Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 239: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the implications that funding will have on a group (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5799/10]

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I outlined previously to the House, my Department has seen the need to redesign its community development/social inclusion programmes, particularly the Local Development Social Inclusion (LDSIP) and Community Development Programmes (CDP), drawing on good international practice and to support the ongoing evaluation of the programmes. Both programmes had a community development element and were delivered through separate local delivery structures. These programmes came to an end on 31 December 2009 and have been superseded by a new programme, the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP).

In advance of proceeding to establish a single programme across CDPs and Partnerships, my Department undertook an evaluation of individual community development projects. Many of these projects span across two decades, with quite diverse activities. The objective of the review was to identify those projects that produce tangible, appropriate benefits for the communities they serve. The vast majority of projects, including the project referred to by the Deputy, fell into this category and have been provided with funding under the new programme in 2010.

I am pleased to have been able to ring-fence funding for community development projects for 2010 and to maintain it at 2009 levels. In few other areas of public spending has it been possible to do this.

The aim of the new LCDP is to tackle poverty and social exclusion through partnership and constructive engagement between Government and its agencies and people in disadvantaged communities. The new programme preserves elements of good practice from the CDP/LDSIP Programmes and will enable groups to objectively demonstrate the positive impacts they are securing for local communities. An implementation strategy, involving the stakeholders, is underway for LCDP roll-out over the course of 2010.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 240: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of persons employed by the community development programmes that have been successful in obtaining funding for 2010. [5814/10]

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 241: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of community development projects that have been unsuccessful in obtaining funding for 2010; if all of the CDPs appealed the decision; the number of appeals that were successful; the areas in which such unsuccessful CDPs operated; the number of persons employed in each of the CDPs that have being unsuccessful; the total funding drawn down by each unsuccessful CDP in each of the past three years; the main thrust of the work of each unsuccessful CDP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5828/10]

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 242: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his plans to overcome the shortcomings of communities that have seen the funding withdrawn from their community development projects under the recent decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5829/10]

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 243: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his plans to address the funding raised voluntarily by community development projects both those that have received funding to continue operations in 2010 and those that were unsuccessful in their recent appeals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5831/10]

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos 240 to 243, inclusive, together.

As I outlined previously to the House, my Department has seen the need to re-design its community development/social inclusion programmes, particularly the Local Development Social Inclusion (LDSIP) and Community Development Programmes (CDP), drawing on good international practice and to support the ongoing evaluation of the programmes. Both programmes had a community development element and were delivered through separate local delivery structures. These programmes came to an end on 31 December 2009 and have been superseded by a new programme, the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP).

The aim of the new programme is to tackle poverty and social exclusion through partnership and constructive engagement between Government and its agencies and people in disadvantaged communities. The new programme preserves elements of good practice from the CDP/LDSIP Programmes and will enable groups to objectively demonstrate the positive impacts they are securing for local communities. An implementation strategy, involving the stakeholders, is underway for LCDP roll-out over the course of 2010.

In advance of proceeding to establish the LCDP, my Department undertook an evaluation of individual CDPs. Many of these projects span across two decades, with quite diverse activities. The objective of the review was to identify those projects that produce tangible, appropriate benefits for the communities they serve. The vast majority of projects fell into this category and were offered funding under the new programme in 2010.

Where projects were not recommended for continued funding, an appropriate appeals mechanism was provided and a CDP Appeals Board established. The Appeals Board completed its work on 29 January 2010 and the Deputy may be aware that its report has been published on my Department's website at www.pobail.ie. I am also arranging to have a copy forwarded directly to the Deputy.

Following the initial review by my Department, 29 projects were deemed non-viable. Of these, 24 projects submitted an appeal to the CDP Appeals Board, of which 10 were successful. The Table below lists the 14 projects that were unsuccessful in their appeals, as well as the funding each received in the period 2007-09. Some 23 full-time staff equivalents in total were funded within the 14 projects in question.

TABLE: CDPs that were unsuccessful in their appeals to the CDP Appeals Board, and the funding drawn down by these projects in the period 2007-09

The range of services provided and activities supported by the projects listed in the Table above would include:

· provision of information, advice and support to particular target groups e.g. unemployed people, lone parents, Travellers, youth, young families, the elderly and other disadvantaged groups;

· provision of practical assistance to community groups (e.g. photocopying, facilities, training, information and advice);

· provision of adult education courses and training opportunities;

· support for local enterprise and job creation initiatives; and

· identification of policy issues arising from the work of the projects and support for participation in local development initiatives.

I am advised that the projects in question have been informed by the Appeals Board of its decision to uphold the original decision of my Department to cease CDP funding for them. The Deputy will appreciate that it is now a matter for the voluntary boards of management in each case to decide the future strategy for their companies in light of the decisions of the Appeals Board. My officials have been in contact with each of the projects concerned and have indicated that if the company decides to cease operations and to wind-up, my Department will, without prejudice, seek to assist the directors in discharging their statutory responsibilities. While such assistance could include limited financial assistance in appropriate circumstances, due account would have to be taken of the nature and extent of any net liabilities incurred by the companies and the financial and regulatory limitations applicable to my Department.

The number of core staff (full-time equivalents) employed by CDPs that have been successful in obtaining funding under the new LCDP for 2010 is of the order of 290. It is intended that the new programme will be implemented nationally on an integrated basis and through new integrated structural arrangements involving the 53 local development companies and the remaining CDPs.

In that context, continuing CDPs retain their capacity to raise funding voluntarily and to apply any such funding to the purposes for which it was raised.

Under the new programme, local development companies will be able to identify and meet the needs of communities and I have asked that particular attention be given to RAPID areas and to those areas where CDPs are no longer operating.

As I have previously indicated, my primary concern is to make every effort to ensure that the front-line services provided by, or supported through, my Department - especially those providing tangible benefits for the most disadvantaged communities - are protected.