Submission to Dept. of Public Expenditure and
Reform
Consultation on Commissioning Human, Social
and Community Services
Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre
Jan 2016
Name: Ronnie Fay
Title: Co-Director
Organisation: Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre
Sector: Community Development
Address: 46 North Great Charles Street, Dublin 1
Email: [email protected]
1
1. Reason for Contributing to Consultation
Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre is a national non-governmental organisation
committed to the attainment of human rights for Irish Travellers and Roma1 in Ireland.
Established in 1985, the organisation comprises Travellers, Roma and members of the
majority population working in partnership to address the needs of Travellers and Roma, who
as minority ethnic groups experience exclusion and marginalisation. The aim of Pavee Point
is to contribute to improvement in the quality of life and living circumstances of Irish
Travellers and Roma by working for social justice, solidarity and human rights.
Our work involves research, local action, awareness-raising, national resourcing and policy
advocacy, and we use a community work approach based on the principles of human rights,
equality, cultural diversity and inter-culturalism. Amongst the activities we undertake are
training, technical support, information and communications resources. We work at national,
regional and local levels. Amongst our activities at national level include our role as a
specialist support agency funded by the Dept. of Environment under the LCDP. We also
resource and coordinate a number of national networks including the National Traveller
Health Network and the National Drugs Network.
Pavee Point chairs and supports the coordination of the National Traveller Partnership (NTP),
the mechanism through which the Dept. of Environment funds the Local and Community
Development Programme (LCDP) to Travellers. Funding is disbursed through the NTP to the
14 local Traveller projects which are funded through the LCDP. Namely, Galway Traveller
Movement; Meath Travellers Workshop; Offaly Traveller Movement; Wicklow Travellers
Development Group; Bray Travellers Development Group; Waterford Travellers CDP;
Clondalkin Travellers Development Group; Blanchardstown Travellers Development Group;
Tallaght Travellers CDP; Ballyfermot Travellers Action Project; St. Margarets, Ballymun;
TravAct (Coolock); Donegal Travellers Project; Tipperary Travellers Rural Project.
Pave Point is engaging with this consultation process as the proposals put forward in relation
to commissioning community development activities would have a significant impact on the
1
“Roma” used at the Council of Europe refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale and related groups in Europe, including
Travellers and the Eastern groups (Dom and Lom), and covers the wide diversity of the groups concerned,
including persons who identify themselves as “Gypsies”.
2
Traveller and Roma community, Traveller and Roma community development organisations
and the community development sector as a whole.
All our work is undertaken using a community development approach. Community
development seeks and promotes positive social change in society in favour of those who
benefit least from social and economic developments. It seeks to challenge the causes of
poverty and disadvantage and to offer new opportunities for those lacking choice, power and
resources. It also recognises that the majority of the problems that Travellers experience are
as a result of racism and the state’s failure to recognise them as a minority ethnic group.
Community development is a developmental activity composed of both task and a process.
The task is the achievement of social change and to address the causes and symptoms of
poverty with marginalised groups (such as Travellers and Roma) based on principles of
equality, human rights and social justice. The process concerns the application of the
principles of participation, empowerment and collective decision making in a structured and
co-ordinated way. It does this by building groups’ capacity to organise and to give voice to
their needs and experiences, to make collective decisions on behalf of their communities and
to participate in decision-making structures that affect them. Community development
therefore involves people experiencing disadvantage being the active agents in making
changes they identify to be important. Crucially, it is also based on the premise that policies,
programmes and services intended to tackle or eliminate poverty are much more likely to be
efficient and effective if the people who are part of communities affected by poverty and
disadvantage are involved in the design and implementation of solutions. We occupy a key
role at national level to ensure that agreed government policies are implemented with the
engagement of Traveller and Roma communities and adopting community development
principles.
We would argue that a commissioning and competitive tendering process is incompatible
with a community development approach and does not align with community development
principles of equality, social justice and human rights. A commissioning process would
undermine the community development process. A community work process supports
communities to collectively identify issues and work towards addressing them through
collective action. Commissioning reframes this process as one of individualised service
delivery to ‘service-users’. This undermines collective processes and communities’
3
involvement in decision making. Organisations engaged in community work should be
principally accountable to the communities in which they serve rather than to meeting
centrally decided outcomes. A commissioning process would continue to marginalise
communities from decision making processes as evident in SICAP where the focus of
accountability is meeting pre-defined targets and goals (developed centrally without
discussion with programme implementers) rather than the needs of communities.
The commissioning process will not serve marginalised communities as the use of tendering
processes thus far in the sector has resulted in staffing cut and reduction of services.
Travellers and Roma are two of the most marginalised groups in Irish society. Specific
programmes to address the structural inequalities Traveller and Roma experience must be
developed with the communities themselves through processes which empower communities
to play an active role in programme development and decision making; a model of
community development which organisations have used for decades. Innovative responses
such as the Primary Health Care Projects were developed using these processes not through
commissioning, ‘marketisation’ and competitive tendering where programme design and
target setting is centrally determined. A commissioning process will not address the needs of
communities, protect human rights or tackle discrimination and inequality as market demands
will further marginalise those already most socially excluded. Programmes that address
poverty, social exclusion and inequality must be exempt from competitive tendering on the
basis that they are providing social services of general interest.
2. Proposed Definition of Commissioning:
a) What is your preferred definition of Commissioning [NB you do not have to choose one
outlined in this paper or the supporting documents]?
Commissioning is not an appropriate method for community development activities as it does
not align with a community work approach, is contrary to community work’s objectives and
does not protect or respect human rights, equality or social justice. Regardless of the
definition the process will still involve programme design and target setting being centrally
determined which is not compatible with a community development process.
4
3. Proposed Stages and Features of the Commissioning Process:
a) What do you consider to be the key stages and features of a commissioning process?
b) Do any of the featured models outlined in the literature review - or from your own
knowledge and experience – seem most suitable to the Irish context?
Programmes that address poverty, social exclusion and inequality must be exempt from
competitive tendering on the basis that they are providing social services of general interest.
Any process developed for other services should be equality proofed and impact assessments
should be utilised in this development process. These processes should involve the
meaningful participation of representative organisations, stakeholders and rights holders who
will engage with these services.
4. Proposed Principles of Commissioning
a) Outline the principles that you believe should underpin a commissioning approach in
Ireland
We do not believe that a commissioning process can align with the community development
principles of empowerment, collective action, social justice, equality and anti-discrimination
and participation.2
5. Transitioning Arrangements:
a) What pre-cursors will be required to transition to a Commissioning approach?
b) What improvements would you say are required to increase readiness for the services for
which you are familiar?
c) What are the potential risks to overcome?
As previously stated a commissioning process is incompatible with community development
processes and should not be utilised in relation the community development sector. The main
rationale put forward for switching to a commissioning approach is effectiveness, better
2
Community Workers Cooperative (2008): Towards Standards for Quality Community Work: An All Ireland
Statement of Values, Principles and Work Standards. Galway: CWC
5
outcomes and value for money. However there is clear international evidence to refute these
arguments.
There is significant international evidence, particularly from the UK, that moving to a
procurement and commissioning model has had significantly negative impacts and not led to
better outcomes. The shift from tendering for contracts rather than applying for grants
fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between community development
organisations and the government. Rather than providing ‘better outcomes for citizens and
service-users’3 it has restructured the democratic accountability of organisations with the
communities they work with and limited community involvement and participation in
decision making.4 In the UK organisations tendering for contracts has led them to
accommodate market based demands rather than the original purpose and goals of the
organisation and the needs of their communities. This process has in turn undermined the
independence and autonomy of organisations making them contracted service providers for
the state. Focusing on these market based demands has meant little or no support for other
integral aspects of their work such as policy development, campaigning and advocacy.5 The
commissioning process could also prevent the development of innovative responses to
emerging issues. Organisations will be implementing pre-defined programmes and activities
so their ability to engage in new activities for test new approaches is greatly limited.
The consultation paper cites the importance of the best use of resources ‘in meeting needs’.6
Traveller community development organisations have played an integral role in addressing
discrimination and social exclusion faced by Travellers. However these organisations and the
community and voluntary sector as a whole have suffered disproportionate cuts since 2008.
There has been a failure to reinvest in these services despite an upturn in the economy. Given
the severity of discrimination and social exclusion experienced by Travellers these sustained
cuts cannot be justified. Organisations have struggled to maintain the same levels of support
3
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2015): Public Consultation on Commissioning Human, Social
And Community Services.
4
Whitfield, D (2006) A Typology of Privatisation and Marketisation, ESSU Research Report No.1. Adelaide:
European Services Strategy Unit.
5
Community Work Ireland (2015) In Whose Interest? Exploring the Impact of Competitive Tendering and
Procurement on Social Inclusion and Communit Development in Ireland. Available online at:
http://communityworkireland.ie/in-whose-interests/ , 11.
6
Ibid, 9.
6
on shoe string budgets despite these cuts. Reinvestment of these resources would be the most
effective way to meet communities’ needs and support the community development
infrastructure which is already in place and best placed to meet the needs of communities.
A contracting approach may reduce overall costs however this does not address other
considerations such as reduction in services and supports to marginalised communities and
the use centrally defined targets rather than responding to emerging and developing needs
and issues in a responsive way. Under SICAP tendering has resulted in fewer staff providing
services over the wider catchment area; this can be framed as better value for money however
it results in reduced services to marginalised communities.7
Performance based contracts also carry significant threats to work on social justice and rights.
If payment of contracts are based on fulfilment of pre-defined outcomes then organisations
may well focus on easier to engage groups where they are more likely to achieve positive
outcomes. This would result in organisations not engaging with marginalised groups such as
Travellers or Roma. It is vital to utilise impact assessments to analyse the impacts of all
proposals on marginalised groups such as Travellers and Roma.
The National Institute for Health Research in the UK found that the use of a Quality and
Outcomes Framework (QOF) did not reduce health inequalities. It was found to act as a
barrier to providing care which focused on health needs of the local population and that it did
not provide appropriate incentives for practices serving populations with complex needs. It
concluded that organisations working with marginalised communities would need additional
supports to address the needs of these communities.8 Other research points to the evidence
base of the impact of the QOF remaining patchy and inconclusive.9 This data indicates that a
commissioning model does not address inequality or address the needs marginalised
communities who are worse off when such a model is introduced.
7
Ibid, 19.
Dixon A, Khachatryan A, Wallace A, Peckham S, Boyce T, Gillam S, The Quality and Outcomes Framework:
does it reduce health inequalities? Final report. NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme; 2010.
9
Steel, N., Willems, S., Research learning from the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework: a review of existing
research, Qual Prim Care. 2010; 18(2):117-25.
8
7
Programmes to address the needs of marginalised groups need to be developed in a
participatory way rather than centrally defined with tokenistic consultation. Travellers have
long experienced structural and institutional racism through the assimilationist policies of the
state. Mainstreaming approaches do not address this historical discrimination or address
inequalities effectively. Nor do they address the diverse needs of an intercultural population.
Targeted initiatives should be developed and implemented utilising a participatory process
with Travellers and Roma and Traveller and Roma organisations to address this historical
discrimination and combat racism and discrimination. These initiatives should be developed
based on the principles of interculturalism and anti-racism. Delivering services based on
equality does not mean treating people the same, but designing and implementing
programmes that are inclusive, culturally appropriate, and appropriate to the needs of groups
in society, including Travellers and Roma. As commissioning will be a centrally defined
process the most marginalised communities such as Travellers and Roma will have the least
voice and will not be served by this approach. Programmes would not be culturally
appropriate or responsive to the needs of Travellers or Roma.
These proposals do not align with the 10 Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion
adopted by the European Commission. They are not constructive, pragmatic or nondiscriminatory.10 The marketisation and privatisation of services for Travellers and Roma will
lead to further inequality, social exclusion and denial of human rights. There is little profit in
working with those who are most marginalised and excluded therefore transferring services to
the market will only compound inequalities experienced by Travellers and Roma. The
proposals also negate active participation of Travellers and Roma11 and the involvement of
civil society.12
Commissioning would also have a negative impact on the sector as a whole. A vital aspect of
community development is working in partnership and solidarity with other organisations.
Competitive tendering will pit organisations against one another and have hugely negative
impacts on partnership work and collaboration.
10
Principle 1.
11
Principle 10.
12
Principle 9.
8
It is also vital that any new policy frameworks and plans be cognisant of the statutory duty on
public bodies included under the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014.
Section 42 outlines the legal requirement to take proactive steps to eliminate discrimination,
promote equality of opportunity and protect human rights. The application of this duty
applies to the process of developing all policies, strategies and plans as well as the policies
themselves. Pave Point would argue that a move towards commissioning would be
detrimental to human rights and equality.
Pavee Point has significant reservations that this consultation is framed as if the transition to
a commissioning process is a foregone conclusion. The European Directive on Public
Procurement 2014/24/EU specifies that social services are not covered by the directive
‘where they are organised as non-economic services of general interest’13 therefore there is
no legal requirement to utilise this approach for the community development sector. The
directive also highlights that contracting does not service ‘socially marginalised groups’
effectively.14
This submission has highlighted serious concerns with a commissioning approach including
that;

The marketisation and privatisation of services for Travellers and Roma will lead to
further inequality, social exclusion and denial of human rights.

Market demands will further marginalise those already most socially excluded and
compound inequality.

Centrally defined programmes and targets will not be culturally appropriate or address
the needs of Travellers and Roma.

Proposals actively undermine the 10 Common Principles on Roma Inclusion adopted
by the European Commission.

It will not address the needs of communities or tackle discrimination and inequality.
13
European Directive on Public Procurement 2014/24/EU
14
Ibid, L94/71 (36)
9

It is incompatible with a community development approach and will undermine
community development processes and work on equality, social justice and human
rights.

It reframes communities as individual ‘service-users’ and community development
organisations as contracted service providers for the state.

It will undermine community participation in programme development and
marginalise communities from decision making processes.

The marketisation of community development will lead to poorer quality services
including staffing cuts and reduction of services.

It will have a detrimental impact on partnership work and innovative responses to
emerging issues.

Proposals have not been equality proofed and do not adhere to requirements under the
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014.
We again reiterate the need for programmes that address poverty, social exclusion and
inequality to be exempt from competitive tendering on the basis that they are providing
‘social services of general interest’. Pavee Point is urging that commissioning should not be
applied to community development programmes or services working with the most
marginalised communities including Travellers and Roma.
10