Agenda item

The Committee considered a draft Council response to The Big Lottery’s proposals to deliver a support programme during 2012/2015 which would address the needs of families and young persons. Such a programme would seek to address, inter alia, the issues of poverty, substance abuse, disability and homelessness and would be delivered through an open programme for which a sum of £15 million had been allocated. It was reported that the programme would support activities and develop, in particular, the life skills of families with children under the age of twelve.

Accordingly the Committee endorsed the undernoted response, subject to it being amended to reflect the following comments:

·         That the response would include a request that provision be made for the inclusion of programmes which would deliver suicide awareness training and address educational under-achievement;

·         That, in order to enhance the potential for communities to maximise the benefits arising from the programme, that community sector grants be aligned to the timescale for the programme, viz., over a period of three to five years; and

·         That the response should indicate that the scope of the programme should be widened to include all areas where acute need is identified and incorporate a request that the upper age for “Assistance for Children” be raised from 12 years to 14 years of age.

                  Council Response

Q1. Do you think the programme aim best reflects the needs of families in Northern Ireland?             Yes.

Q.2 Do you think the programme outcomes best reflect the needs of families in Northern Ireland?          No

Q.2b If no, what do you think the most important outcomes are for families in Northern Ireland?

Outcome 2 should be widened to read “opportunities to learn and develop together”. The use of the word “learn” on its own may lead people to think of formal educational issues and attainment only whereas the focus should be on the wider development of the family and young person. There may also be scope for including reference to the opportunities to engage with and better understand different communities (see our reference to interface areas for questions 3b).

Q.3 We are proposing that this programme should support families facing challenges such as physical and/or emotional abuse; poverty; substance/alcohol abuse; disability; homelessness; separation; social isolation and caring Do you agree with our definition of the challenges that a family may face?                        No

Q.3b If no, what other factors should be included?

The legacy of the Troubles and those living in or near interface areas should be highlighted as a particular challenge. There is much evidence to show that those living in interface areas are more likely to be in poverty, with lower levels of educational attainment etc. Social isolation is mentioned as a factor, and whilst this could perhaps fall under this heading, given the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, it is important to recognise the importance and impact of good relations on our society. Although there are many programmes designed to help in the transition from conflict, the impact on families particularly those at interface areas should still be acknowledged.

BIG may want to give some thought as to how a family centred approach, such as that being proposed under this scheme, could work hand in hand with other funding streams and initiatives (for example, that are targeted at interface communities) to provide a more joined up and intensive level of support.

Q.4 Do you agree that this programme should support families with a child/children younger than 12 years of age?           Yes.

Q.5 Should we encourage and support partnership working and collaboration across sectors?

Leading on from our comment about interface areas, yes it is important that this funding promotes collaboration and partnership working. There are many initiatives that would benefit from intensive work with families – but often this level of intensive support is too expensive and time-consuming, therefore efforts instead focus on wider programmes or universal type activities. It would be helpful if this funding could promote partnership working and actually encourage the joining-up of funding, resources and initiatives so that macro and micro level activity can take place collaboratively.

Q.6 Do you think the proposed grant sizes of £100,000 - £500,000 is appropriate?                Yes.

Q.7 Do you think the proposed grant length of three to five years is appropriate?                No.

Q.7b If no, what is the appropriate grant length?

Local communities engaged with Lottery and other grant schemes have raised concerns about the short-term approach to some funding and the number of pilot initiatives. The opportunity for 5 year funding streams would be welcome, but steps should also be taken well before the funding comes to an end to look at transitioning or mainstreaming successful projects. The Greater Shankill and West Belfast Integrated Services for Children and Young People would be a prime example. Given the nature of this support / funding it will take time to build up the relationships and rapport with families in order to make a real difference; funding should therefore be for a minimum of 3 years.

Q.8 How can we ensure the projects we fund involve families in project design, development and delivery?

It could be a requirement of funding that projects include representatives from families (ideally those in the programme).

It should also be a requirement that participating families are able to comment on the programme during its life and at its end. This could be through a standard and not overly complicated survey form. This could form part of any annual monitoring and would ensure lessons are learnt and projects amended as necessary. A permanent ‘families' forum’ could be funded and established to comment on future projects during the life of the overall programme.

Q.9 Are there any further comments you wish to make about our proposed programme to support families?

Generally we would be supportive of this scheme as it fits with the Council’s ethos of improving quality of life and many of our supporting corporate objectives and activities. The focus on family should provide a much needed “people-centred” approach and, as it is built around the core societal concept of family, it should provide a much more targeted and holistic approach to helping address need. The focus on early years (support and intervention), particularly within the context of a family setting, is a theme which emerges regularly in our engagement processes. We would therefore welcome any funding that helps provide that holistic and micro level support.