Debate contribution: Communities in Transition: Update
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Communities in Transition: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482588
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As I said in my initial answer, in this phase of CIT, we will have £2·3 million to invest this year. That is building on the work of the previous two years. We are now moving towards phase 3 of CIT. A consultation has been under way for some time, looking at which projects have been most effective and why some of the projects that have been supported have, perhaps, not been as effective as it was hoped that they would be. That is all set within the matrix of the key principles of CIT. As I indicated, those are about building community resilience, working with communities and young people, and the transitioning of young people, through sport, training and other initiatives, towards positive futures. Many of those projects are based on best practice, but, as we know, that does not guarantee that they will work. That is why that consultation and evaluation is important to inform the way forward into CIT phase 3, which must take into account some of the issues that the Member has raised.
178 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.51 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.24 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:56 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.