Minutes of The Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) Board Meeting No 122

Board Meeting Type: Strategic Board Session      

Thursday 19 March 2026 at 10.00am (Members only) and 10.15am (All attendees)

Seatem House, Belfast

 

Board Members Present:

Brian Gilfedder (BG)                        Board Member

Catriona MacArthur (CMA)             Board Member (Meeting Chair)

Sandra Horley (SH)                        Board Member

John Cahill (JC)                              Board Member (remote via Teams)

VSS Officers in Attendance:

Andrew Walker (AW)                      Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Nicola Nugent (NN)                         Head of Health and Wellbeing

Emma Dargan (ED)                         Head of Community Partnership

Tara Lewsley (TL)                            Head of Learning and Growth

Victoria Murray (VM)                        Acting Head of Corporate Services

Carol Carmichael (CC)                   Community Partnership Manager (Minutes)

 

1.   Opening, Minutes and Actions

·         The Chair welcomed all present to the meeting.

·         The minutes of the previous meeting held on 11 February 2026 were approved.

·         There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

2. CEO Update

·         VSP funding call assessments completed with funding allocations planned to be communicated to applicants following Board consideration, review and approval.

·         RTN review tender process complete and review anticipated to commence in April/May.

·         SEUPB plans to reduce VSS-PULSE Letter of Offer by the value of accumulated underspend, to allow funding to be reallocated to another project within 2026 to assist in achieving EU expenditure targets. SEUPB has indicated confidence that VSS may be able to bid for additional funding in future years subject to agreed delivery plans.

·         The public consultation on the draft 3 year budget published by The NI Executive has now closed. The lack of a budget allocation in advance of the 2026/27 financial year may have implications for the payment of annual Self-Directed Assistance awards, however VSS is continuing to plan for processing in April.

·         Copies of The Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA) report Consultation on Supports and Services to Victims and Survivors of Non‑Recent / Historical Institutional Child Abuse have been provided to the Board. 

 

3. VSP Funding Call Allocations

[These minutes should be read in conjunction with the Powerpoint Presentation provided to the Board]

 

AW provided an overview of the assessment process outlining the stages of assessment which have resulted in the recommended allocations.  In summary the total recommended for approval exceeds the budget available. 

 

Approved budget

2026/27

2027/28

Recommended

£11,030,474

£11,311,721

Budget Available

£7,900,000

£8,100,00

 

 

There were 3 key Board Considerations requiring decision for the initial allocation for the board to consider:

            Consideration 1: Small Grants (Under £30k per annum)

            Consideration 2: PEACEPLUS Overheads only

            Consideration 3: Main Call (Over £30k per annum)

 

 

Consideration 1: Initial allocation – Small Grants

 

SMT Recommendation: SMT Recommends £117,749 (2026/27) and £120,061 (2027/28) allocated to the 6 groups which scored above the threshold or funding within the small grants programme.  These approved amounts fall within the budget set aside at planning stage for the Small Grants element of the funding call. This approach ensures that all successful applicants within the small grants programme are funded in line with assessed and approved amounts.

 

BOARD Consideration: Accept SMT Recommendation and return unallocated small

grants budget into main call budget for allocation – or – Reject SMT Recommendation

and propose alternative approach.

 

Accepted/Agreed

Rejected

Abstain

3

0

1

 

The Board considered the recommendation regarding the initial allocation of funding to voluntary organisations under the £30,000 per annum small grants programme.

 

The Board discussed various alternative approaches, taking into account the differences between the small grants element of the call (under-subscribed) and the main call (over-subscribed).

 

A majority of Board members present were in agreement with the recommendation. One Board member chose to abstain from the decision reflecting a view that the same approach of allocating at level of approved bid was not going to be possible within the main call.  The Board noted this point and agreed to proceed recording 1 abstention on that basis.

 

The Board therefore approved the SMT Recommendation to allocate £117,749 (2026/27) and £120,061 (2027/28) to 6 groups as presented.

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration 2: Initial allocation – PEACEPLUS Overheads

 

SMT Recommendation: SMT Recommends £80,205 (2026/27) and £83,349 (2027/28) allocated to 3 groups as overhead support for ongoing PEACEPLUS delivery.  These groups will not form part of the VSP going forward, however in line with the structure of the call, an option was provided for PEACE PLUS Partners to secure overheads to support that PEACE work.  2 organisations applied on that basis, and 1 applied within VSP but was unsuccessful (and therefore defaulted as a PEACE Partner to be eligible only for overhead support).

 

BOARD Consideration: Accept SMT Recommendation and allocate funds as proposed – or - Reject SMT Recommendation and propose alternative approach.

 

Accept/Agree

Rejection

Abstain

4

0

0

Comments

The Board agreed the recommendations for PEACEPLUS overheads wer reasonable and essential to maintain the PULSE project delivery.

 

 

 

Consideration 3: Initial allocation – Main Call – Option 1

Option 1 – in line with process, an initial allocation was presented which allocates at VfM approved levels in line with ranked merit list until funds are exhausted.  No organisation may exceed 30% of total budget (therefore cap applied to WAVE).

 

This option would result in 12 organisations being fully funded at VfM approved levels, and 1 organisation part funded (at 50% in year 1, and 55% in year 2).

 

SMT Recommendation: SMT recommends rejection of Option 1 on the basis that this approach would fail to deliver an appropriate level of geographic coverage, community access and client choice.  A reduction in the size of the sector from 45 to 13 would create significant gaps and would therefore not be an acceptable outcome from the funding call process.

 

SMT recommends that alternative options for allocating funding are considered (and a range of other options have been provided).

 

Board Consideration: Accept SMT Recommendation that Option 1 be rejected and that alternative allocation options are considered – or – Reject SMT Recommendation and make allocations in line with option 1.

 

Option

Board Decision

Accept/Agree

Reject

Abstain

1

Rejected

 0

4

0

Comments

The Board agreed with SMT that the application of Option 1 would result in a significant reduction in the number of funded organisations within the sector.

 

Members acknowledged that the loss of a substantial number of funded groups would be likely to impact on victim and survivor choice/community access and reduce geographical accessibility to services.

 

The Board further wished it to be recorded that there is a significant difference between available funding and the level of demand for services set out by applicants, which limits the ability to fully meet identified demand. 

 

Board agreed to consider the alternative options.

 

 

 

Consideration 3: Alternative allocation – Main Call – Option 2

Option 2 – Consider revising the accepted delivery plan volumes and budgets – through a series of sub-options, to assess the resulting impact on geographic distribution and community access/client choice.

 

•      Option 2A – all ‘new posts’ not previously funded removed

•      Option 2B – all salary progression (i.e. requests for higher salary scale points for existing staff in unchanged posts) declined

•      Option 2C – apply both 2A and 2B together

 

These sub-options continue with the approach of allocating in line with the merit list until available funds are exhausted – and considering the access and coverage which results.  The fundable amounts for each group are reduced as per options 2A, 2B and 2C to enable available funds to stretch further down the merit list.

 

SMT Recommendation: Rejection

SMT has reviewed the outcomes which would be achieved for each of the versions of Option 2.  These options enable funding to be allocated to more organisations on the merit list – however the impact is modest.  The outcome in terms of funded organisations does not meaningfully address the issues outlined in response to the initial allocation (option 1).  SMT does not recommend any version of Option 2 – and instead recommends that alternative allocation approaches be explored – further reviewing the delivery plans and budgets for organisations on the merit list.

 

 

BOARD Consideration: Accept SMT Recommendation to reject options 2A, 2B ad 2C, and to explore other allocation approaches – or – reject SMT Recommendation an allocate funds in line with options 2A, 2B or 2C.

 

Option

Board Decision

Accept

Reject

Abstain

2A

Rejected

0

4

0

2B

Rejected

0

4

0

2C

Rejected

0

4

0

Comments:

The Board noted that the application of Option 2 would not result in a material change to the outcome within option 1, and would not address the issues of geographical access to services or victim and survivor choice/community access.

 

In line with the recommendation of the Senior Management Team (SMT), the Board therefore agreed not to proceed with Option 2 and to explore alternative approaches to funding allocation.

 

 

 

 

Consideration 3: Alternative approaches – Option 3

Option 3

It was recommended by SMT that, given the reduced number of fundable organisations, and the significant complexity in the victim and survivor population, the most effective and trauma-informed way to ensure appropriate coverage/access would be to fund all organisations on the merit list.

Benefits

•      Maintain maximum access/choice for victims and survivors

•      Reduced risk of challenge (including legal challenge) to outcome

•      Minimises the impact on existing staff (i.e. redundancies) – and resulting challenge from groups and their representatives

•      Limited disruption to service delivery

 

SMT recommends revising the accepted delivery plan volumes and budgets – through a series of options, using the opening 2025/26 budget for each organisation on the merit list as a starting point, before building in key strategic objectives:

 

•      Option 3A – allocation of funds to support inflationary pay increases for staff in 2026/27 and 2027/28

•      Option 3B – as per 3A, plus funds held for small number potential structural changes which have been strongly outlined in some applications – to be informed by a VSS-commissioned independent review

•      Option 3C – as per 3B plus allocation of all remaining funds to meet critical and strategic needs (essential/unavoidable overheads)

 

SMT Recommendation: Having outlined the outcomes for each option, SMT considers that Option 3C is affordable within funding available. This option would ensure that all funded organisations receive at least the level of funding available to them at the beginning of 2025/26 (therefore no reductions, no redundancies); that salary increases in line with normal NJC salary scale uplifts would be affordable in each year; that key structural issues could be addressed and that a contribution towards overhead pressures could be made.

 

SMT Recommends allocation based on Option 3

 

BOARD Consideration: Accept SMT recommendation to support Option 3C - or - Reject SMT Recommendation and propose an alternative approach.

                                                                                                                                  

 

Option

Board Decision

Accept

Reject

Abstain

3A

Rejected

0

4

0

3B

Rejected 

0

4

0

3C

Agreed

3

1

0

Comments:

The Board considered in full the VSP funding allocation recommendations submitted by SMT and expressed serious concern regarding the financial context in which these recommendations have necessarily been developed. The Board was clear that in their view the budget position in which VSS currently finds itself is unacceptable. It is the Board’s view that the available funding is inadequate and falls significantly short of the level required to meet the scale of demand identified through a robust assessment process.

The Board discussed the possibility of reverting to TEO to secure additional funds.  VSS CEO acknowledged the Board’s view and made clear that in his view there is no available mechanism at this time to secure additional funds.  TEO is aware of the level of funding which would be required to fully fund the bids received, and VSS will continue to explore all options for in-year funding (using approved but un-funded bids as a reserve list) – however pausing or setting aside the funding call process at this stage would be extremely problematic both for VSS and for groups in the process.

The Board explicitly noted that the budget has forced the development of a range of options, none of which the Board regards as fully satisfactory.

Following deliberation, the Board agreed to accept SMTs recommendation and approve option 3C – but to note their reservations by recording that this approval was on a 3 to 1 basis. On the basis of a majority decision, Option 3C was approved.

Option 3C was therefore approved on the basis that it represents the least‑worst outcome, and the only option capable of maintaining geographic coverage and maintaining victims’ choice/community access.

In approving this option, the Board formally recorded its view that the current level of funding is insufficient to support a VSP capable of fully meeting existing or anticipated demand.

The Board wished to place on record their thanks to VSS staff and management for the professional and meticulous way in which the funding call has been planned, delivered and assessed.  The concerns in relation to the outcome are in no way related to how the call has been delivered, rather they relate to the difficult allocation choices available given the level of demand for a limited resource, in an extremely complex and sensitive environment.

 

 

 

4. Date of Next Meeting

 

The next Board meeting is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 6 May 2026.

 

 

5. AOB

VM to provide additional dates for cyber security training to members.