Family Resource Centres Seminar F2 Centre 4 th February 2011

1. Family Resource CentresSeminar F2 Centre4th February 2011 Aiden Lloyd

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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 !

11. 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)

12. 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 !