Talking to the DSD...
Residents have been in touch with the DSD as they are a core element within this entire scenario. We recently asked some questions of the DSD about how they accept funding applications based on reports that the DSD paid for, but wouldn't sign off on. We asked questions about the evidence provided by these 'quango groups' to support their case. We've put the letters below so you can see for yourself.
THE DEPT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
One of the groups at the centre of all the nonsense here in Galliagh are
the Dept for Social Development, and we can't forget their role in all
of this. Don't get us wrong this is not an attack on the DSD staff and the DSD probably, well generally do good
work, but how they support quango groups who are not representative of
nor accountable to the communities in whose name they operate does cause
residents a lot concern. The DSD regularly name and shame people on
their website who are caught doing the double and they tell us through
their website how much these people have to pay back. But lets look at
this another way, how much public money does the DSD waste on Quango
groups? How much public money is wasted on consultants? How public much money is thrown at groups who do little more than justify their own existence?
WILL THE DSD EVER ASK THOSE GROUPS TO PAY THAT MONEY BACK?
WE DON'T THINK SO!
In a document submitted by the Galliagh Development Trust to the DSD the GDT claimed that the DSD had published and adopted the findings of the Quinn Report. Now considering the DSD paid for the Quinn report but refused to sign off on it. (see link at the top of the page) this brought the claims made by the Galliagh Development Trust further into disrepute.
Here's what we wrote to the Dept for Social Development --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi XXXXXXX
Again I'm looking for some clarification and hope you can help.
I had initially emailed Cxxxxxx and asked him to confirm how many reports Quinn consultancy had carried out in relation to proposed developments in Galliagh, Cxxxxxx informed me that there was one, I kept seeing this 'need and demand assessment' namechecked, and followed up on it with Cxxxxxx. Mxxxxxx kindly emailed me last week
and stated that 'The need and demand assessment is the first part of the Economic Appraisal on the Outer North Neighbourhood Centre that was completed by Peter Quinn and previously sent to you. You can find it on pages
25 to 49 inclusive.'
However in a document, a listing of output measures from the Galliagh Development Trust received by Annette Baxter of the DSD by email on 27 November 2007 section 7.3 states:'This project has been the subject of two major reports, both commissioned by the Department of Social Development. A needs and demand assessment was carried out carried out by Peter Quinn consultants over an eighteen month period. The findings were
published and adopted by the DSD.' If, as Mxxxxxx confirmed that there has only been 1 report, why are the Galliagh Development Trust explicitly stating there were two, and not only that but that the findings were published and adopted by the DSD.
Bearing in mind the fact that the DSD commissioned the Quinn report but refused to sign off on it because as Cxxxxxx informed me by email on 17th June that 'The Economic appraisal was not signed off by the Department as we had concerns over some issues including the absence of a complete funding package, land ownership, resident support, planning approvals and long term sustainability.'
So this opens up some questions, and I hope you may be able to help with these.
Was there two reports, if the answer is no, why are the Galliagh Development Trust
claiming there are?
Secondly, did the DSD adopt the findings of the report by Peter Quinn consultancy?
If they did, then why adopt findings of a report that the Dept refused to sign off on?
If the DSD did not, why then are the Galliagh Development Trust falsely claiming they did, and for what purpose?
Would the belief that the DSD adoption of Quinn give more credibility to the GDT case?
Has this issue ever been addressed by the Dept? This leads us to further issues stemming directly from the Quinn Report, reviewing the need and demand assessment on pages 25 to 49 inclusive as indicated by Mxxxxxx
provides some startling reading. Some of the statistics and facts stated in the Quinn Report are disgracefully inaccurate.
I am aware that the report is over 5 years old, however as a resident of Galliagh for over a decade I can assure you that what I have stated below is accurate and would reflect the time when the report was commissioned as well as present day.
These inaccuracies include the following:
There is only 1 shop in Galliagh
Now is that the Centra, Bracken Stores, Glencaw Stores, The Bloomfield Shop, The Altcar Shop, The Moss Park Shop,The Fern Park Shop, The Galliagh Park Shop, Elaghmore Shop?
This statement alone sets at standard for innaccuracy.
There are no sports facilities in Galliagh.
Absolutely no mention in the report of the Leafair playing pitches and there's also the matter of the pitch at Lenamore youth Club.
Interestingly enough the Quinn report states that the Lenamore Youth Club is outside the Galliagh area and this is further stated by the GDT, yet the Galliagh Development Trust chose it as a venue for one of their consultations. Surely that is a contradiction, on one hand its being stated that this facility is outside the Galliagh area, yet the people who are supporting this fallacy used it to 'engage' the Galliagh community.
There are no information Technology facilities in Galliagh
Lenamore youth Club, Skeoge House, The NWIFHE at Northside and the Shantallow library all in close proximity, all these facilities provide information technology facilities.
Retail provision is non existent
Again see the list of shops above, and see below.
Northside Shopping Centre does not cater for the Galliagh Area.
The majority of residents I spoke to found this claim absolutely stunning what makes it even more stunning is the chosen site for the ' Neighbourhood Centre' at Bloomfield is on the same road as Northside and will be approx a five minute walk from Northside shopping centre.
These are only some of the 'facts' in the Quinn report that residents have taken major issues with and only scratch the surface.
What further perplexes residents is that the Galliagh Development Trust perpetuates these innaccuracies and others when submitting funding applications and monitoring returns to the DSD. This is evident in monitoring returns and funding applications provided by the GDT to the DSD.
I would like to ask have the GDT ever submitted evidence to support the claims they make in the monitoring and application forms?
These claims include.
Complaints by local residents about finding used syringes in the play parks are frequent.
That residents groups fromed as a direct result of GDT consultation -
*I have to admit I am a member of a group of residents that formed in response to the poor practice of the GDT and how our community was being denied meaningful consultation by the GDT.
That the work of the GDT is promoted to ensure that the entire community is aware of the project at every stage.
That residents initially opposed to the proposed site of the community building are now keen partners and are liasing on a regular basis with staff of the trust.
I would also like raise a question regarding the Holywell consultancy carried out last year on behalf of the GDT. After reading the monitoring returns submitted by the GDT it is interesting to note that no mention is made of what transpired at those three 'consultations'
• The first consultation at Skeoge House nearly ended in a punch up between the project manager of the GDT and a resident.
• At the second consultation held in Lenamore Youth Club residents were threatened by the husband of a GDT employee.
• At the third consultation held in the GSAP office at Northside over 100 residents walked out in protest at not only what plans the GDT were bringing forward but how the GDT were bringing their plans forward.
Considering that the events of the second and third consultations were widely covered in the media and addressed at Council, that no mention is made referencing these events in their returns to the DSD is astounding.
Have the GDT been aasked about these issues?
What has their response been?
Residents are aware that every development project will obviously have negative and positive aspects, but for the GDT to ignore the realities created by their poor practice and handling of their project is verging on the ridiculous. The bottom up community led approach envisiged by the DSD is sadly not happening in Galliagh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was the DSD Response:
Date: 25 August 2010
Dear Mr XXXXX
Freedom of Information
GALLIAGH DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS
I refer to the request for information in your e-mail of 31 July 2010 to CXXXXXX.
I have been asked to respond.
I can confirm there was only one Economic Appraisal commissioned by DSD and this was never signed off by the Department. The report was completed in two parts, the first part being the need and demand assessment, and this
may be where the confusion arises.
You then ask a number of questions regarding claims by Galliagh Development Trust (GDT) and I would suggest
that GDT would be best placed to answer these. You have also claimed there are inaccuracies in the Economic Appraisal. As previously indicated the Economic Appraisal was never signed off by the Department so I don’t see the benefit in revisiting that report. However, as previously advised, a new report was commissioned and once finalised a copy will be provided to you.
You also query whether GDT submit evidence to support the claims they make in their monitoring and application forms. The Department works closely with all groups and individuals on various initiatives, receives quarterly
progress reports, carries out monitoring visits, where appropriate, and evaluates projects regularly in order to get a holistic view of how a group is assisting in tackling deprivation as well as evidence that they are meeting individual targets.
Finally, the Department did not commission or have any involvement with the Holywell Consultancy so are unable to comment on your allegations but were aware of the media reports at that time. However, any complaints you may
have about the behaviour of GDT employees should be addressed to their employers, the Board of GDT.
If you feel that the information we have provided does not fully meet your request please contact me at 02871 319869 in the first instance. You have the right to request a formal review by the Department within two calendar months of the date of this letter. If you wish to do so, please write to:
The FOI Team, Records Management Branch, Department for Social Development, Ground Floor, Lighthouse Building, 1 Cromac Place, Gasworks Business Park, Ormeau Rd, Belfast BT7 2JB. If after such an internal review you are still dissatisfied with the response, you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, who will undertake an independent review.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember
to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now considering what we asked the response was, lets just say lacking, so we replied and the reply is below. The DSD have confirmed they have received it, we await the reply.
Dear Ms. MXXXXX,
Thank you for you recent reply and for clearing the confusion up in relation to the issue of whether there were two reports.
Residents believe however that there are questions raised in previous correspondence that need to be addressed, and by the Department for Social Development.
Your response failed to address many of those questions.
You state the Galliagh Development Trust would be best suited to answer questions in relations to claims made by that organisation.
As the Galliagh Development Trust are making claims about the Department for Social Development coupled with the fact that the department for social development are a major funder of the Galliagh Development Trust residents believe the onus is firmly on the department to refute or verify what has been asked. And to also clarify the departmental position in relation to the questions posed.
I would again ask did the Department for Social Development adopt the findings of the report by Peter Quinn consultancy?
If they did, then why did the department for social development adopt the findings of a report that they had refused to sign off on?
If the Department for Social Development did not adopt the findings of the Quinn report, why then is the Galliagh development trust falsely claiming they did?
Has the department ever addressed this issue and as such has the Galliagh Development trust been challenged on this?
If not why not?
If not, is it considered good practice for an organisation funded by the Department for Social Development to make unfounded claims about the Department for Social Development, and these to be accepted unequivocally by the department?
If they have been challenged and responded what has their response been?
With respect in relation to you feeling no benefit in revisiting the Quinn report because the department never signed off on it. I am not asking you to revisit the report, as residents are fully aware of how inherently flawed and inaccurate it is.
Irrespective of any new report commissioned by the Department it is a statement of fact that the Galliagh Development Trust quote and perpetuate the inaccuracies of the Quinn report in their submissions to the Department for Social Development and have also in the media.
As such I am questioning the acceptance of the department in providing public funds on the basis of applications and monitoring returns that quote from the Quinn report as evidence of the Galliagh Development Trust case.
Would you not agree the contradiction in the department accepting the findings of the Quinn report when presented in funding applications and monitoring returns, but refusing to sign off on this document?
Would you not agree that there is blatant contradiction in the department accepting those funding applications and monitoring forms containing said information, yet at the same time dismissing the questioning of this process?
The fact is Galliagh development trust, an organisation funded by the department for social development utilising public money; find merit in quoting directly from the Quinn report in both funding applications and monitoring reports submitted to the department for social development.
It stands to reason that funding applications or monitoring reports must be based on evidence that can be substantiated, and based upon some semblance of reality. Or does the Department now agree & support the findings of the Quinn report as stated within the funding applications and monitoring reports submitted by the Galliagh
Development Trust?
Residents believe that the department for social development and in particular the NWDO must address issues about how this organisation uses the findings of this report as a basis for funding and monitoring documents.
You also point out how the department 'works closely with all groups and individuals on various initiatives, receives quarterly progress reports, carries out monitoring visits, where appropriate, and evaluates projects regularly in order to get a holistic view of how a group is assisting in tackling deprivation as well as evidence that they are meeting individual targets.'
However you fail to answer the question posed in the original request, your statement above relates to processes employed by the Department in its work.
Has the Galliagh Development Trust ever submitted evidence to support the claims they make in the monitoring and application forms?
For example an individual target for an organisation could be to have a board meeting once per quarter, and I’m sure their minutes would document and reflect that and be classed as evidence, however the Galliagh Development Trust are making claims about their level of engagement with the community and particularly a section of the community which has issue with the Galliagh Development Trust’s performance and conduct.
The Galliagh Development Trust also make claims about serious issues potentially affecting our community, issues such as the statement that used syringes are found in play areas on a frequent basis.
Has evidence been provided of this?
Has the Galliagh Development Trust reported this to the PSNI?
Has the DSD raised this issue with the Galliagh Development Trust and asked them what course of action they have taken?
As a parent of three young children, I am unaware of used syringes being found in play facilities, however I would be concerned that an organisation would claim this and not inform the wider community or the relevant authorities as a precautionary measure.
I would like the department, under the freedom of information act to provide copies of the evidence supplied to substantiate the claims made by the Galliagh development trust in their monitoring and application forms.
I refer you to the specific issues I detailed in my previous communication.
Complaints by local residents about finding used syringes in the play parks are frequent.
That residents groups formed as a direct result of Galliagh Development Trust consultation
- *I have to admit I am a Galliagh Development Trust and how our community was being denied
meaningful consultation by the Galliagh Development Trust.
That the work of the Galliagh Development Trust is promoted to ensure that the entire community is aware of the project at every stage.
That residents initially opposed to the proposed site of the community building are now keen partners and are liasing on a regular basis with staff of the trust.
You also state ‘finally, the department did not commission or have any involvement with the Holywell consultancy so are unable to comment on your allegations but were aware of the media reports at that time’ I am aware that the department for social development did not fund the Holywell consultation. However since two of the incidents that happened at the consultations were reported in the media, and as you state the department were aware of the media reports did the department for social development raise these issues with the Galliagh Development Trust on these reports?
And if so, what did response did the Galliagh Development Trust give?
If the department for social development did not raise the issues with the Galliagh Development Trust would
it be common practice to ignore such reports in the media about an organisation heavily funded by the department?
What is the departmental position on members of a community being threatened at an event hosted by a department for social development funded organisation?
Has the Department sought to establish why over 100 residents walked out of an event in protest at how a Department funded organisation was conducting itself?
If not, why not?
If so what action did the Department take?
I must point out, although I am sure that you are aware that the Holywell consultation was focused on the new facilities supported by the Galliagh Development Trust as part of their ‘self appointed remit’ within the urban renewal programme.
It must also be considered that the Galliagh Development Trust does mention in their monitoring return that the Holywell consultancy will take place, it seems that they have conveniently decided not to report what transpired at those community engagements.
Bearing that fact in mind when the Galliagh Development Trust submitted the monitoring form detailing the Holywell consultation was to take place, did the Department respond to the Galliagh Development Trust and tell them that as they did not fund the Holywell consultancy it was not relevant to their monitoring returns?
And by the same measure regarding the ‘Galliagh in Bloom’ project did the Department respond to the Galliagh Development Trust informing them that as it was not funded by the Department also not relevant to the monitoring return?
Can you explain why it is seemingly fine for the Galliagh Development Trust to include certain things on their monitoring forms submitted to the Department that have not been funded by the DSD, yet when a member of the community asks questions about their inclusion, it is then not relevant because the Department did not fund them, this would seem to be yet another contradiction that we would respectfully seek clarification of.
We look forward to your response
Regards
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now we can only hope that the response answers the questions we have asked, honestly residents doubt it, but we would like to be proved wrong, and maybe just maybe some bright spark within the DSD will look at how much public money is wasted on quango groups. And lets see them begin to reclaim that money. I wont hold my breath!
