An Analysis of the Relationship of Wicklow Communities Networking to the Wicklow County Development Board

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to describe Wicklow Communities Networking and the Wicklow County Development Board and to analyse the relationship between them. Wicklow Community Networking is a fora of area based community groups in County Wicklow. The County Development Board was established to prepare an integrated economic, social and cultural strategy for the county with representatives from local development, state agencies and social partners. Wicklow Communities Networking is one of two community network, or fora representing the community sector on that board.
Case Study
At the mid-term review of the first Wicklow County Development Board, the facilitator divided the members of the board into three different Categories, having failed to assign me to any such group, I asked;
“Which category do I as a representative of the voluntary sector, fit into?”
She replied;
“You don’t really fit into any category, but you can always sit on your own and prepare your own submissions”.
The Director of Services of the Office of Community and Enterprise added;
“As this gathering is more focussed on the work of agencies and you do not represent an agency, the sector you represent would not be as relevant to the work on hand.”
An agency representative said;
“You can always submit your own policies which can be integrated into this review”.
I was puzzled by the sudden demotion of the voluntary sector from what I regarded as an equal partner in the County Development Board structure. My dilemma was resolved by my counterpart from the other community network, Wicklow Community Platform, which was agency orientated, who invited me to join that group where I made a contribution from which submissions made by me were woven into the overall work of the review.
At that time; my forum which was Wicklow Communities Networking, had no policies due to its preoccupations with housekeeping tasks and the lack of opportunity to submit policies to the statutory bodies it sat on, were themselves more preoccupied in feeding information downwards from the relevant government Department.
The contribution I made to the review was derived from a number of policy positions on a wide range of issues drawn up by Wicklow Communities Networking to qualify for funding or for inclusion in the County Development Plan.

Methodology
The methodology employed in this study will consist of a mixed approach, which is largely qualitative. The study will involve desk research in which questions arising from the above case study will be explored by means of elite interviews. The results of these interviews will form the basis of questions which will be examined by a focus group. Recommendations will be submitted from the outcome of the work of the focus group.

Background
The genesis of community sector participation on local government structures can be traced to the Programme for Change which was launched in 1996. This programme sought to
“…enable local government to realise its full potential as an instrument of democratic local self-government and as a means of delivering quality public services.”
That document listed a number of areas where a need for change existed one of which was;
“The system as it has operated has not allowed councillors to fully realise the policy role which has always envisaged for them”.
The government set out a number of principles which dictated its decisions on achieving these changes, one of which was;
“enhancing local democracy and widening participation”.
One of the measures in strengthening local democracy by giving councillors an enhanced role in local governance was the establishment of Strategic Policy Committees which would have multisectoral representation and which would be chaired by councillors. These chairpersons together with the council chairperson would form a corporate policy group which would;
“… give increased focus to the policy role of councillors and greatly enhance democratic control of council affairs”.
This widening of local control by fostering partnership and participation was attempted by the creation of community and enterprise groups within each city and county. In County Wicklow the community and enterprise group became the Office of Community and Enterprise under whose remit are the County Development Board, Strategic Policy Committees, and the Leader Group operated.
Some of The functions of the Office of Community and Enterprise are to have responsibility for and support; the County Development Board, Social Inclusion, the RAPID programme, Community Fora structures within County Wicklow, the work of the community, cultural and social development Strategic Policy Committee and the library programme and arts programme for County Wicklow.

County Development Board
There are five sectors represented on the County Development Board, (see Table 1) they are; Local development, social partners, community and voluntary, state agencies and local government.
The bodies represented on the local development sector assist development either through combating social exclusion such as Bray Partnership, Wicklow Working together, or Arklow Community Enterprise, or by promoting the development of enterprises such as Wicklow Rural Partnership or Wicklow County Enterprise Board. There is one representative from Enterprise Ireland. The mainly enterprise geared members of that sector have two members each on the board, while the three social exclusion bodies have one each. The Social Partners are clearly and simply delineated with a representative each from the farming, business and trade unions. The community and voluntary sector is represented with an area based fora of community groups; Wicklow Communities Networking and Wicklow Community Platform, the latter being Bray based and geared towards social inclusion, Arklow Community Enterprise, which already has a seat on the Local Development sector is also represented on this sector as are Wicklow County Childcare Committee and the Mid-Eastern Tourism Authority. The state sector comprise national or regional agencies such as the Gardai, Fas, Teagasc, Department of Social & Family Affairs, The Department of Education , VEC and East Coast area executive. Finally, The local government sector combines the County Development Board chair, the Wicklow County Council Cathairleach, The County Manager and the Chairpersons of the Strategic Policy Committees and a representative from the Wicklow Town Council.
The overall thrust of the representation on the Office of Community and Enterprise and County Development Board is development through social inclusion or entrepreneurial encouragement. The thrust of this study is to examine the role of the community and voluntary sector in that context.

Community and voluntary sector
Two network fora were set up in County Wicklow. Wicklow Communities Networking is designed to enable local communities participate in local governance, It is area based representing voluntary groups around the county; its area was divided into four; north, south, east and west. Voluntary groups from each of these areas could elect four directors each to the board of directors (see Table 3). Wicklow Community Platform on the other hand is geared towards social inclusion issues such as disability, traveller support, anti-racism and is more urban based and agency supported than its sister network in the county Wicklow Communities Networking .
Wicklow Communities Networking (see Table 2) has elected its directors to two Strategic Policy Committees, the County Development Board, two County Development Board subcommittees. (Urban shadow and Social inclusion), Wicklow Rural Partnership, Drugs task force and the Wicklow County Childcare Committee. It also has participated in the development of a number of regional fora; where it shared many of the experiences of similar fora . The view of those who participated in these regional seminars was that Wicklow Communities Networking was progressive in comparison of other fora.
Both fora and other groups from the voluntary sector agreed amongst themselves that a number of measures be implemented to give the fora greater participation, these included, adequate notice of Strategic Policy Committee meetings, minutes and agenda made available within a reasonable length of time in electronic format prior to meetings.

Funding restrictions began to emerge for community structures and Wicklow Communities Networking was under pressure to submit policies to the Strategic Policy Committees and later to draw up work plans to draw down funds.
Issues raised on the Strategic Policy Committees by the community sector getting together met varying success. Given the scarcity of meetings and the time spent at these meetings processing information imparted from above, The Strategic Policy Committees seemed inappropriate places for policy formulation. Both in the Outlook document submissions and the actions of the two County Development Board subcommittees, Wicklow Communities Networking were not listed as having a role to play. Wicklow Communities Networking did however; draw up their own list of actions which they felt they could have been appropriately included
The Directors of Wicklow Communities Networking however did participate in a number of consultation measures on foot of the County Development Plan to which Wicklow Communities Networking brought agreed policies on a number of topics outlined in the County Development Plan. Wicklow Communities Networking had published a number of newsletters and held a number of seminars.
The Office of Community and Enterprise called a joint meeting of the two community fora in the county; Wicklow Communities Networking and Wicklow Community Platform with representatives of the Office of Community and Enterprise and planning in which submissions to the County Development Plan were made. After the meeting, the director of services expressed his delight at the contribution the fora made.
Wicklow Communities Networking were subjected to further requests by the Office of Community and Enterprise to draw up work plans for submission by Office of Community and Enterprise to the appropriate government Department .
Being voluntary workers busily engaged in their own community groups, this demanded meeting once a month and consumed a large amount of time, which could have been used in policy formulation or engaging with local groups. Suggestions of co-operation with the other network, Wicklow Community Platform, which both networks had previously engaged in, were made by Office of Community and Enterprise, the motivation being rationalisation. The motivation for earlier communications-operation was to increase the effectiveness of both networks in representing the community and voluntary sector.

Aim
The overall aim of this study is to examine the philosophy which prompts a community and voluntary sector role in local governance.

Objectives
The objectives of this study are;
1. To measure the extent to which the community and voluntary sector achieved the goals of that philosophy.
2. to identify the criteria with which the community and voluntary sector is defined
3. To examine the extent to which these criteria are agreed by actors in the sector and meet the principles of community and voluntary participation.
4. To determine if the application of these principles are still necessary for the alleviation of poverty in rural areas.
5. To examine commonalities and distinctions between the community sector and the voluntary sector.

Utility
The above case study focuses attention on the role and contribution the community and voluntary sector have to play in local governance and prompts an examination of these structures asking if the voluntary sector is being given an opportunity to achieve its potential by participating in that governance as originally envisaged.
It is also hoped to explore the difficulty this poses for the statutory sector in facilitating this achievement.
Finally, it is hoped the result of this research will consider the positive benefits which can be derived from giving the sector a stronger role in local governance and the difficulties involved in empowering the sector to achieve the full potential necessary participate effectively in local governance.

Chapter 2

Literature Review
Introduction
It is the aim of this chapter to review some of the pertinent literature, which was used to inform and set the context for this study, which is the relationship between the Wicklow County Development Board and Wicklow Communities Networking.
A study of relevant literature on the subject will start with an example of the thinking, which initiated the inclusion of the voluntary community sector. The background, which prompted that thinking, the gaps and inconsistencies, which emerged during the implementation that thinking, and alternative theories that have emerged as solutions to these inconsistencies.
The literature, which emanates from State publications, set out the need for inclusion of community and voluntary sector participation. Literature from academic sources focus largely on the potential of community and voluntary sector participation to achieve its intended targets but is largely critical of the manner in which the statutory sector dominated the community and voluntary sector. Some academic literature offers solutions and these will be examined within the context of the writers experience in the voluntary sector.
The Taoiseach in his introduction to the white paper sets out this view;
“The great strength of voluntary activity is that it emerges organically from communities. It would be wrong for Government to seek to control and be involved in every aspect of voluntary activity, but there is no doubt. That it can provide an enabling framework to help this activity. Where this involves direct supports, a delicate balance must be struck between having a light official involvement and maintaining proper accountability” white paper
The official government perspective set out the implementation of the inclusion of community and voluntary participation within the statutory sector in the Report and Recommendations to Government on Supporting and Developing Volunteering in Ireland - Tipping the Balance (2002);
“… Governance in Ireland is changing at local and national levels. Developments in the governance infrastructure entail greater participation by many different actors and agencies and such participation is, of necessity, voluntary in part. Given the State’s commitment to partnership and enhanced participation as highlighted for example in Better Local Government, the National Anti-Poverty Strategy and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The State must match with a commitment to resourcing such participation to ensure that fairness, equity and equality are maintained. Voluntary participation needs support because it requires resources for it to occur in equal and equitable measure.”
The Goal of poverty reduction in rural areas by inclusion of the community and voluntary sector in the decision making process through participation with statutory bodies is envisaged by Faughnan and Kelleher 1993
“Community and Voluntary sector (C&V) form an integral part of the social, economic and civic life of Ireland”

Background
An inherent danger in examining areas of duplication and overlap in the community and voluntary sector appears when groups which correspond to different definitions such as informal, area based, campaigning and advocacy organisations would tend to be subsumed by more formal agency driven groups which have closer ties with the statutory sector. This is particularly applicable when financial restraints on funding underlie such rationalisation.
The goal of poverty reduction in rural areas through inclusion of the community and voluntary sector in the decision making process through participation in statutory bodies has largely failed for two reasons; The extent of the inclusion of the voluntary sector in policymaking and policy implementation was too minimal as to have any tangible effect. There was also little progress in poverty reduction.
The structures that presently allow participation of the community and voluntary sector on statutory bodies are The County Development Board and the Strategic Policy Committees.
On both of these systems the community and voluntary sector divided into two separate entities with differing and competing agendas. The community sector consisted largely of staffed agencies with semi-state status and the voluntary sector, which are area based with voluntary personnel.
A tendency to draw the voluntary sector into a semi-state agency driven status met with resistance from that sector because it felt its identity and the nature of its contribution to society which was dictated by its voluntary identity would be compromised.
.

Defining the Sector
Attempts at defining the community and voluntary sector are difficult. The white paper offers varying definitions by a number of sources;
“Faughnan (1990) offers the following broad classification of community and voluntary organisations:
· Mutual support and self help organisations;
· Local Development associations;
· Resource and service providing associations;
· Representative and co-ordinating organisations; and
· Campaigning and advocacy organisations.

The EU Commission suggests that ‘voluntary’ organisations have a number of characteristics, including that they are:
· Distinguished from informal or ad hoc, purely social, or familial groupings by having some degree, however vestigial, of formal or institutional existence
· Non profit distributing
· Independent, in particular of government and other public authorities
· Must be managed in what is sometimes called a ‘disinterested manner – in the Irish context this particularly relates to containing some element of voluntary, unpaid participation.
· Must be active to some degree in the public arena and their activity must be aimed, at least in part, at contributing to the public good” white paper

The white paper proceeds to look at further definitions of the voluntary sector, which contrasts the concepts offered above by of the Taoiseach and Faughan.
“While the discussion in Ireland commonly refers to the Community and Voluntary sector, some sources prefer to look at the sector as a component part of a wider ‘non-profit Sector’. The non-profit Sector can be defined as the sector that is non-market and non-state. It also spans the range of specialised organisations and institutions, such as voluntary public hospitals, major mental handicap organisations, major sporting organisation, credit unions, trade unions, political parties, employer organisations, educational institutions and church-based institutions. The principles and decisions contained in the white paper will apply to the support of voluntary activity and to developing the Relationship between the community and voluntary sector and the State generally. The specific recommendations will apply to the specific parts of the community and voluntary sector, as relevant. A pragmatic approach to the issue of definition of the sector is necessary, given the range of Departments and agencies that engage in relationships with a wide variety of Community and Voluntary organisations at different levels”.

History of community and voluntary sector
The history of the community and voluntary sector has been described in the document by Unique Perspectives (2004)
“The C & V sector, especially the voluntary side, has a long history in Ireland, which can be seen as starting in the 19th Century. There are two currents that can be distinguished in the development of the sector, the first is the provision of services by voluntary organisations and the second encompasses what can be broadly categorised as community self-help efforts. Each current can be seen as going through a number of phases to the present day”.
The document goes on to trace religious involvement in education and health in the 19th Century, with gradually increasing state involvement through funding and statutory responsibility for hospitals, health services and schools. Unique Perspectives (2004) also note;
“A parallel current in the evolution of the C & V sector is represented by what Ruddle terms the ‘tradition of community self help’ this tradition began in the 19th Century and is epitomised by the development of the co-operative movement, which operated mainly in the area of agricultural production amongst poor farmers”
The increasing state investment in the sector gave more control to the state. As church involvement in the sector diminished, the motivation for involvement in the sector shifted from charity to community involvement, participation and empowerment. These concepts drove initiatives such as local area partnerships and community development programmes.
The parallel twin currents of community and voluntary sector and self-help traditional community efforts have, in the present day, a similar parallel system of community and voluntary sector actors of heavily state supported agencies, mostly involved in social inclusion activities and informal area based local community groups
The white paper undertakes to;
“Examine areas of overlap or gaps in statutory responsibility with regard to support for the community and voluntary sector at policy and programme level and make recommendations to resolve such situations”

A Separation
While referring to the earlier Partnership structures of the 1990’s.the views of Walsh, et al (1998) also recognised the potential for local partnership’s to flourish despite difficulties with regard to existing representative structures.
“Local partnership’s represent an innovative form of local governance, involving state agencies, social partners and uniquely, community groups. Local partnerships exercise a considerable degree of influence over local policy issues, as well as having local discretion over a relatively significant pool of resources, which can be used to lever additional local and national funds. At the same time, local partnerships rival rather than complement the existing system of local government, with a minimal input from elected representatives. This separation has persisted, despite numerous attempts to reconcile these two structures. Local partnerships have also overcome other administrative anomalies such as their non-governmental legal structure as independent private companies and their lack of formal agreements with partner organisations on their resource input.”

Reparation
The failure to successfully integrate elected representatives into the partnership structure was addressed by appointing elected representatives the chairs of these committees strategic policy committees which were later set up. This met with limited success in that the community and voluntary sector felt further disenfranchised from participating fully in the statutory sector.
The problems referred to in this study with regard to the problems experienced by the community and voluntary sector are further expressed by Tovey and Share, (2003),
“The responsibilities shouldered by voluntary groups involved in partnership may be very burdensome and tend to force them towards some form of professionalisation. The development strategies that evolve from local partnerships generally fail to be integrated effectively into regional or national planning. Finally, despite a growing rhetoric of ‘participation’ in development policy discourse in Ireland, many elite groups remain hostile to the idea of participatory democracy. Hostility appears particularly entrenched within sectors of the Civil Service, which has been pervaded (Commins, 1985) by a ‘technocratic or managerialist ethos’ that conflicts with the democratic and participative ideals of community groups. Crowley & Watt (1992) argue that the States interest in entering into partnership with community,
Statutory influence
The forgoing illustrates several methods whereby the statutory sector hampered the effective involvement of the voluntary community sector participating in the governance of their communities.
These are the forced professionalism in community groups due to time and skill restraints on volunteers, hostility from civil servants and funding pressure from government in times of economic cutbacks, where funding for the voluntary community sector is reduced or funding which would otherwise accrue to the voluntary community sector is diverted to local authority projects. This is borne out by Tovey & Share, (2003).
“The state has not developed substantial power or resources to local administration and local partnerships remain highly dependent on the state. It is significant that the growth of local partnerships has coincided with a period of atrophy and starvation of funds for local government in Ireland; we might say that local partnerships, despite representing ‘an innovative form of local governance’ (p.106)* are in certain respects less than democratic”.

Alternative
Independent action by the voluntary community sector outside the local partnership structure can also incur a negative reaction from the statutory sector. An example is the public resistance, through media management, lobbying of councillors and mass protests, by a community forum (Wicklow Communities Networking) in Wicklow to impose levies on first time house owners building their dwellings on greenfield sites. That resistance led to the council reducing the levies significantly.
The council have since claimed that the reduction of these levies has deprived them of a significant proportion of income necessary to run the county and are presently applying for funding earmarked for the voluntary community sector such as the local Leader+ group for provision of community facilities such as playgrounds.
Tovey and Share (2003) p117, refer to this as;
“The oppositional form of community action also found expression in the ‘social elements’ of the 1970’s first EC- funded anti-poverty programme (Curtin and Varley, 1995, p380)
This programme adopted a view of community that focussed on disadvantaged categories within localities, such as low-income farmers, or women with no independent source of income. It did not emphasise a partnership with the state; indeed it argued that the state actively helped to underpin structures of disadvantage, and that redistribution of wealth and power would require struggle, confrontation and consciousness-raising tactics; including confrontation with the state and its agencies.”

A Solution
The redistribution of wealth to the disadvantaged also occurred in more conventional methods through Leader+ initiatives aimed at these deprived sectors such as training.
Tovey, H.and Share, P.also say;
“Evocations of community and of what ‘the community’ wants and needs are an effective way to legitimise the actions of those in power and to minimise the challenges from those who may be disadvantaged”.
Wicklow Rural Partnership, The LEADER+ Company in Wicklow however is a prime example of all sectors working successfully for poverty reduction in rural areas. This is achieved by decisions reached at monthly board meetings on which all sectors are represented, where funds are awarded to projects by consensus agreement of the board. The directors, including the writer draw on their local knowledge in reaching these decisions. This system is a refinement of the earlier partnerships referred to above by Walsh et al.
Finally, Powell (2000) offers a vision for effective active citizenship;
“’Active Citizenship’ can be manifested through the presence of strong voluntary associations and social movements in a society. Civil Society theorists emphasise the importance of the voluntary sector in society in ensuring social pluralism. While the State tends to homogenise society and culture, voluntary organisations and movements sustain a diversity of ideas, opinions, institutions and interests. Some, as we have seen above, seek close partnership with the state, in return for statutory funding, others challenge the State through vigorous social movements that may be seen as constituting “a people’s opposition” Powell (2000) p103.”

Conclusion
The state initiated the inclusion of the community and voluntary sector with the statutory sector within the policy making process. Ensuing tensions within that process by competing elements of the community and voluntary sector vying for a diminishing share of resources and pressures from government to implement its own targets diminished the capacity of the community and voluntary sector to realise its potential of reducing poverty in rural areas.
The community and voluntary sector was more successful in that regard however in horizontal structures such as Wicklow Rural Partnership where different elements of a more localised community body conjoined to support bottom up projects.
An interesting feature of that arrangement is the reduced emphasis of the statutory sector compared with the Strategic Policy Committee system and the County Development Board.
The elite interviews and focus group results are omitted because confidentiality was a condition guaranteed by the author. However the main recommendations that resulted from those processes were that legislation be enacted to facilitate voluntary workers attend to their duties without risk to their employment or financial loss.
April 2006

Addendum (November 2009)
Many changes have taken place in the voluntary and statutory sector since the completion of this work. Some for the better, others for the worse. The statutory sector has become more inclusive of voluntary activity and has facilitated their work in many areas.
The voluntary have carved out a role for themselves in many areas where the statutory bodies have failed to make an impact. In many of these instances local authorities have recognised the unique contribution and assisted activity voluntary in this regard.
An example from the authors experience concerns a local coastcare group. This group recognised a gap in local service provision with regards to the management of a local beach with regard to security, litter and traffic safety.
The group used media publicity to draw attention to these matters. The council responded that resources were not available to deal with these issues. The group founded The Brittas Bay Coastcare Group under the EU Cleancoast Project as delivered by An Taisce. They engaged in voluntary clean-ups of the local beach involving the children from the local schools and their families.
They publicised their activities and the county council increased investment in the car park under their ownership with the provision of beach cleaning equipment and machinery, a security guard and litter warden. The Gardai also provided a bicycle patrol, which dealt with potential problems before they escalated.
The county council recognised the work of the coastcare group by awarding the Personality of the Year Award under the Environment and Heritage Category 2008.
Coastcare Groups have subsequently been set up in Bray, Greystones and Arklow. They have held many joint ventures and been mutually supportive of each other.
The voluntary sector has emerged from the grassroots to deal with many problems facing 21st century society that presently seem outside the realm of statutory intervention. Examples are the Community Gardens initiative and the Transition movement.
These suggest a divergence from the original policy of incorporating the voluntary sector into sectoral pillars at national and local level. While that process still exists, this more recent divergence seems more relevant to meeting the spontaneous needs of communities in a rural development context than was apparent a decade ago.
The voluntary sector appears to be emerging from a local base independently of support from the statutory sector as envisaged in The Programme for Change in 1996 and outside the structures created to include them which seemed to smother their natural development and arrest tem achieving their potential, however unintentionally. In retrospect it seems that the statutory sector was inherently incapable of supporting such an unatural relationship.
The independent evolution of a voluntary sector however, may in time allow a true partnership with the staatutory sector