Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 272: To ask the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the concerns and reservations being expressed by women's community projects, in relation to the proposed transfer of the management, personnel and other assets of same under the Local Community Development Programme by the integration model to local development companies, which will have a significant impact upon the current funding and management arrangements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30499/10]

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, the Local Development Social Inclusion Programme and the Community Development Programme were my Department's two main social inclusion/community development programmes. These came to an end on 31 December last and have been superseded by a new integrated programme, the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP).

All community development projects (CDPs) and local development companies (LDCs) that are currently in receipt of funding through the LCDP have signed up

- to implement the new programme in the context of my Department's integration strategy; and

- to meet specified deadline dates (submission of workplan by 26 March 2010 and of integration plan by 30 June 2010).

The position is that, unless a project has received provisional approval from my Department for an alternative LCDP integration model, groups were still required to submit their plans for full integration by 30 June.

My Department has set out a model for integrated service delivery and structures at a local level, which would involve, among other things, the re-constitution of the voluntary CDP boards from the end of 2010. Each board would then form an advisory committee to the Local Development Company and act as the voluntary management committee for the local project. This approach will preserve the community development ethos in areas and will not detract from the key essential services and supports being provided through the CDP.

My Department has set out a national model involving full integration of CDPs with local development companies (LDCs), but has made it clear that other options can be considered and that it is not a question of 'one size fits all'. The only option not acceptable is one that seeks to preserve the status quo: some models proposed by CDPs and other parties in the period since the launch of the LCDP have had to be rejected on that basis.

It is important to note that, despite what is stated by some commentators, full integration does not mean closure of a CDP or the cessation of CDP activities in any given area. As has been stated previously, any worthwhile community development activity or service delivered under a CDP can continue to be delivered under the proposed new LCDP structure and by the same staff who currently do this work. Of course, CDPs may opt out of the LCDP integration process and decide to go it alone. In such cases, my Department will be supportive in relation to the retention of any assets acquired with programme funding and may also be in a position to provide for some limited funding for a transition period, subject to certain conditions.

A number of CDPs have raised concerns about the treatment of assets (particularly buildings) in a full integration situation, where all assets and net liabilities would usually transfer by agreement. However, I want to emphasise that other arrangements are possible - for example, the ownership of buildings need not transfer to an LDC. This was also made clear in the context of the information event for CDPs and LDCs, held by Pobal on my Department's behalf, on 10 June last.

May I take this opportunity to reassure all concerned that my focus remains firmly on ensuring that scarce resources are targeted at the most vulnerable communities through optimising our efforts and resources at the front-line.