Transcript Family Resource Centres Seminar F2 Centre 4th February 2011

Family Resource Centres
Seminar F2 Centre
4th February 2011
Aiden Lloyd
Content
1. New realities
• Background context – economic, political, social
• Operational context – programmes, impact, limits
2. Responses
• Analyses - variety of schools of understanding
• Community sector resistance – power differential
• Realisation of limits of representative democracy - formation of social movement
3. Options
• Vacuum – community development and the democratic deficit
• FRC role – needs clarity - don’t wait to be asked !
• Positioning – possibilities to be proactive
Background/backdrop
• Economic – relearning economics – classic bubble –
investment driven – mix of sovereign debt and banks
debt - public finances out of kilter with tax take
• Political – fundamental weaknesses –post-colonial
issues, populist politics, weak local government, over
use of social partnership
• Social – did not use growth to address inequalities –
income differentials, health etc – rising poverty levels,
indebtedness - consistent poverty 5.5% (4.2% 2008): at
risk (median income)14.1% (2010 EUSILC)
Operational context
Programmes
• LCDP – incorporated CDPs, reduced social inclusion potential –
hovering close to local authorities
• FRC – shifted to CEGA - FSA survived ‘bonfire of the quangos’ – FRC
strategic role?
• National organisations – 21% cut – re-application under new
funding line
Impacts
• Capacity issues - SI weakened, participation diminished, will effect
status of target groups
Limits
• Overly directive, attempts to redefine community development as
services, focus on coalface. Positive is assembly of social justice
brief within single department
Analyses (back to the macro)
• ‘Flawed state’ – post colonial residue, centralised,
clientalism, corruption, disengagement of citizens
– at odds with republic – active citizen
• ‘Post independence pattern’ – nation building,
corruption, normalisation
• ‘Ultra capitalist’ – laissez faire – primacy of
market forces, deregulation at economic,
political, planning levels
• ‘Corporatist’ - social partnership, rule of elites,
carve up of benefits
Community sector responses
• Community development benefited from EU – growth,
alternative sources of funding and participative
mechanisms, new structures – EA, HRC, NCCRI, ADM
(Pobal) - inevitable conflict with centralised state
• Intermediaries collapsed, reduced, controlled
• Community sector vulnerable - greater funding
dependence
• CDPs etc unable to fight back (mechanisms were
crude). Now playing out with national organisations.
• Outcome is that independent sector barely exists
Rediscovery of civil society
• Became obvious that sector was powerless and
vulnerable – unable to resist or negotiate state
intentions – plus diminishing community
infrastructure
• Wider parallel concerns about government failure
to prioritise/maintain the needs of citizens or
create ‘the good society’
• Needed new organising concept, a set of values
and principles – civil society, equality & inclusion,
active participation
Is Feidir Linn
• 2007 small group - discuss lack of impact on equality differentials &
concerns that com sector being denied their advocacy role
• April 2008 – conference on funding and the strings attached –
deeper concerns emerged about type of society, lack of
participation and need for sector to get organised & be effective
• Organising group widened out, renamed and vision developed
• June 2009 conference – vision presented for comment/approval –
mandate to develop vision into priorities and to build alliances - a
social movement
• October 2010 Claiming our Future RDS. Organised in conjunction
with TUs, environmental pillar, TASC etc – agreement on policy
priorities – less clarity on way forward – some local activity
• Is Feidir Linn continues as think tank – developing positions on
various issues (see website)
Options
• There is a democratic deficit in the state – this has
become apparent - civil society helps fill that gap
• Vulnerability of sector - need to institutionalise
participation of civil society – community
development, NGOs, carers – needs to be inclusive of
advocacy role
• In Ireland community development approaches
historically rooted – CD: different roles at different
times
• There is a vacuum from the demise of the CDP and the
restructuring of Partnerships – many looking to FRC to
fill this function
Family Resource Centre Programme
• Clarity – services or social change role ? Are they
mutually exclusive?
• Service role – delivers where state cannot reach, may
be more efficient, more effective
• Community development role is mobilising people
towards social change – prompts societal change
• Service role also about identifying new needs and
carrying lessons into policy arena (e.g. of MABS)
• Positioning – possibilities to be proactive – lots of
policy gaps or opportunities in prospective government
programme
• Don’t wait to be asked !
Lessons from the CDP
• Lack of strategic direction – funding programme,
divested by CPA (no standards imposed, no conduit for
policy), role assumed by bureaucrats,
dispersed/incoherent management - Dept, NAC,
support agencies (e.g. policy role)
• Weaknesses of VBM – excluded statutory and others
(partnerships, etc)
• Skills deficits – no principles/standards imposed or
developed (shared with social inclusion programme)
• Governance issues – accountability to target groups, to
department (unfair since no real accountability
imposed – then used against them following a review)
Conclusions
• Profound and potentially catalytic moment in
development of state
• Many institutions subject to profound change – social
partnership, public service, role of community sector
etc
• Building a coherent civil society voice is fundamental
lesson from last few years
• Important that effective voice for excluded is
constructed out of deluge of cuts – direct funding
dependency is problematic – FSA as intermediary is key
• FRC role at strategic and local level needs teasing out
• Clarity will only come out of discussion !