Enhancing Self-Reliance Through District Partnership Programme (ESRDPP)

1. Enhancing Self Reliance Through District Partnership Programme“伙伴倡自強”社區協作計劃 Presentation to Commission on Poverty 13 June 2006 Home Affairs Bureau

2. Background :Commission on Poverty’s Deliberations • District visits • Task Force on District-based Approach • Social Enterprises • Review of existing funding schemes – CIIF and the 3 E Project • FS’s 2006-07 Budget : “an additional $150 million over the next five years earmarked to strengthen district-based poverty alleviation work, including support for social enterprises.”

3. District-based approach being the preferred arrangement on grounds of – • Better meet district needs in a prompt and effective manner • Take account of district characteristics and allow district variations • Conducive to mobilising community resources • Contribute to social cohesion and harmony • Promote diversity and healthy competition

4. Social Enterprises being the preferred model on grounds of – • Conducive to self-reliance and work preferred to hand-out • Due emphasis on business viability and financial sustainability • Facilitate mobility and transition to open employment • Social objective justifies public support – funding or practices

5. DC Review: Public Consultation Paper released on 27 April 2006 • Achieving objectives in the 2005-06 Policy Address – • Primary • To enhance work in districts to promote effective governance at district level (para.19) • To expand the role of DCs to better meet local needs and aspirations (para.20) Secondary • To foster harmony in the community through concerted efforts (para.27) • To promote political participation at various levels and provide opportunities for aspiring politicians to participate in government work (para.26)  

6. Expanding the role of DCs • To involve DCs in the management of district facilities • To increase DC funds, from $170 million to $300 million for programmes in district facilities and other district programmes • To create a $300 million dedicated block vote for DCs to implement minor works projects in districts

7. Enhancing Work in Districtthrough Partnership • Aim – to enhance work in districts and foster harmony in society • Encourage DCs to partner with other sectors, e.g. NGOs, voluntary and business organisations • Ambit of DC funds widened to facilitate such partnership programmes. Worthy programmes already implemented in some districts: create employment, develop local tourism, sports, etc. • DCs to draw up collaboration proposals with district characteristics

8. Rationale for greater DC involvementand district partnership • DCs and district organisations can - • Identify local needs more precisely • Mobilise community resources more effectively • Operate programmes and support services on a more sustainable basis • The “Enhancing Self-reliance Through District Partnership Programme” fits in with this renewed emphasis on district partnership

9. Enhancing Self-reliance ThroughDistrict Partnership Programme Purpose and objectives • Promote sustainable poverty prevention and alleviation • Enhance self-reliance, targeting socially disadvantaged groups • Encourage cross-sector collaboration • District-based (cross-district projects not ruled out but clientele served has to be realistic)

10. Central funding mechanism • Central mechanism preferred to funding allocation to districts because: • Greater flexibility to target resources to needs • Encourage cross-district initiatives and synergy • Greater assurance of consistency in vetting and ongoing assessment • Reduce possible risk of conflict of interest

11. Eligibility • Legally registered or statutory organisations and non-profit in nature under s.88 of Inland Revenue Ordinance • Organisations can make joint applications • DCs welcome to join hands with non-profit organisations • Applications from individuals not accepted

12. Assessment • Preliminary screening by Programme Secretariat • Advisory Committee to : • Examine and recommend applications for approval • Monitor and evaluate project effectiveness • Advise PSHA on all matters related to the Programme

13. Composition of the Advisory Committee • Linkage with Commission on Poverty and Task Force on District-based Approach • Cross membership with the relevant funding schemes including CIIF, 3 E Project and SME Funding • Comprises professionals and members with business expertise • Comprises officials from HAD, SWD and LD • Generally low-key personalities, no politicians, no DC members

14. Assessment criteria • Projects should : • Focus on CoP’s priority issues (e.g. employment, inter-generational poverty, elderly poverty) • Serve particular area preferably at neighbourhood level – project catchment area should be realistic • Require initial setting-up expenditure and seed money, rather than ongoing support • Demonstrate viability after funding period

15. “Technical” criteria • Technical & management capability • Past performance record • Well-planned & practicable schedule of implementation • Cost-effectiveness • Availability of alternative funding • No duplication of work

16. Priority projects • Job creation (e.g. through social enterprises) • Self-reliance • Cross-sector partnership • Sustainability • Added value (e.g. improve access to existing support services)

17. Projects unlikely to be supported • One-off consumption or activities • Services/programmes currently receiving funding • Projects aiming at building social capital and cross-sectoral partnerships without an employment element

18. Scope of funding • Initial capital expenditure • Operating expenses • Staff cost - only additional full-time staff salary • Central administration overhead – not more than 5% of project cost • Equipment - only additional and a separate register to be kept • No virement between capital expenditure and operating expenses unless with prior approval • Staff – through open recruitment

19. Grant model • Lump sum basis for operating expenses • Commence active operation/service within 6 months • Ceiling of $3 million per project • No minimum funding for individual project • Supplementary grants normally not considered

20. Administrative arrangements • Sign contract with Government • Prior approval required before changing project period, scope, mode of operation or major budget components • Separate accounts to be maintained and books to be opened for inspection and auditing • Proper procurement procedures

21. Monitoring Mechanism • Regular progress reports and final evaluation report • Annual audited accounts and auditor’s reports (can claim up to 0.5-1% of project cost) • Visits by Advisory Committee or Programme Secretariat • Progress review meetings • Annual progress reports up to 3 years after funding period

22. Possibilities of DC Collaboration • Restricted tendering for NGOs in running cafes and kiosks in district sports and leisure facilities under DC management (existing scheme) • Book sorting, cataloguing and re-distribution in district libraries under DC management • Term contracts for minor works and repairs funded from DC dedicated block vote • Used clothes and furniture recycling business

23. District-based Poverty Indicators as reference points Based on 2005 data, the following points are noteworthy – • Despite overall improvement in employment and reduction in number of workless households in most districts, between 2003 and 2005, Islands District has seen an increase in number and % of workless households, from 2,700 households (8.3%) to 4,300 (10.9%). Could this be attributed to Tung Chung New Town?

24. Single parent households with income below average CSSA payment are concentrated in a few districts, namely Yuen Long, North, Kwai Tsing • Quite dramatic improvements are seen in Sham Shui Po, for example, 30% reduction in workless households (from 15,800 in 2003 to 11,100 in 2005), compared to 6.8% reduction in overall; 31% reduction in households with income below average CSSA payment (from 19,300 to 13,300), compared to 18% reduction in overall. Unfortunately, Sham Shui Po remains the poorest district in terms of median monthly household income ($12,000 compared to $15,700 overall)

25. Publicity Arrangements 13 June After CoP meeting, announcement of launching of the Programme and upload of the Programme’s homepage onto the Internet 14 June Mailing of Programme leaflet to NGOs inviting applications 15 June Briefing DC Chairmen/Vice-Chairmen at their regular meeting 22 June Briefing LegCo’s Sub-committee on Poverty 23 June Briefing HAD’s DO staff and SWD’s district staff 4 July Briefing interested NGOs June/July DOs to brief DCs as appropriate End August Deadline for vetting first batch of applications