2. The Process
Phase 1 Reaching a Shared Understanding Jan – July 2018: Organisational learnings, 12 interviews, staff survey & membership survey
Phase 2 Drilling Down July – December 2018: Theory of Change and PESTLE. Staff, Bureau, General Assembly, PeP
Phase 3 Decision Making Jan – September 2019? Staff, Bureau, PeP NC, Ex Co, EUISG, General Assembly

3. PHASE 1

4. Key challenges 1. Identity 2. Analysis 3. Participation 4. Membership
5. Human Resources
6. Change

5. Identity
Q. Are we a network championing voices of people experiencing poverty, or responding to technical Commission processes? .
Funding
Work programme – technical, time consuming, challenging to make relevant to national level and PeP
Voting structures mirror EU – heavy!
Action and change – diversify income. Funding strategy. Analysis of sources One member one vote.

6. Analysis
All agree on vision and headline values, but deeper analysis not so clear for members. What do our values mean in practise?
We work on lots of different areas – not always with shared interpretation of values, with shared analysis. Hard to know our Theory of Change, how to allocate resources to match and to measure our impact.
Actions: Develop Theory of Change, translate Values into concise analysis documents to inform our work. (With members)

7. Participation
We all value participation of PeP highly – but do we have a shared analysis of how best to put this into practise?
Action – still trying to take forward Dutch Resolution, and have clear recommendations on participation and changes which may be needed
Action – become expert on HR to participate, to model best practise internally, and to advocate for participation rights (Magda)

8. Diverse membership, many feel that too much is being asked of them.
Action – prioritise funding opportunities which can help members with less funds
Action – only focus on 5-6 issues for next 5 years, orient structures around this, in order to allow members to best use their expertise

9. Key words: Workload and tenure
Human capacity
Key words: Workload and tenure
Review of staffing structures to reflect priorities
Tenure limits for elected roles, support participation of new members

10. Change
Structural reform needs to be implemented to increase effectiveness and participation and reduce duplication
Assessment of current structures presented to members
Adopt new streamlined structures which gives all members adequate representation and ensures the most efficient decision making and appropriate use of resources.

11. PHASE 2

12. Enabling an anti-poverty movement
“To deliver on our Vision, a strong public movement against poverty is essential. EAPN must enable, nurture and develop that movement. To do so, we do not need to fundamentally change who we are, but we do need to rebalance the focus of our activities.”
Need to have examples to hand of what this could mean.

13. Prioritising to maximise impact
4 priorities, underpinned by “making our network more effective and enabling a strong, grassroots anti-poverty movement”.  
Strengthening links with PeP
Building public support and pressure for the eradication of poverty and an end to austerity
Advocating and campaigning for social protection systems
The content of these three activities come from:
4. Policy expertise

14. PeP National Coordinator Group
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
(All members, annual meeting. Extraordinary meetings by webinar if needed?)
Policy + Advocacy Group. 10 members. 3x1.5 day meetings + webinars.
Ex Co.
12 members. Pres + 2VPs elected at GA. 3x1.5 day meetings + webinars.
Thematic Groups.
Up to 10 members in each.
Comm’on Group
PeP National Coordinator Group
Anti-Poverty Movement Support Group. 6 members. 2x1.5 day meetings + webinars.
Finance + Fundraising
6 members. 2x1.5 day meetings + webinars.
GA – strengthened role
Ex Co – merge with Bureau. 12 people. 3 year mandate. Tenure – can only serve 2 mandates. Finance and Funding Committee.
Policy and Advocacy Coordintaion Group – 10 members. Coordinates thematic groups, inputs into EU processes
5-6 thematic groups – focusing on different priorities, up to 10 members in each
Membership Development – same, but geared towards supporting anti-poverty movement
PeP National Coordinators - same
In the box for the Exco I would indicate that the Exco and the 2 sub committees will both have face to face meetings quarterly on the same day with the sub committees meeting in the morning and the Exco in the afternoon and would also have additional meetings in the form of webinars as required.  
I  should have also said that the Comms team should also be inside the Policy forum circle. When we portray the existing arrangement diagramatically we want to demonstrate how cumbersome and complicated the present structure is in comparison to what we are proposing. 
I would then put the Political and Policy Meeting Committee on one side clearly linked to the Online Policy Forum which I would portray as a big circle encompassing the PEPS , thematic groups etc inside the circle and an upward link from the NN's, EO's and Affiliate Members to the Policy Forum along with a similar upward link from them directly to the Fund raising and Finance Committee which would be linked to the ExCo but not the policy forum. 
I think then you would want to show the number of elected and coopted positions in the exco box and indicate how mamy of them would also serve on the two (Sub Committees).  Hope this makes sense
Members: National Networks, European Organisations and Affiliate members.

15. Feedback
Is such a change necessary, or mandated? Should we even be doing this?
Would reduce participation and representation
Risks transferring power from members to staff team
Risks reducing internal democracy in EAPN
Balanced participation? Avoiding dominance of strong members

16. Alternatives from members?
Reduced Ex Co, Regional representation (Croatia, Sweden)
Ex Co / EUISG merge (Portugal)
EUISG same, Ex Co reduced (Sweden)
Ex Co stays same, fewer meetings, more done online (Lithuania)
No structural change, add a ‘Peer Education’ working group to train members (Italy)

17. Avoiding domination
Members can serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms on elected bodies (i.e 2 x 2 / 3 years). That member organization will then be required to step down.
Individuals can serve a maximum of 4 terms on elected bodies – respecting Principle 1. This means that an individual could serve 2 terms of behalf of a specific organisations. S/he would then step down, as the member can serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms. When the member is eligible to rejoin the elected body, the individual will be able to serve 2 more consecutive terms, before being required to stand down.
50% of members of elected bodies will be required to stand down after each mandate, with 50% remaining. This aims to retain institutional memory, while ensuring the all members could serve on elected bodies.
The proposed structures involve several different bodies where only a number of members would be represented (Ex Co, Finance Committee, Policy Group, 5-6 thematic Working Groups, Anti-Poverty Movement Support Group, Comm’On.) In order to ensure all member are represented in these spaces, no member will serve on more than 3 of these groups at the same time) This does not apply to the General Assembly or the PeP National Coordinators Group, where all national networks are already represented. In Scenario 3, it would also not apply to the Ex Co / Policy Group.
Note – not sure it will be necessary to use this slide

18. Thank you