development work is notjust about how much and where moneycomes from. What counts as much isrespect and recognition, trust,commitment and willingness toparticipate. Let’s not forget that a lot of very effective communitydevelopment work has often takenplace with very little resourcing!

Two of the most important words forme in ‘Pathways for Change’ are‘infrastructure’ and ‘relationships’because for me both are about givingand receiving support. No amount of actions or projects or programmesor strategies or plans can beimplemented without a person orpersons skilled, willing or committedto making things happen. Yet despitethe numbers of workers in the sectorand the amount of money that it hasreceived, we still have isolated,unsupported workers on short-termcontracts overwhelmed by workloadsand bureaucracy.

‘Pathways for Change’ has set manyalarm bells ringing and it is littlewonder. For years workers in thesector have been saying ‘if only theywould just listen to us’ but to no

RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMChange – What’s The

The Task Force Position Paper – ‘Pathways For Change’ states that the NIvoluntary and community sector employs an estimated 29,000 workers,accounting for 4.5% of the workforce, which is bigger than the agricultural,transport, financial or local government sectors. But despite the size of thesector, it is still an insecure and fragile one as far as the experiences ofmany rural workers are concerned. The experience of rural workers is alsobecoming an increasingly isolated one in a number of contexts.

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

8

avail. That is not the experience ofthe average worker toiling away in asmall rural community. Many a ruralworker is a mite cynical at the momentthat their view will be overlooked.And the fact that there is no ruralrepresentation on the Task Force hasnot helped this perception.

What is needed is a strategy thatsupports the biggest resource we have;i.e. the 29,000 working within thesector, not to mention those workingon a voluntary basis. Too manyworkers are transitory, moving in, onand out, often picking up a poorexperience on the way. Too manyvolunteers and activists areoverstretched and overburdened byconditions and legalities, increasinglyaccountable upwards but hardly everoutwards. The basic tenets ofcommunity development practice areovershadowed by the urgency of thenext quarterly monitoring return.

Increasingly decent, well-paid postsare becoming harder and harder to fill.The re-advertisements in the BelfastTelegraph are testimony to this.

Yes, we need secure funding, of course we do. And we need a secureworkforce too - paid workers andvolunteers that have access toadequate support and training, whoare treated with respect and trust. We also need a secure sector, basedupon a well-resourced infrastructurethat can provide the support that isneeded, where it is needed, be itNewtownbutler or Newtownards.

It’s not that I don’t like change, I do.

Change is good, challenging andpositive. But ‘Pathways for Change’hasn’t filled me with hope andenthusiasm. When I read thedocument, it makes me feel like I work within a sector that has gotsome kind of second class status, thatis irresponsible and can’t be trustedand must be controlled. It makes mefeel that crossed ‘t’s and dotted ‘i’stake precedence over people.

Then, maybe, if we are really good andtend to the paperwork priorities, wemight be rewarded with a bit ofcalculated campaign work orreasonable risk taking.

Isn’t that where it all started?

Anna ClarkeRural Community Network

ENT and Pathways For Position?

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

9

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

10

Overlap and overcrowding is not thenorm in areas where small numbers oftarget individuals are scattered acrossmany square miles and delivering oraccessing any service is nearly always

‘inefficient’ and costly. That isRURAL REALITY. But another

reality is that an increasingrural population is puttingincreased strain on thelocal social, recreationaland economic resources.

Thankfully there is astrengthening rural

community support infrastructure andmost Networks have managed to avoidthe costly duplication of ‘servicing adivided community’ by the creation ofparallel organisations.

The thrust of the document seemspositive and holds out an alternativevision to one which predicts doom andgloom post 2006. There is no doubtthat collaboration and activepartnerships with the statutory sectorare essential to the maintenance ofthe community support infrastructure.

The SOCIAL INVESTMENT approach isvery worthy of closer examination andconsideration and it is vital toencourage organisations to continuallyimprove outcomes. However, to insistsolely on measuring significant changein the lives of individuals may becounter-productive.

There is some level of communitydevelopment support that MUST bemaintained for the foreseeable future

to HOLD THE LINE in an ever-complicated world of consumerism and individualism.

People constantly strive to findcontentment in the next SALE andmust resort to bolting their door forfear that someone might knock. Thedefinition of ‘family’ is becoming evermore flexible and uncertain. We canno longer rely solely on church andselflessness to protect the vulnerable.

Also, if government really wants toconsult and improve participation indecision-making, there has to be asupported community sector. Currentlyone of the biggest challenges facingthe sector is how to react positively tothe myriad requests for communityinvolvement in the wheels of publicservice delivery. The community andvoluntary sector has to be joined-upand able to multi-task. Governmentneeds to adapt its own house if fewermore effective partnerships are tobecome the norm.

Let’s not “TARGET, MEASURE andBUREAUCRATISE” ourselves out ofexistence, but rather re-group, re-organise and realise why thecommunity and voluntary sector hasbecome a shining beacon for peoplewho care about life.

Let us also remember the volunteersand community representatives in allof this and listen to what they requireby way of support and then work withall our colleagues and partners tostructure that support as efficientlyand cost-effectively as possible. Butdon’t throw the babies out with thebath water.

Nicholas McCrickardEast Down Rural Community Network

RURAL LIFE IN THEIR HANDS!It’s a tough job and someone had to do it, but there appears to be a

distinct gap in rural representation on the Task Force. This is probably oneof the most important documents in several years and has far reaching

implications for the whole voluntary and community infrastructure and stillthe word RURAL does not appear once in the text. In fairness URBAN is not

much specified either, but the history, experiences and realities of lifeoutside the population centres makes a different approach imperative.

OakleafNetwork

North AntrimCommunity Network

Tyrone, Armagh,Down & Antrim

RoSAROMAL

East DownNetwork

Cookstown &Western Shores

Fermanagh RuralCommunity Network

COSTA

Omagh Forum forRural Association

Strabane CommunityNetwork

South AntrimRural Network

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

11

Resourcing theVoluntary andCommunity Sector

A traditional role for localauthoritiesLocal Authorities in England, Scotland,Wales and the Republic of Irelandtraditionally have had a strong role inworking with the voluntary andcommunity sector, with specificfunctions such as housing, personalsocial services and planning bringingCouncils into close contact with theircommunities. Councils in NorthernIreland do not have these functions,yet despite this they have beensuccessful in finding productive waysof working with the voluntary andcommunity sector to support localeconomic, social and environmentaldevelopment.

Taking a more strategic approachUntil recently, the manner on whichCouncils in Northern Ireland haveworked with the voluntary andcommunity sector has been quitepiecemeal. However, in 2000, theDepartment of Social Developmentrecognised the need for a morestrategic approach and requested thatCouncils consult with theircommunities and prepare draftCommunity Support Plans. These planswere produced in consultation withcommunities, based on an appropriateassessment of need and have nowbeen refined over the last few years.The plans are due to be finalised inSpring 2004.

Although this has resulted in thedevelopment of a greater level ofpartnership and clarity of purpose, thiswork is not all plain sailing. Therelationship between Councils andcommunities is complex and there isoften confusion regarding roles andresponsibilities, not helped by themyriad of sources of funding whichlacks co-ordination. CommunitySupport Plans have gone a long way inimproving the situation, but this willbe further developed through the work of the Department of SocialDevelopment Task Force. The document‘Pathways for Change’ sets out aposition of how these relationshipscan be developed to mutual advantagein the future. Councils recognise theneed to develop their own roles, inpartnership with the otherstakeholders, to improve the lives ofthe people who live in their area.

Looking into the futureLocal Authorities in Scotland, Englandand Wales now have a Power of WellBeing. This is an ‘enabling power’ of‘first resort’, which allows them tospend public finances on anything intheir areas to provide for social,economic and environmental wellbeing. To achieve this, Councils mustproduce Community Plans, in which allthe players; government, agencies,

business and community will have arole in creating a vision for their areasand a set of action based procedureswhich allows the main economic,social and environmental issues intheir areas to be effectively tackled.

The Northern Ireland LocalGovernment Association recognisesthat there is a clear need for thispower to be afforded to Councils inNorthern Ireland. The creation ofCommunity Plans will be a keymechanism which will permit theneeds and priorities of areas to beidentified and encourage joined upintegrated responses to many of thegreatest needs of our citizens.

Heather MooreheadNorthern Ireland Local GovernmentAssociation

A Local Government Perspective

Resourcing the Voluntaryand Community Sector

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

12

As an initial overall comment,there is a striking shortcoming.That is, the document fails toacknowledge the differentapproach, context and structureof the community and voluntarysector in urban and rural areas.This document as it reads isclearly developed with aparticular model and context inmind – and suffice to say, it’s notrural!

The introduction and indeed thereport as a whole over-emphasises the role of the sectorin terms of ‘social need’, ‘tacklingdeprivation’ and ‘service delivery’with the result that it minimisesother critical areas of work –namely that of shaping socialchange and promoting activecitizenship. It is within the

sector that much of the debateabout how best to create andshape a better society takesplace. This role is critical tocreating a society which presentsnew opportunities, tacklesstructural inequalities, respondsto social, economic and politicalchanges and values and promotesthe active participation of allcitizens.

‘Pathways for Change’ refers tothe ‘acute problems’ resultingfrom the transition from Peace Ito Peace II. Some were morethan acute – they were fatal.There were, for instance,consequences which were notjust project specific, they weresectoral specific. For example,the transition has devastated thewomen’s sector. The sector,relatively small and unresourcedanyway, lost many workersbecause the new funding criteriano longer applied to the natureand purpose of the work withinthe sector. The irony here is thatthe nature of much of that workgrew out of the initial fundingavailable and if it is good to

“if it is good to empowerwhy, is it no

Not to welcome a document on ‘Resourcing the Community and VoluntarySector’ would be akin to a turkey failing to welcome the cancellation of

Christmas! This document and debate is indeed welcome. Thedevelopment of long term solutions to the sustainability of a healthy

community and voluntary sector is one which should, without a doubt,involve all key stakeholders – government and sector alike. The positionpaper as presented, however, has limitations. This article will highlight

some of the key issues from a rural women’s network perspective.

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

13

r women in 1998ot in 2003?”

empower women in 1998, why isit not in 2003?

The outcomes are considerable.Firstly, the work, which made ahuge contribution to the lives,not just of women but also ofcommunities as a whole, hasbeen whittled back to such anextent that it is struggling tosurvive. Secondly, the financialinvestment in the women’s sectorunder Peace I has been whollyundermined by the failure tosustain it under Peace II.Thirdly, the move is in directconflict with the intention of theequality legislation which wasalso intended to underpin theconstruction of a stable society.Given that equality betweenwomen and men is one of theareas covered under Section 75and that which arguably requiresthe greatest degree of investmentgiven the extent of theinequalities and the fact that itaffects 100% of the population,it is highly ironic that the sectorwhich was actively workingtowards equality in this area –i.e. the women’s sector, has been

one of the most affected by thetransition to Peace II. Any newsolution developed for the sectormust learn from the reasons forcasualties in the PeaceProgramme.

Contribution of the Voluntaryand Community Sector Supporting the work of the TaskForce is not a commitment toresourcing and supporting thework of the Sector. This is thelevel of commitment required.

‘Pathways for Change’ refers tothe requirement on publicauthorities to consult on mattersrelating to Section 75 and refersto the role designated tovoluntary and communityorganisations in the consultationprocess. That role is meaninglesswithout adequate resources tocarry it out. The women’s sectorhas been deluged withconsultation documents. It hasbeen invited to comment onevery issue from health andsocial services, museumdevelopment, roads and canals tothe school curriculum. It has

been incredibly frustrating towitness volumes of documentsarriving on desks, knowing thatwe could make a usefulcontribution and not having thewomanpower to do so. Equallyfrustrating is the knowledge thatwe have now ‘been consultedwith’ and our silence can beinterpreted as acquiescence.Structures and processes tofacilitate consultation with thesector must be equipped withresources to make it effective.The community and voluntarysector as a link betweengovernment and civic society hasan important role to play inenhanced governance. But itmust be acknowledged andresourced. Furthermore,consultation is ineffective ifthere is only a requirement toconsult - the requirement needsto be to act on the results of theconsultation.

Key Themes ‘Pathways for Change’ refers to a‘number of organisations’receiving funding for communitydevelopment activity. A number

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

14

don’t! The rural women’s sectoris an excellent example of asector which falls between theremit of governmentdepartments. Despite years ofpersistent attempts, the sectorhas not managed to securemainstream government funding.The Department of SocialDevelopment (DSD) perceives therural women’s sector as a rural,and therefore the Department of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment’s (DARD) concernand DARD perceive the sector asa women’s, therefore DSD’s,concern. We believe we should be the concern of both! A partnership between thevoluntary and community sectorand the government will belimited in its effectiveness ifgovernment departments do notdevelop partnership approachesin working with each other toresource organisations which arenot neatly categorised and cutacross the remit of a number ofdepartments.

The Task Force refers to thedevelopment of a programme to

support ‘local communitydevelopment activity’. Thedefinition of this is crucial. An earlier section of the reportrefers to an interpretation ofcommunities which includes botharea based communities andcommunities of interest. The definition of communitydevelopment should also includecommunities of interest –otherwise the risk is that thework carried out by, for example,community based women’s groupswill be excluded, even though itis community developmentactivity.

CollaborationWhile we would support theprinciple of collaboration, theimplementation presents thewomen’s sector with aninteresting challenge. There is arisk in collaboration for thewomen’s sector. The sector has asocial change agenda and isunderpinned by the principle ofgender equality. Anycollaboration involving thewomen’s sector must also beunderpinned by a principle to

gender equality - reflected inpractice. Failure to do this wouldresult in the dilution of thisagenda. Quite frankly, given themammoth nature of the task toachieve gender equality, it is anagenda which cannot afford to bediluted. There is, of course, anopportunity in collaboration forthe women’s sector but amisleading one unless all theplayers share an activecommitment to gender equality.For a collaborative strategy to besuccessful – it needs carefulthinking and negotiation.

Social InvestmentWe are also concerned about astrategy which focuses on issues such as ‘deprivation’,‘vulnerability’, etc as it suggeststhat only people who fall intothese categories should benefitfrom community activity. It isanother consequence of thedocument’s failure to place anequal emphasis on the socialchange component to communitydevelopment activity. Forexample, women’s developmentand gender equality work need to

“if it is good to empower women in 1998why, is it not in 2003?”

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

15

work with women at all levels ofsociety, regardless of socialstatus. Women who may befinancially and educationally welloff may be prevented fromprogressing in their jobs or insociety by gender barriers(absence of childcare,organisational culture, etc.).There must be opportunities toaddress these needs.

Elements of an approachTo conclude, while bothdocument and debate arewelcome and the shift inthinking to focus on outcomesrather than outputs is particularlywelcome, the document has itslimitations. It is overly focusedon regional initiatives, papersand debates which take place atthat level and the picture itpaints in terms of documents,papers, the Task Force, thecompact and partnerships bearslittle resemblance to the realityat a county or community level.It does not appear to beinformed by a rural perspective inany way. And, the particularneeds and circumstances of

sectoral groups actively workingtowards social change such aswomen’s organisations are notadequately reflected in thedocument.

In order for this initiative toaddress the complex and diverseneeds of the voluntary andcommunity sector in ameaningful way, it must reflect‘out of the box’ thinking. Whilethe solutions developed do notneed to be complex, they need tobe sufficiently flexible andcreative to do justice to thecomplexity of the sector. Theymust also see the sector’s role inbeing an active agent in socialchange as a crucial part for itsresponsibility.

Marie CrawleyFermanagh Women’s Network

These programmes, although beneficialin their own right, have provided onlya short-term solution to long termneeds. We are all committed tobuilding rural communities that arevibrant and sustainable. To helpachieve this we need to be less ad-hocand develop a more strategic responsethat includes a range of programmesthat encompass social and economicdevelopment. These need to be basedon the needs of young peoplethemselves and ensure maximumbenefit for rural communities.

Alongside providing resources todeliver programmes at a more strategiclevel, existing resources could also beused more effectively. Recent fundingthrough the Millennium HallsProgramme has opened up anddeveloped much needed facilities. The challenge now is to maximise thepotential of these facilities especiallyin catering for the needs of youngpeople. Short term funding has alsoresulted in recruitment and retentiondifficulties in many projects. Ruralcommunities have lost many qualifiedand experienced workers. We cannotcontinue to allow this to happen.

The Task Force within the document

rightly acknowledges the keycontribution the voluntary andcommunity sector has made to dateespecially valuing the advocacy andcampaigning work done to highlightcurrent issues. There is now an urgentrequirement to lobby for core fundingto maintain, develop and maximise itspotential.

The voluntary and community sectorhas demonstrated how they are willingto take calculated risks in deliveringprogrammes and courage to producequantifiable outputs, this needs to beencouraged and supported. They havealso made a major contribution indeveloping innovative programmesthat meet identified need andeffective responses to governmentpolicies and targets in relation to NewTargeting Social Need (TSN), Equalityetc. The need to be accountable andensure value for money is recognisedhowever the current audit culture hasthe potential to diminish the realcontribution that the voluntary andcommunity sector can make.

It is now an opportune time for theregion with the development of theChildren’s and Young Persons Strategythrough the Office of the First and

Deputy First Minister (OFM/DFM) andthe Department of Education’s YouthWork Strategy alongside the impendingReview of Rural Development Policy.Together they have the potential toensure a more integrated and cohesiveresponse to meeting rural youngpeople’s needs.

Many of the issues which face ruralyoung people are multi-faceted. No single service can deal with thechallenges of addressing these alone.They require a co-ordinated responsebased on an audit of existing services,partnership between governmentdepartments, with the business sectorand with community and voluntaryorganisations. Not least services needto be shaped by the views of youngpeople themselves and by their directinvolvement in delivering services andsupport to their peers. The challengefor social and economic policy and thetask for statutory and voluntaryorganisations is to work with youngpeople to create a rural environmentwhich offers a positive future, one inwhich they have a role in shaping.Therefore, the challenge for the TaskForce is to ensure that the voluntaryand community sector are adequatelyresourced to make a full and activecontribution to this.

Caroline BreakeyYouth Action

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

16

Direct funding, primarily through European sources, to many community andvoluntary sector organisations has developed capacity and enabled new andinnovative programmes to be delivered that meet young people’s needs.However, local groups especially in rural areas have not fully benefitted fromthis due to the level of bureaucracy required and the need for training andemployment outputs.

What’s in it forrural young

people?

Here we don’t have to ask – we canuse the code: name, address, school,sports and so on. Checking out, andthen knowing what to say and whatnot to say quickly becomes a habit. Itis part of the acceptable face of adivided society – where we all get onthe best especially when we don’treally talk to each other, when there ismuch left unsaid.

It is important for the Task Force torecognise that years of conflict,nurtured by this division, have left ascarred society. Changes are possiblebut fragile, and segregation remainsthe norm. If we are thinking aboutresourcing the community / voluntarysector then at the centre of this hasto be some strategic thinking abouthow we address the deeply rooteddivision, our own kind of ‘route map’.Peace building work means differentthings to different people – andrightly so: we need to value thisdiversity of approaches because theycan all contribute in various ways.

The long term nature of peace buildingwork is universally acknowledged – weare pragmatic enough to know thatpeace isn’t just the absence ofviolence; that there are much harderchallenges involved.

We can see around us the need forslow and patient work, the need forhealing, for building new and strongerrelationships.

What is the present reality ofrelationships in rural communities?What changes do you see in the areain which you live? Are villages mainlyCatholic villages or Protestant villages– increasingly so? Where do peopleshop, socialise, who do they marry,how is land or property sold? Do youlive in an area where religious andpolitical leaders meet and worktogether for the whole community?How are new people welcomed to it –especially different cultures? Is it asafe community?

Are there places where people makelinks with others? – and are thoseplaces valued and supported?

The interest in the recent consultationon the ‘Shared Future’ documentshowed that people here want toexamine how we might secure a fairand stable community. It isn’t justabout meeting together now and again– it’s the nature of how we worktogether, how we manage differentcultures, how we engage in criticaldialogue, how we negotiate ourrelationships, how we move fromcompliance to commitment. Core tothe measurement of communityrelations is the acknowledgment ofunspoken tacit realities and the abilityto communicate and use thisknowledge with others. This meansthat peace building work isn’t thewarm and fuzzy stuff – it is hard, attimes painful, and anything but a neatsolution. In fact, common sense wouldtell you to have nothing to do with it.But we know that we can’t afford todo nothing, and the fact is that manycommunity groups and organizationstake risks to do things differently, andit is crucial that this continues togrow, especially where there isevidence of greater separation. It isunthinkable that we might have afuture that ignores the realities ofdivision, only dealing with it when iterupts into violence. If we are seriousabout a shared and sustainable futurethen we need to seriously invest time, energy, and money in workingtowards it.

Libby KeysRCN Board Member

Rural Divisions-Tacit realities

After reading the Task Force document ‘Pathways for Change’ I thought abouthow ten years ago I chaperoned a group from Northern Ireland on a visit toAmerica – my first time there. I remember going into a Church where we hadbeen asked to talk about our community, and being greeted enthusiasticallywith the words ‘Hi, how are you – and are you a Protestant or a Catholic?’ Iwas momentarily taken aback, because it was the first time in my fairly longlife that I had been asked directly where my loyalties might lie. What seemedan innocent enough question to an American momentarily brought me back tothe automatic ‘whatever you say, say nothing’ reaction.

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

17

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

18

There is a huge gap in theprovision of accessible services todisabled people in the areas of

health, education, transport, housingand employment, which currentlyexists. Disabled people have beenprevented from accessing the mostbasic services within our society,prevented from gaining a basic levelof education and as a result are noteligible to even make application formany jobs. Without the work of themany voluntary and community sectororganisations who enable participationof the most marginalized people in oursociety, who is going to step in toprovide these much needed services?Whilst the sector is widely valued inthe communities within which theywork, they have continued to struggleto remain in existence due to thepiecemeal nature of funding and thelack of support from many areas inmainstreaming the work. Resourcingof this sector is about ensuring thatservices are available and accessible tothe most vulnerable members of oursociety. Who is going to fill the gap?

Catherine McCroyEquality 2000

Resourcing the Voluntary& Community Sector -Ensuring Services are Available and Accessible

Now that we are back to Groundhog Day in the political processyou might ask what is around on the policy table for the ruralvoluntary and community sector to consider? Quite a bit. Onebig question is how, in the absence of political progress, willall the policies and strategies tie together. For example, willthe Review of Public Administration, as it struggles with thefunctions and structures to deliver effective public services onthe one hand and democratic accountability on the other, beable to complete its task. This Review asked for comment bythe end of February on five models ranging from the status quoto a reduced number of unitary authorities dealing with thefull spectrum of services. It would be surprising if the reviewgoes as far as the latter. But from a rural perspective, issuesof rationalisation and centralisation will have to be watchedvery carefully. As with the hospital debate, it will beimportant not to be left with nothing to argue over.

Rural Community Network welcomed the decision on the ending ofthe 11+ but will also watch the dangers of a postcode lotterydetermining where investment in education or lack of it could leadto greater inequities. Government needs to ensure that the qualityof education is as high in Castlederg as it is in Belfast! The rightsto quality education must be maintained across the board.

Linked to ‘Pathways for Change’ is the other highly significantpolicy area, tackling community relations, developing a sharedfuture. All the political parties were signing up to the importanceof the community relations work that needed to happen to tacklesectarianism, racism and other ills within society. It is just thatwe have to do a lot more about it in order to get off the treadmillof reducing all our politics to a sectarian headcount. Thechallenges are there within rural communities and for RuralCommunity Network itself. We acknowledge, that as we takeforward our community development work in rural areas much morehas to be done to tackle sectarianism and community relations atevery level from within local communities through the networksand within the institutions. This is work for the long haul.

The Community Support Plans being developed within DistrictCouncils will incorporate many of the above considerations and isanother area where rural communities are playing a significantrole. The Government Voluntary and Community Sector Forum hastaken an interest in monitoring progress on the CommunitySupport Plans. RCN would be interested to hear your experienceon the development of the Support Plans.

Niall FitzduffRural Community Network

Policyupdate

NET

WO

RK N

EWS

SPR

ING

200

4

19