O4O - Northern Ireland

Dr Katy RadfordSchool of Sociology, Social

Policy and Social Work

O4O - Northern Ireland

Population – 1.68 M48.7% Male, 43.8% CatholicSize – 14,000 square Km>60 – 296,912 – 17%Governmental Structures Community Voluntary

Sector Legacy of Conflict

Segregation from childhood. Mistrust. Additional rural isolation

NI Aim of N. Ireland O4Os

To identify 3 communities; to explore potential to set up social enterprises run by and for older people; to provide business development training to them.

Perceived Benefits 1. To develop rural economy,

goods and services.2. Improve skill base of

participants and health and wellbeing of participants and other user stakeholders.

3. Increase social inclusion.

Overall 3 year process 1. 2008: Local Partnership FormedQueen’s University, BelfastAge NI (formerly Age Concern/Help the Aged)2. June 2009:Employment of Project Manager2. Formation of Steering GroupOffice of the Older Person’s AdvocateDept. Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentRural Development CouncilCommission for Victims and SurvivorsDepartment for Social DevelopmentRural Community NetworkSocial Economy Network – no engagement2. Identify potential communitiesTime factor impacted on decisions – role of

steering group crucialGroups at dif. stages of readiness for O4O

Overall ProcessYears 2 & 3: Identify potential partners/networks for

O4O in preparation and practiceAge Sector Platform, RMNI, Fold & Brain Bus Volunteer Now, Statutory Services (health, social welfare, city and district

councils)

Years 2 & 3 Identify potential funding sources in preparation for sustainability

Arts Council, Local Action Groups, Big Lottery, Good Relations Funds, Service Level Agreements

Years 2 & 3 Deliver Business Mentoring ProgrammeRoisin Bradley Associates – specialism trainer working

with Older People

Year 3: Setting up of Social Enterprises and Completion of Pilot programmes

Sustainability – O4O beyond project periodRole of Steering Group and networks keyEvaluation and monitoring processes beyond the O4O

life-span.

Year 3: Parliamentary reception, prize giving and lobbying event.

Dissemination

Background – Co Tyrone

Voluntary group with charitable status.

Founded in 1985 to address the lack of community activities.

16% Population 60+Kitchen no longer fit for

purpose, due to be shut down, tatty shop.

Relationships and gate-keeping impacting on committee and user membership.

What was done to engage communities – Co. Tyrone

Reinvigoration: Carrot and Stick

Age NI DiscussionsPresentations to group and

associate committeesBusiness Mentoring Visit to FinlandChange ManagementGood Governance Role PlayArts and Business ModellingSteering Group Reality Check

What was achieved - Co. Tyrone

Renamed and Relocated - O4O Centre – Opportunities for Older People Field of Dreams

Opened new restaurant with increased covers

Growth of Meals on Wheels provision

One Stop Information Shop established on High Street

Flag ship for Age NI Mid UlsterWider Community ContactBroader Volunteer and

Committee Improved internal relationshipsPress Coverage

Background – Co Armagh

Markethill Border town of 1,292 people with

a 79% Protestant/Unionist majority strong connections to security services.

8 bomb attacks during the height of the conflict

22% of the population are over 60

Voluntary “Victim/Survivor” Group of 500 membership – grant dependant – 2 paid employees wanting to develop group’s potential.

Saver Naver

What was done to engage communities – Co. Armagh

Capacity and Confidence BuildingTime intensive trust building Multiple listening sessions Multiple information exchange

sessionsHighlight membership’s existing

strengths, capacity and potential within changing political and economic climate.

Network with Government agencies.Business Mentoring ProgrammeSupport with grant applicationsIncreased support after long-term

sick leave.

What was achieved – Co Armagh

Premises ready to commence tradingSecured funding and refitted

kitchen and dining area – 200 covers.

Business mentoring trainingFocussed wider community and

sector on potential of facilityGroup working on

partnership/SLA options Process on hold

pending reports from investigation PSNI/Charities Commission/SEUPB/CRC

Background – Co. Down

Kircubbin Cuan (Lough) FM8 distinct poorly connected villages

on a peninsula 7 miles by 20.Competition between villages based

on historical differences, available resources and amenities.

Population 13,000Growing retirement area. Anticipated increase in older

population by 45.4% (from 11,900 in 2004 to 17,300 in 2017) and 53.8% increase in the 85+ age from 1,300 in 2004 to 2,000 in 2017.

What was done to engage communities – Co. Down

Introduction to Key Local Partner, Peninsula Health Living Partnership

Radio Station an idea presented to key partner - O4O seen as a route to further.

Meetings, meetings about meetings, and more meetings.

Local O4O steering group formed – snowballing residents – gatekeeping.

Project management and implementation

Presentation events to local groups (limited take up) and through age sector networks.

Family and Friends focus.

What was achieved – Co. Down2 week, 24 Hour Pilot Broadcasting - Reminiscence Programmes - 1 Hour Information Slots

Housing, Community Safety, Physical Health, Mental Well Being, Arts and Heritage, Transport, Money Matters , Environment, Education, Participation

What was achieved – Co. Down

Initial Responses by participantsParticipants energised to repeat and expand

Broadened knowledge and skillbase of participants through Media Training Reminiscence Training Business Mentoring TrainingParticipation of and potential partnerships explored from within statutory services, non-governmental organisationsEvaluation process commencing late September

Reflections

Challenges and BarriersEthical – at what cost do

volunteers to take on such labour intensive and demanding roles?

Capacity – how and who should work with and fund appropriate groups to develop their confidence and skill base?

Financial – Project v. Core costs.

Gate keeping – Personal/Organisational agendas and Rhetoric in terms of community development work not necessarily widest interest base

Commitment – tensions and over stretching of small pool of volunteers.

Reflections

What is needed to make O4O workStrong Steering Group good

management structuresAdequate Time for each stage of

process, particularly beginningDedicated Human Resources

(paid and voluntary)Start up CostsMentoringExternal Monitoring and

Evaluation

What needs to be changedCommunities/Voluntary SectorGenuine bottom up process of

community developmentRealistic expectations

GovernmentInter-departmental/district workingCommitment to community

development approaches by overseeing good governance structures and supporting the awarding of application for and awarding of SLAs.

ConclusionsIndicators of SuccessCapacity of the committees to

sustain existing and attract new volunteers and users

Level of trading that is undertaken

Abilities of group to attract service level agreements for services

User numbers of drop in centre, restaurant and meal delivery services.

Evidence of increase in voluntary and statutory partnership working