Debate contribution: Communities in Transition
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Communities in Transition
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4488852
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. For any of these projects, in any Department, there is, rightly, an obligation to have an evaluation process. That will measure the outcomes. It will look at the outcomes set at the beginning of the project, at the indicators and at what was baselined for what the project was designed to improve on. Of course, we then curve back round, sometimes periodically throughout a project and sometimes at the end of a project, to assess how effective it has been. We have not always been great at taking the programmes that have been evaluated as being most effective and ensuring that they are mainstreamed and moved forward. We need to get better at that. I attended a great event just here in the Great Hall for one of the CIT projects relating to restorative justice. We heard from members of the police, teachers and community people who were using the restorative justice practices funded and supported through the programme. We heard about how the project de-escalates situations in classrooms and schools in the community, avoiding the situation getting to the point where it is much more serious, including in its consequences for the pupils involved. That is a fantastic project. I always emphasise that we could not do this without our fantastic community partners on the front line who roll the projects out and deliver them.
233 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 (0.69).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | 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 | 0.54 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.19 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.17 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:27 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.