Joint Forum Panel Minutes 29 October 2005

1 Welcome

Maurice welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2 Apologies

Apologies were received from Jim Deery, Niall Fitzduff, Roy Hanna, Olwen Lyner, Seamus McAleavey, Carol O’Bryan and Wendy Osborne.

3 Minutes of last meeting

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 October were agreed as accurate.

4 Matters Arising

All matters arising are covered in the agenda.

5 ICT Consortium update

Stephen Gray, Head of ICT at NICVA, attended to give an update on the ICT Consortium (as discussed at the meeting on 31 August). The Consortium consists of a number of organisations working together on an informal basis – it is not funded or constituted. Members include NICVA, Rural Community Network, Training for Women Network, Age Concern NI, SHAC, EGSA, Youthnet, Advice NI, the Cedar Foundation and Housing Rights Service. The Consortium is not looking at ICT in itself but rather ICT as an enabler for the work of the sector, therefore members are not just ‘techies’ but also eg Information Officers. They are open to new members if anyone is interested and prepared to make some time commitment.

So far they have been focussing on practical work such as last month’s conference on web accessibility, and promoting such initiatives electronically. This has been made easier by the number of large network organisations taking part, however it is important to also involve smaller groups. The Consortium is now beginning to look at how to develop an ICT strategy and who should be involved, in line with the recommendation in Positive Steps. They would welcome any ideas on what should be included or the policy direction it might take, and Stephen can be contacted at stephen.gray@nicva.org . This will also be discussed at a forthcoming meeting between NICVA and VCU senior management.

There is still a real lack of access to ICT for smaller organisations, and there needs to be a greater emphasis on the fact that it is not just about PCs on desks and ECDL training. This could be a key role for networks in the future. Access to funding streams is moving more and more online and some groups may be losing out. The strategy should focus on what small and medium sized organisations need, and how they can find out what they need to know when eg designing a website. NICVA can provide some advice, eg on the tendering process they went through for the CommunityNI site. The portal will also in the future allow smaller groups to have their own individual web presence.

Further information on the Consortium can be found at http://www.communityni.org/index.cfm/section/article/page/ICTConsortium In England the Consortium that exists there is much further advanced and has received funding of £4million. The link to the English ICT consortium business plan is http://www.ictconsortium.org.uk/whatwearedoing.htm

6 PSI paper

OFMDFM did not attend the Forum meeting, however they did submit a written response to the Secretariats’ request for comments on the ECNI recommendations. Members were disappointed with the response which only mentions two of the groups when the original paper was about all seven groups. The response does not address what is actually being done with the ECNI recommendations. This will need to be followed up with OFMDFM as we would like to know if they have learnt any lessons from their experiences of PSI groups, and what they intend to do with the recommendations.

It was agreed that, in line with discussion at the Forum, it would be good for Government to do a similar exercise to gauge the experiences of their representatives on the groups. Unfortunately, one Department has no control or sanction over any other, and without devolution this is unlikely to change. PSI Groups have been a positive process when they have worked well, and we will keep this on the agenda – it will be suggested to Joint Chairs that OFMDFM be invited to attend the next Forum meeting to discuss this specific issue, and the Panel will write asking for further information on the ECNI recommendations.

7 Progress on Review and Working Groups

It was decided by the Forum that the best way of making progress would be by establishing some smaller working groups (in addition to reinvigorating the Training Sub-group). The women’s sector lobby has set a good precedent and they found it best to work with civil servants at a very senior level – so possibly the best representatives for the forum would have less specialism but more ‘clout’ – this would work as long as they had good linkages within and between Departments.

The issue of the length of member terms was not raised at the forum however may be considered when the current membership ends in 2007.

8 Additional feedback from Forum

Feedback from the meeting was generally very positive – it had a better feeling than previous meetings and there was overall satisfaction with the work done on the day. Members felt that there was more interest shown by the Government representatives, and that the working groups were both interesting and useful. There are no simple answers on who should attend meetings, but working on the Review recommendations should bring some progress.

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the Modernisation Fund. The Department wants to get it running quickly with a 28 day turnaround time, but this is not enough for organisations to consider how they meet the criteria, look at partnership/consortium working and get Departmental endorsement. Experience so far has shown that some Departments are unsure what is meant when they are asked to endorse an application. The view being taken by NIO is welcome as they are content to rely on their knowledge of the organisation. Concern was raised at how VCU will manage the applications given that they are already pressed with other funding streams. It also appears that there may be some confusion between this and an internal Government modernisation fund. It was felt that the Fund does not really take Positive Steps on board – it does not address the longer term sustainability of the sector, rather offering more small, short-term amounts of funding and providing further administrative burdens. Clarity is needed on how this might impact on full cost recovery, and contracts as opposed to grants.

The recent success of the women’s sector in securing emergency funding was commended as a good example of partnership working and effective lobbying, and could provide a good way of looking forward for other sub-sectors. However these actions also lead to a Review of the sector which may have other long-term impacts, so the overall success cannot yet be determined.

Members were concerned about the terminology being used in Priorities and Budgets, with an emphasis on ‘high-priority’ rather than ‘frontline’ services. Who decides the level of priority? Are efficiency savings actually being tracked to assess their effectiveness? NICVA have published a briefing, available at http://www.communityni.org/uploads/docs/nicva_BudgetBrief_271005.pdf

There have been no further developments on Partners for Change and due to staffing problems in VCU it will be December before a draft is issued. The work already done needs to be revisited to incorporate Positive Steps. The RPA and Priorities & Budgets will also have an effect on it. However these should not be used as excuses to further delay the process.

9 Communications

Zoë informed members that the Annual Report was approved for publication at the Forum and will now be published on the CommunityNI website, and promoted via other NICVA communications. Members are welcome to use it on their own websites and can request articles from Zoë.

10 AOB

Members were informed of NICVA’s European Conference on 15 November and AGM on 2 December, and of the Jimmy Kearney Memorial Lecture on 1 December.

11 Dates of next meetings - 2006

It is hoped that the Forum will take place on 7 March, and that a Minister may be available to attend. The new dates for Panel meetings were set as 26 January and 23 March, and both will be at 10.00am in NICVA.